Looks pretty good to me - maybe he's the next Frank Kaminsky? You never know....
After all, the kid is probably 16 in this video.
After all, the kid is probably 16 in this video.
Luke Garcia, PF HAwkeye hoops
- Thread starter IowaNiceHawk
- Start date
I'm just saying his game is nothing like Woodbury's.
How good he will or won't be is TBD.
Tom has a great article on these three guys:
https://iowa.n.rivals.com/news/hoops-priorities-in-class-of-2017
I've said enough for folks to know my opinion, so I'll just finish with this:
Tillman and Nunge would probably make better players to start a team with and recruit around them. Certainly Tillman would! I'd love to have either of these guys. Garza is probably a better fit for a team we will have for several years.
Shoot, Baer is almost Nunge's size and I'm not all too sure he can't produce pretty close to that level. But neither should be guarding the post.
Tillman, ready made power forward, facing the basket, and can do something defending bigs but he's only 200lbs! Oh heck yeah I'd take him first of the bunch though!! Talent first and then make it fit.
Garza. That's the one best thing about him. Kriener and Garza could hold done the fort on the inside, come out for a look at the three point line now and then, and it makes guys like Wagner and Cook available to get out and run without battling for every rebound. And it automatically negates the rough stuff as between those two guys we match up well in a fight.
https://iowa.n.rivals.com/news/hoops-priorities-in-class-of-2017
I've said enough for folks to know my opinion, so I'll just finish with this:
Tillman and Nunge would probably make better players to start a team with and recruit around them. Certainly Tillman would! I'd love to have either of these guys. Garza is probably a better fit for a team we will have for several years.
Shoot, Baer is almost Nunge's size and I'm not all too sure he can't produce pretty close to that level. But neither should be guarding the post.
Tillman, ready made power forward, facing the basket, and can do something defending bigs but he's only 200lbs! Oh heck yeah I'd take him first of the bunch though!! Talent first and then make it fit.
Garza. That's the one best thing about him. Kriener and Garza could hold done the fort on the inside, come out for a look at the three point line now and then, and it makes guys like Wagner and Cook available to get out and run without battling for every rebound. And it automatically negates the rough stuff as between those two guys we match up well in a fight.
I actually disagree with you and think his game is a lot like Woodbury's. Although Garza is capable of hitting the three, his game is primarily back to the basket and mid-range jumpers, a lot like Woodbury. Both have a nice hook shot. Garza (in my opinion) would likely be used as a 5. He appears more polished offensively than Woodbury, but I'm really skeptical about his defensive ability.
Mid range jumpers were almost no part of woody's game.
I like all 3 of Nunge, Williams, and Garza, but I would rank them as Williams, Nunge, then Garza. I think Williams is a talented kid already with the highest ceiling. I think Nunge is also talented but could get a lot stronger. Garza seeme to be somewhat limited physically but he is 6'10" and a hard worker with a nice shooting touch. Any of the 3 would help Iowa fill a need (inside presence that can shoot, too) over the time they would be here.
Going by the newest story on Garza, and the comments he has made on the schools he will be visiting,it seems like he will be picking someone other than Iowa.
http://vorped.com/4-ncaam/2015-2016/player/2396/adam-woodbury/shotchart/
I guess I consider a lot of the shots outside of the paint on the right to be mid-range jumpers, and some of the ones just inside the free throw line, which would be anywhere from 15-20 of his 85 shots. They weren't the focal point of his game, but to say that mid range jumpers were almost no part of his game is a false statement, unless you consider mid-range jumpers to be shots from just inside the arc.
Watched every game last year. Mid range jumpers were virtually no part of his game. Your first mistake was thinking that whatever site you looked at is accurate. My first mistake was thinking you might actually have a clue about basketball. I was wrong. If you think Woody took 85 shots last year in 30 something games, well DERP. He was 94-171 last year. And jump shots probably accounted for less than 10% of those.
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
jeez, the guy was trying to bring some data to the discussion and you make fun of him? wow.
You're right, I provided a bad link. Obviously as a center, the vast majority of his shots will come at the rim, but face-up jumpers were a significant part of his game whether you want to continue denying it by using ad hominem attacks or not.
The crying baby gif was a nice touch- that's exactly how I picture you in 90% of the threads you post in.
LOL face up jumpers were not a significant part of his game. The fact that you think that shows that I'm communicating with a mentally handicapped person.
You're a funny guy Uncle Buck. You can throw as many ad hominem attacks around as you'd like, but you've done nothing to refute my argument (oh, that's right. You watch every game). At least, although not an accurate representation, I provided a shot chart that shows somewhat accurately how deep he can and did shoot the ball.
The fact that you are calling somebody mentally handicapped over a comparison between a Hawkeye recruit (who we may not even get) and former player is hilarious.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/s...ry-has-always-played-the-percentages-20160209
Here's a link where Fran himself even said that Woodbury is much more comfortable "from 15 or 16 feet." Are you going to provide an intellectual response or are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself?
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
Fran saying he was comfortable there does not mean that he actually had a face up jumpshooting game. In case you hadn't figured it out yet your link is a load of garbage. Do you think the people at vorped or whatever the hell it is has guys tracking all of the shots of every d1 player? No, they track shots in the lane, shots out of the lane, and 3 point shots. If you watched the majority of Iowa game last year and think jumpshooting was a significant part of Woody's offense then you literally dont have any, any, basketball knowledge. You are aware that free throws don't count as jump shots right. I mean you really thought woody shot 2.5 times a game. That tells me all I need to know about anything you took away from watching iowa bball last year
Layups were Woodburys offense game and he made them half of the time
Although I would agree that jump shots are not significant part of woodsy game I will say he was comfortable (as was I when he took them) facing up and shooting a 15 footer. Hell I bet his % was better from there than bunnys
I agree. That's something Fran talked about every year with woody was developing his shot outside of 10 feet. The thing is, he rarely took these shots and rarely made them.
I agree he didn't take a lot but I do think he made a relatively high % when he did
Define rarely. It's not like Woodbury averaged 10 shots a game. If he took one or two jump shots per game (baseline jumpers and around the free throw line) out of 6 or 7 total shots, I would go ahead and call that significant.
I wasn't. Woodbury's best role on offense was facilitating. His presence was felt much more strongly on the defensive end.
Except he didn't take that many genius. There were times where he may go 2 straight games (possibly more) without taking a jumpshot.
Last edited:
To have something be a part of your game you need to be good at it. A guy who shoots 20% from 3 would not be considered to have the 3 as part of his game. Woody took jumpshots. He did not make very many. Rebounding was a significant part of his game. Defense was a significant part of his game. Scoring around the rim was a significant part of his game. Passing was a significant part of his game. Jump shooting was not.
There are stats out there that can be useful guys.
1) Woody averaged a total of ....
Nah, not going to help. Bash away at the guy but I hope Garza isn't reading this stuff.
Buck's right here about Woody not being a mid-range shooter of any significance. But I hope someday people will understand what an important part of our team Woody was.
1) Woody averaged a total of ....
Nah, not going to help. Bash away at the guy but I hope Garza isn't reading this stuff.
Buck's right here about Woody not being a mid-range shooter of any significance. But I hope someday people will understand what an important part of our team Woody was.
Would you have guessed he shot about as well as Olaseni?
I loved woody. I've never said anything bad about him on any boards and was usually the guy calling my friends dumb when they would bash him during games. His defense is really going to be missed next year.
Yep, olaseni was not a good shooter either actually, but at least he could dunk. Granted we will miss woodys defense but offensively? Not so much
Who is bashing Woodbury? I specifically said that Garza's OFFENSIVE game reminded me a bit of Woodbury's, while also saying that Garza could be solid offensively (his defense is where I'm worried), which would be a compliment to Adam.
It's not about being pro or anti-Woodbury. It's about how Buck took two words of my opinion and turned it into an argument. It's an especially stupid argument because Adam Woodbury wasn't even a scorer. He shot the ball 4 times or less in exactly 1/3 of the games that Iowa played last year.
I'll concede in saying that I misspoke when I said that mid-range jumpers were a part of Woodbury's "game." My intent was not to say that Woodbury was a shooter or scorer by any stretch of the imagination. Better wording would have been to say that Woodbury and Garza have similar offensive arsenals. Adam was capable, and did make jump shots from the baseline out to the free throw line during his time at Iowa (No, I wasn't commenting on the percentage which he hit jumpers, because then you'd also have to mention that he scored quite inconsistently in general, be it layups, dunks, or jumpers)
It's not about being pro or anti-Woodbury. It's about how Buck took two words of my opinion and turned it into an argument. It's an especially stupid argument because Adam Woodbury wasn't even a scorer. He shot the ball 4 times or less in exactly 1/3 of the games that Iowa played last year.
I'll concede in saying that I misspoke when I said that mid-range jumpers were a part of Woodbury's "game." My intent was not to say that Woodbury was a shooter or scorer by any stretch of the imagination. Better wording would have been to say that Woodbury and Garza have similar offensive arsenals. Adam was capable, and did make jump shots from the baseline out to the free throw line during his time at Iowa (No, I wasn't commenting on the percentage which he hit jumpers, because then you'd also have to mention that he scored quite inconsistently in general, be it layups, dunks, or jumpers)
The Woody bashing comment was undeserved of this thread, my apologies. I read both this board and the lounge. Got a couple of threads mixed up.
I still would not compare Garza to Woody at all, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My eyes see a stronger Steve Krafcisin
Special K could get into a players head while on defense better than anyone I can recall. (At center)
I still would not compare Garza to Woody at all, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My eyes see a stronger Steve Krafcisin
Special K could get into a players head while on defense better than anyone I can recall. (At center)
And while I'm on a role. Reaction to Garza reminds me of the reaction to a recruit last year, Evan Boudreaux. It seems like about half the board want the kid, the other half vary from a simple not sure to all out, "No!". Seems to me about the same measure as to Boudreaux last year.
I would say that this may be a time to just trust in Fran. As I've mentioned a few times already it is easy for us couch coaches to evaluate a high flying dunker that can run. But when it comes to the kind of "oddball" types, we are seriously lacking the skills to make a determination.
In the end last year Boudreaux lost his chance by stringing Iowa along while he hoped and waited for Michigan to offer. By the time he was ready, we had Wagner and that offer had sailed. Those who follow things might recall Boudreaux's snotty remark about dropping Iowa. So he ended up at Dartmouth. But there, last year as a freshman:
32.1 mpg, 17.7 ppg, 45.5% fg, 40.6% 3pt, 82.8% ft, 9.4 reb
Nice line, even if it is just Dartmouth.
Let's think about the guys like Ethan Happ, Kevin McHale, that have come through the Big Ten without the traditional athleticism but still turning out to be pretty good ball players.
I would say that this may be a time to just trust in Fran. As I've mentioned a few times already it is easy for us couch coaches to evaluate a high flying dunker that can run. But when it comes to the kind of "oddball" types, we are seriously lacking the skills to make a determination.
In the end last year Boudreaux lost his chance by stringing Iowa along while he hoped and waited for Michigan to offer. By the time he was ready, we had Wagner and that offer had sailed. Those who follow things might recall Boudreaux's snotty remark about dropping Iowa. So he ended up at Dartmouth. But there, last year as a freshman:
32.1 mpg, 17.7 ppg, 45.5% fg, 40.6% 3pt, 82.8% ft, 9.4 reb
Nice line, even if it is just Dartmouth.
Let's think about the guys like Ethan Happ, Kevin McHale, that have come through the Big Ten without the traditional athleticism but still turning out to be pretty good ball players.
Last edited:
Woody was not a shooter or scorer (what a relevation) and its not necessarily because he couldn't knock down a 10-12 footer...its because there were better options (IE Uthoff, Jok, White, Marble - just to name a few). What I liked about Woody is he didn't force shot attempts (thus the reason for his relative attempt numbers).
I agree with those stating Woodbury did NOT have a mid-range game. That's not a knock on him, as he had many strengths that contributed to Iowa's success. True, he did take a few mid-range jumpers from time to time, but many of those were bricks. Gesell took quite a few three pointers but nobody would confuse him as a 3 point shooter.
Similar threads
