Why Didn't Buford Attack Jackson on the Blocks?

• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  ernest_t_bass;686616 wrote:Because he's black? No?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I kid

  
  I gotta admit... I busted laughing.
• Laley23

  

  Prescott;688384 wrote:Because smart people work on their weaknesses, so that those weaknesses become a strength.
  
  8" and 40 lbs seems pretty substantial to me and that doesn't take into account Buford's overall length, which, IMO, is pretty substantial as well.
  
  http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/jackson_lewis00.html
  
  http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17300&ATCLID=1568522
  
  I guess we can agree to disagree.

  
  We will agree to disagree. I happen to think working on something that he is rarely ever going to use would be a waste of valuable practice time elsewhere. But thats a matter of opinion.
  
  As for the weight. I looked him up at 185, but it mustve been older. Yes, 40 pounds is significant lol.
• Jester

  

  That weight differential may not mean all that much if Buford doesn't know how to use it. If Jackson knows how to play any defense, he knows when someone's trying to post you up, you get low, and you stay there. Plant your feet and get a good base under you, and unless the other guy is a bulldozer, it's not going to be easy for them to move you. Let Buford play where he's comfortable, out on the wing.
• Prescott

  you get low, and you stay there.

  I agree with your fundamental of defense, but the lower Jackson gets, the bigger the advantage gets for Buford. Buford is a very good mid-range shooter, I'm guessing he would be fairly effective just turning and shooting over a midget.
  
  If a defender wants to give me a 20"-24" advantage in the post by lowering his base, I'll get uncomfortable and try to abuse him on the blocks.. Just my opinion.
• Jester

  

  Prescott;688915 wrote:I agree with your fundamental of defense, but the lower Jackson gets, the bigger the advantage gets for Buford. Buford is a very good mid-range shooter, I'm guessing he would be fairly effective just turning and shooting over a midget.
  
  If a defender wants to give me a 20"-24" advantage in the post by lowering his base, I'll get uncomfortable and try to abuse him on the blocks.. Just my opinion.

  I'm talking in terms of if Buford is trying to back him down. If Buford receives the ball in the post, and then faces up against Jackson, then the low base stuff no longer applies. At that point you get your hands up and you get up in his face. The easiest way to throw a good offensive player off their game is to make them uncomfortable. If Buford is backing Jackson down, and hits a fade away, turn-around jump shot. Well then, their isn't really anything you can do about. But the thing is, has Buford shown the ability to do that on a consistent basis?
• karen lotz

  

  Have you not read this thread? HE DID IT ONE TIME!!! GO BACK TO THE WELL THAD!!!!
• Prescott

  If Buford is backing Jackson down, and hits a fade away, turn-around jump shot. Well then, their isn't really anything you can do about. But the thing is, has Buford shown the ability to do that on a consistent basis?

  The one time Buford used his height to his advantage, he didn't really have to back Jackson down. He sat down on the block, got the ball, made a move, and got fouled. Pretty simple stuff.
• september63

  

  I thought this debate was to end once the news became 2 games ago.
• Jester

  

  Prescott;689026 wrote:The one time Buford used his height to his advantage, he didn't really have to back Jackson down. He sat down on the block, got the ball, made a move, and got fouled. Pretty simple stuff.

  But that does not mean it's always going to work. What if the first time he did it, he missed the shot or turned it over? Would you still be discussing whether or not he should continue to go at Jackson down low? One sample does not mean it will be the norm.