Results 31 to 40 of 92
-
11-15-2018, 03:04 PM #31"I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17
-
11-15-2018, 03:12 PM #32
Because neither one can play the entire game. And if you say they dont have to both be on the bench at the same time then that means one would always have to be out there. So then you would just fall into them alternating rests which what they are already doing.
I think best you could hope for if you want them to play together is a spurt here or there, and that doesnt make a whole lot of sense to do that at the start of the game."I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17
-
11-15-2018, 03:13 PM #33
Yep. There could be spurts where it's effective, but 1) lack of depth makes it not viable for longer stretches and 2) it moves the team away from a small-ball concept that gives the offense better floor spacing and the defense more versatility.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
-
11-15-2018, 03:48 PM #34
I thought the same thing. How in the hell would you practice it? Who would that team go up against in practice? We are thin indeed.
I don't remember the last time our defense was good defending the 3, Sean Miller maybe? At least this team would be better rebounding the 3, and that is no small thing. Defense doesn't matter unless you get the ball back.
I think having both of them on the court would make our defense better and not worse, so I disagree. That is what I judge to be one of the benefits.
Dust off the old playbooks? Might be able to come up with some play diagrams. The person playing the 4 has to guard guys on the perimeter now. How is that working out for ya?
I didn't anticipate that playing a classic power forward would upset the applecart so much that it takes us out of our offense. Maybe we could get the ball inside to Tyrique a lot more, or if he is covered get the ball to Hankins. Maybe they could kick it out. It would be nice to have an extra big man inside to get the rebound if someone misses.
Maybe it is a bigger deal than I imagined and will throw our offense out of whack. I would think Travis would be able to diagram some plays to see if we can take advantage of matchups. Those matchups go both ways. People are carping about Tyrique guarding someone out on the perimeter, well I salivate thinking of him posting up on a perimeter player.
In my scenario we would still platoon them, just start and play them together for the first 5 minutes of each half. So one of them would still always be on the floor. And the same people playing now would be playing when they are not together on the floor.
I agree. It isn't who starts literally. I just want the two guys to combine for more than 39.3 minutes of playing time. I have a hard time with that given their output. Give me 50 minutes instead of 40. To do that, that have to play together. Steele could play them together at any point of the game and I would be happy.
When Tyrique had a monster game Hankins only got 11 minutes. I think that is the thing that needs to end. Hankins needs to play regardless, because he is a player. Anything that increases his playing time without taking away from Tyrique is what I am after.RIP Brian Dargin McCormick
-
11-15-2018, 03:54 PM #35
Two games ago, he played 29 minutes against Evansville. I mentioned it in the post.
If you can't imagine a framework that I have already explained to you, you have a reading comprehension problem. If you can't imagine it on your own, you are a poor conceptual thinker and bad at math. This isn't rocket science.RIP Brian Dargin McCormick
-
11-15-2018, 03:58 PM #36
Is that the way it works? How can Wisconsin do it? How can Seton Hall do it? How can many other teams start a center and a power forward? And why is it Xavier that absolutely must let the other team dictate what our lineup is? What about Auburn? Is Auburn a candidate? Just curious what this camp of thinking thinks about that matchup.
Matchups go both ways. A disadvantage on one end can be an advantage on the other.RIP Brian Dargin McCormick
-
11-15-2018, 04:02 PM #37
-
11-15-2018, 04:07 PM #38
Maybe he would foul less. He has been prone to foul, and that has impacted his playing time. To date, he has been fouling playing the 5. You seem to think if he played the 4 he would foul even more. Had we put Hankins on Happ, I believe it would have been the opposite. Tyrique only played 12 minutes. Start him at the 4 against Whisky and I feel he could have played more minutes. What makes you so sure?RIP Brian Dargin McCormick
-
11-15-2018, 04:09 PM #39
-
11-15-2018, 04:11 PM #40
Bookmarks