Jump to content

Transfer Portal......and LeBron James and other off season tangents.


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, GaloisGroupe said:

Baylor had some 3 point guard line-ups.

I hope we aren't calling Butler or Teague point guards just because of their height. They both are really good guards and can create for others, but I wouldn't call them point guards, especially Teague. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I hope we aren't calling Butler or Teague point guards just because of their height. They both are really good guards and can create for others, but I wouldn't call them point guards, especially Teague. 

Baylor is blessed with exceptional ball handlers... I would almost guess they average low T.O. numbers per game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

I hope we aren't calling Butler or Teague point guards just because of their height. They both are really good guards and can create for others, but I wouldn't call them point guards, especially Teague. 

Ok, line-ups with 3 players that had point guard size and point-guard like skills. I do not think that improving their ball handling or passing would hurt game plan. 

My point is that if CMW thinks it works, there is no reason we could not feature a lineup that that has Rob, KL, and the X-man.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I hope we aren't calling Butler or Teague point guards just because of their height. They both are really good guards and can create for others, but I wouldn't call them point guards, especially Teague. 

They all were primary ball handlers.....all brought it up the floor. All had played pg for previous teams or at one point another in the game. I think the point that most are making...and 5 fouls so precisely stated is that we don't need to label our players....I think just calling them guards is good enough but more to his point they are just players. We are going to start our 5 best players or the best unit we can. If that means multiple guards that can handle the ball....even better. Baylor excelled at getting down hill and attacking. It's because everyone in the backcourt could handle the ball and push it up the floor. Having multiple guards on the floor that can do that should not be an issue...its a positive. Heck even Stewart spent time at pg from when I watched him as he would bring it up and initiate the offense...so if we start Johnson, Rob, Lander, and Stewart I'm fine with 4 (pgs).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

They all were primary ball handlers.....all brought it up the floor. All had played pg for previous teams or at one point another in the game. I think the point that most are making...and 5 fouls so precisely stated is that we don't need to label our players....I think just calling them guards is good enough but more to his point they are just players. We are going to start our 5 best players or the best unit we can. If that means multiple guards that can handle the ball....even better. Baylor excelled at getting down hill and attacking. It's because everyone in the backcourt could handle the ball and push it up the floor. Having multiple guards on the floor that can do that should not be an issue...its a positive. Heck even Stewart spent time at pg from when I watched him as he would bring it up and initiate the offense...so if we start Johnson, Rob, Lander, and Stewart I'm fine with 4 (pgs).  

+1

I want us to be able to switch line-ups and offense depending on what the opposing team does, timing, score, needs...

I never want to hear another opposing player say that they knew what we were going to do better than we did.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Why? Baylor started 3 point guards.

no problem with 3 guards.  i just think Lander is far from a shooter and seems like he needs the ball in his hands and create and set up guys.  i haven't seen Johnson play, but if he averaged almost 6apg and shot poorly from 3, he's probably the same.  just my thought.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

They all were primary ball handlers.....all brought it up the floor. All had played pg for previous teams or at one point another in the game. I think the point that most are making...and 5 fouls so precisely stated is that we don't need to label our players....I think just calling them guards is good enough but more to his point they are just players. We are going to start our 5 best players or the best unit we can. If that means multiple guards that can handle the ball....even better. Baylor excelled at getting down hill and attacking. It's because everyone in the backcourt could handle the ball and push it up the floor. Having multiple guards on the floor that can do that should not be an issue...its a positive. Heck even Stewart spent time at pg from when I watched him as he would bring it up and initiate the offense...so if we start Johnson, Rob, Lander, and Stewart I'm fine with 4 (pgs).  

Stewart and Armaan will almost assuredly initiate the offense at times, even with a true PG in the game. It's archaic to think only a PG initiates the offense.

I agree we don't need to label our players, but I don't agree we're going to play lineups with three point guards when two of those guys fall into the small point category. 

Teague and Butler are similar in size to Armaan and Stewart. None of those four players are point guards just because they have point guard like skills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

no problem with 3 guards.  i just think Lander is far from a shooter and seems like he needs the ball in his hands and create and set up guys.  i haven't seen Johnson play, but if he averaged almost 6apg and shot poorly from 3, he's probably the same.  just my thought.  

I guess this is where we will find out how good our new player development is.

If we can just turn one of those into a quality 3 point shooter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have always been a fan of taking my 5 best players, starting them, and playing them big minutes regardless of position.  so i have no problem not labeling them as a PG, SG, SF, PF, C.  i get it that those days are gone.  i just think those 2 players particularly - Lander and Johnson pretty much need to be PGs.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NCHoosier32 said:

i have always been a fan of taking my 5 best players, starting them, and playing them big minutes regardless of position.  so i have no problem not labeling them as a PG, SG, SF, PF, C.  i get it that those days are gone.  i just think those 2 players particularly - Lander and Johnson pretty much need to be PGs.  

Probably... but maybe they could be instant fast-break...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GaloisGroupe said:

I guess this is where we will find out how good our new player development is.

If we can just turn one of those into a quality 3 point shooter...

true, but also their size and their game.  certain guys just need to be primary ballhandlers.  i also think Lander's biggest attributes are him pushing it up the floor and setting people up.  even if his shooting gets better (Lord knows it almost has to), i still see his game as a primary ballhandler.  i do not see Rob that way.  don't know about Johnson, but just a guess.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hoosierfan1215 said:

Im hoping somebody besides leal will makes a crisp entry pass into the post this year with all of our guards lol very underrated, and sad that I can pick that out because we struggled with it so much. 

There is about a million different things that go into this... Idk how many of these players have ever made entry passes on any sort of regular basis before playing with Trayce?... I know Leal didn't in HS. Galloway maybe some with the DE that he played with. Lander... ehh don't think so. You get the point.

The kids being brought up now don't throw it into the post well now.. because they haven't had to. You take that along with their never being any space on our offensive end, I think it's pretty easy to see why the kids struggle with that.

You hope we throw better entry passes, I hope we have more guards penetrating and give TJD more oops, duck ins, and Oreb opportunities. We never have dribble penetration and it's the most frustrating thing I've ever watched, at times. I hope TJD is in PNR situations about 3 times an offensive set and it's not him posting up with his back to the basket.

Edited by btownqb
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When thinking about the front court I believe we also have to keep in mind Brunk is a big question mark.  At his size with back surgery I am just not sure what kind of a player he is going to be.  Back surgery is hard to recover from as an athlete, in particular if you are going to keep pushing your body at a high level after the surgery.  Look at all the back surgeries Tiger has had.  I am hopeful to get 10 minutes a game out of Brunk this year if we are lucky.  Hope I am wrong but really need to see him play first and see how much they build up the rest of his body to support his back.  So to me adding more to the front court is not a bad idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iuthruandthru said:

When thinking about the front court I believe we also have to keep in mind Brunk is a big question mark.  At his size with back surgery I am just not sure what kind of a player he is going to be.  Back surgery is hard to recover from as an athlete, in particular if you are going to keep pushing your body at a high level after the surgery.  Look at all the back surgeries Tiger has had.  I am hopeful to get 10 minutes a game out of Brunk this year if we are lucky.  Hope I am wrong but really need to see him play first and see how much they build up the rest of his body to support his back.  So to me adding more to the front court is not a bad idea.

definitely think you're right here, but i think we all agree that A. TJD needs to play big minutes and B. Brunk and TJD shouldn't be on the floor together.  easy answer for me... TJD plays 30-32 minutes a game and Brunk plays 8-10 minutes a game.  

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

definitely think you're right here, but i think we all agree that A. TJD needs to play big minutes and B. Brunk and TJD shouldn't be on the floor together.  easy answer for me... TJD plays 30-32 minutes a game and Brunk plays 8-10 minutes a game.  

Possibly even less than that with Race back. I think Geronimo, Hunter, and maybe Brooks all fit more what we want out of the 4 than Race does unless Race can start hitting about 30% or more of his three point attempts. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...