I'm not saying we're better offensively with Brooks. I'm saying we're much better defensively, and with the offensive options we have across the board, we won't lose much with Brooks in.
I can agree with you about D but I was responding to the post that seemed more about offense. I like the options we have to bring in on D. Brooks, Nsoseme, Diarra, Scott are all VERY mobile for their size. All of them are probably better defenders than Washington at their positions.
Most of them can probably get up the court faster as well.
It could be because the Bearcat Football team is really not having a great year, the Reds being terrible AGAIN or the Bengals off to a 1-3 start but I am really ramped up for the Cats to get started this year. Lots of talent. Should be a exciting team. Best Personnel in the Cronin era. Only downside is they will be playing away from home.
I see Brooks as the first guy off the bench. So if he's logging a lot of minutes with Cumberland, Evans, Clark, and Broome (or even just 2 or 3 of those guys), I don't think our offense will be hurting. Bc he isn't going to be expected to replicate Washington's production. They're 2 totally different players. There's only 1 ball, so with Brooks in, if he's willing to be a true 5 man, we can still have very good offensive efficiency with a slight volume uptick from the other guys he'll be playing with. So basically I don't think he hinders us and him not shooting jumpshots or getting post touches like Washington does, has nothing to do with it in his case.
I see Brooks as the first guy off the bench. So if he's logging a lot of minutes with Cumberland, Evans, Clark, and Broome (or even just 2 or 3 of those guys), I don't think our offense will be hurting. Bc he isn't going to be expected to replicate Washington's production. They're 2 totally different players. There's only 1 ball, so with Brooks in, if he's willing to be a true 5 man, we can still have very good offensive efficiency with a slight volume uptick from the other guys he'll be playing with. So basically I don't think he hinders us and him not shooting jumpshots or getting post touches like Washington does, has nothing to do with it in his case. I hope that clears things up a bit.
I see Brooks as the first guy off the bench. So if he's logging a lot of minutes with Cumberland, Evans, Clark, and Broome (or even just 2 or 3 of those guys), I don't think our offense will be hurting. Bc he isn't going to be expected to replicate Washington's production. They're 2 totally different players. There's only 1 ball, so with Brooks in, if he's willing to be a true 5 man, we can still have very good offensive efficiency with a slight volume uptick from the other guys he'll be playing with. So basically I don't think he hinders us and him not shooting jumpshots or getting post touches like Washington does, has nothing to do with it in his case. I hope that clears things up a bit.
I realize Brooks had limited minutes last year but Washington was significantly better at lots of things last year. Obviously we can't quantify defense very well. All of these are per 40 minutes.
Scoring
Washington...20.9
Brooks...11.3
Rebounding
Washington...10.9
Brooks...7.6
Fouls
Washington...4.1
Brooks...7.9
Turnovers
Washington...2.4
Brooks...2.7
Assist
Washington...1.3
Brooks...(.3)
Free throws
Washington...71
Brooks....58
Steals were exactly the same (.6). Blocks...Brooks was better per 40 minute 3.2 vs 1.9. 2 point shooting % was almost identical (even though Washington sees more D attention) and Washington shoots 3's and Brooks does not.
I realize Brooks had limited minutes last year but Washington was significantly better at lots of things last year. Obviously we can't quantify defense very well. All of these are per 40 minutes.
Scoring
Washington...20.9
Brooks...11.3
Rebounding
Washington...10.9
Brooks...7.6
Fouls
Washington...4.1
Brooks...7.9
Turnovers
Washington...2.4
Brooks...2.7
Assist
Washington...1.3
Brooks...(.3)
Free throws
Washington...71
Brooks....58
Steals were exactly the same (.6). Blocks...Brooks was better per 40 minute 3.2 vs 1.9. 2 point shooting % was almost identical (even though Washington sees more D attention) and Washington shoots 3's and Brooks does not.
Washington is a SR. Washington is a starter. Washington will play significant minutes. Washington is a leader. Washington is a better offensive threat than Brooks may ever be. I hope Washington is every bit as efficient as he was last year. Make no mistake about any of that. But the fact that you're stacking up these numbers makes me think you're completely missing the point. Bc in no way is it about comparing the raw numbers. They are not even close to being the same player and it's a stretch to even say they are the same natural position. So it's not about any of that...especially since Brooks was a true FR in such a limited role (in the numbers being used). What I care about for Brooks is how good the team is when he's on the floor, bc he's going to be on the floor a lot. And I care about his defensive numbers, rebounding, and rim protection. I'd be pretty surprised if he didn't grade out better this year in those particular categories. And considering the supporting cast, we don't need him to do anything else. So it's not even close to being as simple as calculating their per 40 point differential and implying that we fall off by that much with him in the game. It's also not is simple as "well this guy can hit a 3 and this guy can't, so how can one be viewed as being nearly as helpful?". It's simply how the team performs with each on the floor. I think Washington is prepared to help us more. That's why I hope he gets his shots up when in, that's why I think he should play more than Brooks, and that's why I think he should be the starter. I really don't want to turn this into "Washington vs Brooks" bc it's not an apples to apples comparison. Plus, they're on the same team and we know for a fact that we'll need them both.
Washington is a SR. Washington is a starter. Washington will play significant minutes. Washington is a leader. Washington is a better offensive threat than Brooks may ever be. I hope Washington is every bit as efficient as he was last year. Make no mistake about any of that. But the fact that you're stacking up these numbers makes me think you're completely missing the point. Bc in no way is it about comparing the raw numbers. They are not even close to being the same player and it's a stretch to even say they are the same natural position. So it's not about any of that...especially since Brooks was a true FR in such a limited role (in the numbers being used). What I care about for Brooks is how good the team is when he's on the floor, bc he's going to be on the floor a lot. And I care about his defensive numbers, rebounding, and rim protection. I'd be pretty surprised if he didn't grade out better this year in those particular categories. And considering the supporting cast, we don't need him to do anything else. So it's not even close to being as simple as calculating their per 40 point differential and implying that we fall off by that much with him in the game. It's also not is simple as "well this guy can hit a 3 and this guy can't, so how can one be viewed as being nearly as helpful?". It's simply how the team performs with each on the floor. I think Washington is prepared to help us more. That's why I hope he gets his shots up when in, that's why I think he should play more than Brooks, and that's why I think he should be the starter. I really don't want to turn this into "Washington vs Brooks" bc it's not an apples to apples comparison. Plus, they're on the same team and we know for a fact that we'll need them both.
Okay I may have missed your point and if I did I apologize. You had mentioned you would like to see Washington at 20-23 MPG so I just assume that has to come from somewhere and I'm not sure where those quality minutes come from. 20 mpg is half the game. Brooks is first off the bench.
I tend to think we need Washington at as many minutes as he can give us. If I misconstrued your argument my bad.
If Brooks doesn't put up the shots that Washington does, and he won't...who is picking up that slack? A little bit of Evans, Cumberland, Broome, Clark, etc? That's what needs to be compared. Bc the shots don't simply get shifted to the next man in line. So if we already have 4 other options out there, who can be every bit efficient as Washington, does Brook's ability to be a true 5 minimize the drop off with Washington out? That's all I'm interested in seeing. We won't know until we get into the season, but my hunch is that we'll be just fine. And for the record, I have said an ideal split would be 23/17 in favor of Washington and I see very little reason why they should ever play together.
Has us at #18 with a nice write up on the team
https://www.barstoolsports.com/bars...ms-15-19/?_branch_match_id=425798481519691900
Has us at #18 with a nice write up on the team
https://www.barstoolsports.com/bars...ms-15-19/?_branch_match_id=425798481519691900
It’s funny though how UC fans wants a big with offensive skills and then we finally get him and now they want to play the soph who has shown zero range on offense. Just shows how fans are never happy.
I love Kyle. I love his passion and leadership and we only get a skilled face up 4 for one more year and they don’t grow on trees. Brooks will get his turn and will get a Ton of major defensive minutes this year.
This motion offense doesn’t work without skilled players 1-5 (think Notre Dame) and I’m not ready to go back to bigs who make nothing but dunks and bunny’s just yet.
It’s funny though how UC fans wants a big with offensive skills and then we finally get him and now they want to play the soph who has shown zero range on offense. Just shows how fans are never happy.
I love Kyle. I love his passion and leadership and we only get a skilled face up 4 for one more year and they don’t grow on trees. Brooks will get his turn and will get a Ton of major defensive minutes this year.
This motion offense doesn’t work without skilled players 1-5 (think Notre Dame) and I’m not ready to go back to bigs who make nothing but dunks and bunny’s just yet.