Analytics

[waterhead]

Davenport doesn't have the handles. No crossovers no moves. Eason turns it over when he tries to do what you are asking. And that is the only 2 that you mentioned

 

[TheRealMick]

Analytics is golden with player development. Use it to develop.

 

[TheRealMick]

Davenport doesn't have the handles. No crossovers no moves. Eason turns it over when he tries to do what you are asking. And that is the only 2 that you mentioned

Bro neither should’ve been counted on to play right away. You get guys that fit type system your running then develop them. One offseason of training I’ll have both them pushing break. By JR yr they’ll be able clear out and take bigs off dribble

 

[waterhead]

Can we find 4 guys that can handle 1-4 duties? I think that would be a good roster.

Williams, Cumberland, Gabe, Harvey, Tari, Evans etc

Tre Scott could not but he was POY in conference (2-4). Gary was 2-5.

I get the point...but the guys you are after are going to blue bloods

 

[waterhead]

Bro neither should’ve been counted on to play right away. You get guys that fit type system your running then develop them. One offseason of training I’ll have both them pushing break. By JR yr they’ll be able clear out and take bigs off dribble

Right. So you are filling a roster of 13 guys who can at least play 4 positions (only the best play 5) Letting younger guys develop. And that is common?

Let's get back to reality. Mason Madsen can shoot the lights out. We can use that. He can play 2 through 2.

 

[TheRealMick]

Troy
Keith
Cumberland
Evans
Scott
Davenport
Gabe
Harvey
Bishop
Lance
Gates
Eason
Clark

Pick any 5 and I win conference by landslide this year

 

[TheRealMick]

Can we find 4 guys that can handle 1-4 duties? I think that would be a good roster.

Williams, Cumberland, Gabe, Harvey, Tari, Evans etc

Tre Scott could not but he was POY in conference (2-4). Gary was 2-5.

I get the point...but the guys you are after are going to blue bloods

Scott didn’t get developed to play 1. He was running PG in high school some. He came here heralded for his passing remember. No they can’t do it in year one. By JR/SR you should have ball skills enough to at least be 3 and D at next level if you aren’t 6’10 230

 

[waterhead]

Troy
Keith
Cumberland
Evans
Scott
Davenport
Gabe
Harvey
Bishop
Lance
Gates
Eason
Clark

Pick any 5 and I win conference by landslide this year

13 roster spots filled by some of our best players. Yah...I'll take that. Not reasonable...but yah.

Again...how about let's have a real conversation instead of pie in the sky stuff? Come on man.

If we get a Penny like recruiter I can see something like this happening. Outside of that we are dreaming

 

[TheRealMick]

Right. So you are filling a roster of 13 guys who can at least play 4 positions (only the best play 5) Letting younger guys develop. And that is common?

Let's get back to reality. Mason Madsen can shoot the lights out. We can use that. He can play 2 through 2.

Ideally have Gabe who has more height/length fill that role. It’s guys that’s 6’7 that can shoot better than Mason. Or you could ask Mason get stronger than Ox

 

[waterhead]

Scott didn’t get developed to play 1. He was running PG in high school some. He came here heralded for his passing remember. No they can’t do it in year one. By JR/SR you should have ball skills enough to at least be 3 and D at next level if you aren’t 6’10 230

Scott didn't play the 1 because he couldn't run the 1. He could barely run as a 2 or 3. He was closer to a 5 than a 1. Again...lets get real

 

[TheRealMick]

13 roster spots filled by some of our best players. Yah...I'll take that. Not reasonable...but yah.

Again...how about let's have a real conversation instead of pie in the sky stuff? Come on man.

If we get a Penny like recruiter I can see something like this happening. Outside of that we are dreaming

Pay extra for player development guys over recruiters. I’m aiming for what Mick established and Houston has going on, beating up on you with older teams. If I don’t get Clark I go after next guy like him and beat you in development.

 

[waterhead]

Ideally have Gabe who has more height/length fill that role. It’s guys that’s 6’7 that can shoot better than Mason. Or you could ask Mason get stronger than Ox

I was on board with Gabe as a 1-4 type of guy. But he wasn't ready defensively. And if he was...he would have went to Duke probably

 

[waterhead]

Pay extra for player development guys over recruiters. I’m aiming for what Mick established and Houston has going on, beating up on you with older teams. If I don’t get Clark I go after next guy like him and beat you in development.

That's fine with me. I don't think that's a bad plan

 

[TheRealMick]

Scott didn't play the 1 because he couldn't run the 1. He could barely run as a 2 or 3. He was closer to a 5 than a 1. Again...lets get real

All 5 don’t need run offense just have PG skills at times. Just like you’re not asking PG on that team to be able play 5 all game, just enough post skills to not liability. I wouldn’t ask Scott run my offense but I wouldn’t recruit him if he couldn’t run a break or hit outlet pass half court. Again Scott played PG in high school. Asking him in yr 3/4 to be able take other bigs off dribble shouldn’t been issue.

 

[TheRealMick]

I was on board with Gabe as a 1-4 type of guy. But he wasn't ready defensively. And if he was...he would have went to Duke probably

Or he could’ve came here been more exposed because he didn’t have help defensively. Or went duke red shirt and developed defensively

 

[sedziobs]

Right. So you are filling a roster of 13 guys who can at least play 4 positions (only the best play 5) Letting younger guys develop. And that is common?

Let's get back to reality. Mason Madsen can shoot the lights out. We can use that. He can play 2 through 2.

I think when we say a player who can handle the 5, you're thinking he can handle it like a typical big guy. That's not what we mean. It's a tradeoff. A player who can play smart positional defense on a big guy and maybe use some quickness for rebounds at times.

The idea is that the advantage of having 5 interchangeable parts outweighs the downsides of not having a true 1 or 5. They don't all have to be blue chip recruits, they just have to fit your scheme. Dana Altman has been doing it at Oregon for years and look at their tourney results: they've made 5 sweet sixteens in the last 8 tournaments, including a couple of elite eights and a final four. And that leaves out 2020, their best offensive team under Altman.

You can also add in a guy like Mason who can shoot but not really defend any position all that well. Payton Pritchard played that role for Oregon. It's easier to do that if you've got the system established.

 

[waterhead]

All 5 don’t need run offense just have PG skills at times. Just like you’re not asking PG on that team to be able play 5 all game, just enough post skills to not liability. I wouldn’t ask Scott run my offense but I wouldn’t recruit him if he couldn’t run a break or hit outlet pass half court. Again Scott played PG in high school. Asking him in yr 3/4 to be able take other bigs off dribble shouldn’t been issue.

Okay I get it. I agree as well. But finding just 5 of those let alone 13 is not easy and you know that.

 

[TheRealMick]

People scream duke, nc, ky and Kansas loading up on top players. Unless they have top 5 nba pick PG as freshman you not winning. Teams won as freshman had top 3 nba pick PG

 

[TheRealMick]

Okay I get it. I agree as well. But finding just 5 of those let alone 13 is not easy and you know that.

Getting paid $1mil plus year isn’t easy either. I bet I could find 6-7 players fit that system before I find $1mil dollar gig

 

[waterhead]

I think when we say a player who can handle the 5, you're thinking he can handle it like a typical big guy. That's not what we mean. It's a tradeoff. A player who can play smart positional defense on a big guy and maybe use some quickness for rebounds at times.

The idea is that the advantage of having 5 interchangeable parts outweighs the downsides of not having a true 1 or 5. They don't all have to be blue chip recruits, they just have to fit your scheme. Dana Altman has been doing it at Oregon for years and look at their tourney results: they've made 5 sweet sixteens in the last 8 tournaments, including a couple of elite eights and a final four. And that leaves out 2020, their best offensive team under Altman.

You can also add in a guy like Mason who can shoot but not really defend any position all that well. Payton Pritchard played that role for Oregon. It's easier to do that if you've got the system established.

I get the hyperbole here and I am not necessarily responding to hyperbole. But all of this is a lot easier said than done is my point. I don't expect our PG to be able to post up. I am just trying to narrow the conversation to reasonable ideas.