At some point do we see Sanogo and Clingan on the floor together?

[Hans Sprungfeld]

At some point do we see Sanogo and Clingan on the floor together?

Warm-ups? Handshake line?

Until the discussion evolved to mention that 3:35 of dual play has already occurred, this comment had sent me in a different ditection...

I thought of Clark Kent and Superman never having been seen together, and wondered if possibly Sanogo & Clingan are the same person.

 

[prankster]

Until the discussion evolved to mention that 3:35 of dual play has already occurred, this comment had sent me in a different ditection...

I thought of Clark Kent and Superman never having been seen together, and wondered if possibly Sanogo & Clingan are the same person.

Naahh!

For that to be the case, one of them would have to wear glasses.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

BS

This is one of the weirder hills to die on that I've ever seen on the BY. This isn't opinion, it's an objective verifiable fact that you've been given the data on down to the second.

 

[BlueMAB]

Boneyard: We must drastically change our rotations and style of play. Our coaches clearly have no idea what they're doing.

Let's review...

I could see Hurley showing this near the end of the season, if for no other reason than to give other teams something else to have to gameplan for.

I will say Yes. At some point, we will find ourselves in a tight game or trailing where we need to find alternative ways to manufacture offense. Optimally, we aren’t forced into this tactic but rather find this becoming a wrinkle in the overall offensive game plan.

I think there are very few circumstances where this is necessary.

And I think they answer is yes, in very specific situations, it can be successful. But by very specific. Maybe only a few times for a few minutes. Later in the season.

Want to rethink this statement?

Boneyard: We must drastically change our rotations and style of play. Our coaches clearly have no idea what they're doing.

 

[husky429]

Want to rethink this statement?

You're going to need to review about 20 threads on this exact same topic if ypu really want to make the point you think you're making here. And that's considering I have half the clowns who spew this double-big nonsense on ignore.

Good effort though. It's supper annoying to have to quote multiple posts at once.

 

[HuskyFich]

Let's review...









Want to rethink this statement?

Why the personal attack on 429? lol.
I think we all recognize the offensive sets are flowing beautifully at the moment, especially with DC and AS spelling each other.
I also think we all recognize we'd like to find 20-25mpg for Clingan and that's the only way how.
Both can be true.

If anyone thinks they're smarter than the coaching staff on rotations, I encourage you to dislike this message.

 

[Deleted at users request]

I don't think Sanogo would want to give up the low post on offense. DC would probably be great in the high post. Entry passes to him would be easy and he could feed Sanogo. It's on defense that there is an issue. The opponent would have to play two bigs that both are not quick slasher types. Then it would work.

If they did do this I’d think that Sanogo should work the high post with his newfound 3 point shot and ability to put the ball on the floor. Plus DC is a lob threat. If Sanogo could pass the ball better… it’d actually be pretty helpful to have DC out there on offense.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Let's review...









Want to rethink this statement?

Thank you Spanky, Alfalfa, Weezer, Buckwheat, Darla, and Stymie.

 

[BlueMAB]

Why the personal attack on 429? lol.
I think we all recognize the offensive sets are flowing beautifully at the moment, especially with DC and AS spelling each other.
I also think we all recognize we'd like to find 20-25mpg for Clingan and that's the only way how.
Both can be true.

If anyone thinks they're smarter than the coaching staff on rotations, I encourage you to dislike this message.

Personal attack???

He responded to posters who said they'd like to see the two on the floor very briefly in specific circumstances, and accused this entire place of wanting to drastically change the lineup.

I simply called out his strawman for what it was.

 

[BlueMAB]

You're going to need to review about 20 threads on this exact same topic if ypu really want to make the point you think you're making here. And that's considering I have half the clowns who spew this double-big nonsense on ignore.

Good effort though. It's supper annoying to have to quote multiple posts at once.

Do you think Hurley and his staff are clowns for already utilizing what you call the "double-big nonsense" in two separate games so far?

 

[Sibeerian]

 

[husky429]

Do you think Hurley and his staff are clowns for already utilizing what you call the "double-big nonsense" in two separate games so far?

They have spent 3:35 on the court together. Good for 0.8% of our play time. No I do not think they are clowns. Because double big is not even remotely close to a part of our rotation.

Is this seriously the best you could come up with man?

 

[prankster]

Miller High Life swilling clowns....

 

[BlueMAB]

They have spent 3:35 on the court together. Good for 0.8% of our play time. No I do not think they are clowns. Because double big is not even remotely close to a part of our rotation.

Is this seriously the best you could come up with man?

That's literally what people have suggested and you called them clowns.

People suggested very limited, specific situations; so why do you pretend as if anyone said we should "drastically change our lineup"?

 

[navery12]

That's literally what people have suggested and you called them clowns.

People suggested very limited, specific situations; so why do you pretend as if anyone said we should "drastically change our lineup"?

Some people are suggesting testing it in very limited samples which is fine, even if it's stupid. But there are also people suggesting that Donovan needs 25 minutes a game. That's a drastic change to our rotations and means at a minimum 10 minutes per game of a Donovan Clingan and Adama Sanogo lineup. That is insane

 

[BlueMAB]

Some people are suggesting testing it in very limited samples which is fine, even if it's stupid. But there are also people suggesting that Donovan needs 25 minutes a game. That's a drastic change to our rotations and means at a minimum 10 minutes per game of a Donovan Clingan and Adama Sanogo lineup. That is insane

So why not quote/reply to those people instead of calling anyone who suggested Hurley (continue to) do what he's already done, "clowns"?

 

[husky429]

That's literally what people have suggested and you called them clowns.

People suggested very limited, specific situations; so why do you pretend as if anyone said we should "drastically change our lineup"?

Why are we going in circles here? As I told you in my original response to you... those aren't the folks I'm referring to. I'm referring to the people who think we should be starting and playing double-bigs substantial minutes and have been calling for that in thread after thread after thread on this tired topic.

I'm done with this conversation until you actually start responding to what I wrote instead of this weird, imaginary hill you've decided I'm dying on. You sound like a crazy person, or maybe you're just too lazy to read the content of my post. Either way, toodeloo.

 

[tzznandrew]

They have spent 3:35 on the court together. Good for 0.8% of our play time. No I do not think they are clowns. Because double big is not even remotely close to a part of our rotation.

Andrew Hurley has been on the court longer than that. Hell, he's been on the court longer with at least one other deep bench player. Anyone who suggested that he—or that combo—has been part of our rotation would be laughed off the board.

This idea is obviously dumb to anyone who has watched basketball at the highest levels in the last decade.

 

[husky429]

That's literally what people have suggested and you called them clowns.

People suggested very limited, specific situations; so why do you pretend as if anyone said we should "drastically change our lineup"?

This is the post I originally responded to:

Uh….you haven’t been watching much? Hurley has already experimented with this. Sanaogo, Clingan, Hawkins, Karaban, and Newton. I have watched several instances where the game was close when the coaches tried this and opposing teams were clueless on how to defend it. It really opens things up for Karaban and Hawkins. They can’t double team anybody.

I am still 100% confident this statement is a hot load of crap. This thread has been relatively tame as far as calling for more time with double-bigs. I responded to this post because it was the one that was hilariously detached from reality.

The people calling for double-bigs for a couple minutes a game are not so wrong, even though it probably isn't going to happen. People suggesting that we somehow would have better spacing with Adama at the 4, or (in other threads) that we should play the two bigs extended minutes together are living in a Wonderland that the Mad Hatter would have a hell of a time in.

Now I really am done with whatever 'Yard argument you're trying to participate in here unless you actually start arguing in good faith.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

This is the post I originally responded to:



I am still 100% confident this statement is a hot load of crap. This thread has been relatively tame as far as calling for more time with double-bigs. I responded to this post because it was the one that was hilariously detached from reality.

The people calling for double-bigs for a couple minutes a game are not so wrong, even though it probably isn't going to happen. People suggesting that we somehow would have better spacing with Adama at the 4, or (in other threads) that we should play the two bigs extended minutes together are living in a Wonderland that the Mad Hatter would have a hell of a time in.

Now I really am done with whatever 'Yard argument you're trying to participate in here unless you actually start arguing in good faith.

 

[BlueMAB]

Giving dislikes to video evidence of Sanogo and Clingan on the court at the same time while lecturing others about "good faith"?

 

[BlueMAB]

This is the post I originally responded to:

It is not.

Now I really am done with whatever 'Yard argument you're trying to participate in here unless you actually start arguing in good faith.

See Post #15 in this thread to understand why my posts were made in good faith.

 

[husky429]

It is not.



See Post #15 in this thread to understand why my posts were made in good faith.

Ahh I see, I forgot about my first post. I was thinking it was the one where I responded later to CONN saying ridiculous things.

I still wouldn't call it a good faith argument when you're continuing to ignore the fact that I'm referring to the not unsubstantial portion of this board calling for double-bigs as a part of our lineups.

Are you going to acknowledge that? If not, we're back to square one: toodeloo.

 

[husky429]

Giving dislikes to video evidence of Sanogo and Clingan on the court at the same time while lecturing others about "good faith"?

You're embarassing yourself. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by disliking your post

@tzznandrew is going to need to take over here. I'm losing BBIQ just thinking about the low-effort bs you're spewing.

 

[husky429]

For everyone else:

Double-bigs is so rarely a part of our lineups it's not even worth thinking about. Whether or not that's good basketball is beside the point. The two bigs have effectively played together for 1, maybe 2 possessions at a time because of foul trouble and injuries (Johnson) in all but 1 6 possession stint a month ago.

 

[UCTitleTown]

Just for kicks for one game, I'd love to see a lineup of Sanogo, Clingan, Samson Johnson (when healthy), Andre Jackson and Tristan Newton just to see how ridiculous the rebounding differential and block numbers would be.

 

[tzznandrew]

Just for kicks for one game, I'd love to see a lineup of Sanogo, Clingan, Samson Johnson (when healthy), Andre Jackson and Tristan Newton just to see how ridiculous the rebounding differential and block numbers would be.

Maybe less than you think because they'd all foul out.