Depth Overrated | The Boneyard

Depth Overrated

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chief00

I have never been a depth guy when it comes to basketball. Give me 8 guys who can play. Kemba last year showed that basketball is about a special guy who plays in a team concept not about numbers of guys.

Having said that, just looking at depth I still think the 2004 edition was our deepest. We had 4 Bigs that made the NBA and Ben. DB and RA weren't bad either. Taliek did learn how to play under control and who to give the ball to.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,903
Reaction Score
11,460
I think the biggest advantage that our depth gives us this season is the ability to be multidimensional. We can play big or small, we can be methodical or run like hell, we can pretty much do whatever we want. I love it. I'm not sure we could say that about last year's team.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
687
Reaction Score
222
In a world without injuries or fouls I would agree with you, but since injuries occur as do bad and/or unlucky foul calls, I would say depth does matter.

Depth mattered in 2006 when Marcus Williams sat out and Craig Austrie filled in and then became a reliable contributor (I know the season didn't end on a good note). Depth also mattered in 2004 when Okafor sat out with a bad back and Boone and Charlie V were able to fill in for him. Also mattered when Okafor was the victim of 2 horrible foul calls in the semifinals.
Depth mattered big time in 1999 when Voskhul was foul prone and Wane and Saunders came in to fill in for him on the double team on Brand.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
3,196
Reaction Score
5,309
If Drummond didnt come this year then who would have filled in for Alex when hes on the bench
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,131
Reaction Score
5,962
If Drummond didnt come this year then who would have filled in for Alex when hes on the bench

The options would be either Bradley or Wolf and neither appears to be ready. Maybe Roscoe for short periods but the addition of Drummond was huge for the reason you mentioned.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
54
Reaction Score
28
Everyone keeps talking about how we have good depth, and in the 3-5 spots I agree. But we're pretty thin in the back court, aren't we? We have three players for two spots at the 1 and 2: Napier, Lamb and Boatright. I suppose Giffey could play some SG in a pinch, but he's much better suited to SF.

If Napier, Lamb or Boatright get in foul trouble, get injured or have to miss any time, we're in deep trouble, right?

Or am I missing something.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
3,215
Reaction Score
3,056
I agree that if no one gets hurt depth can be over rated- but when your PG goes down (GF) it is pretty important. While we only have two true PGs on the team (which is about what most teams have) we could use JL in a pinch if we had to- DD and RB could both play some 2G- while not super deep we have several pieces I think we could use in several places.
 

IMind

Wildly Inaccurate
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,873
Reaction Score
1,333
Depth is useless until you need it. I understand where you're coming from... but I'll also disagree in that certain players will match up better against other teams. How many times have you seen a kid who didn't show all that much during the Big East season come up big in a game in the NCAA tournament? It gives you options...

Lets put it this way... I'd rather have depth than not. :)
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
302
Reaction Score
54
I think DD could play 2 in a pinch. He has a great shot and would be hard to defend as a spot up 2.
 

EricLA

Cronus
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,352
Reaction Score
35,320
a few thoughts...

i tend to agree depth is over rated, until you need it. then it's essential. the women had 1 center that could play last year and 2 quick bad foul calls in the NCAA semis cost them a shot at the NC. with no Drummond and Alex at the 5, the other posters are correct - in a big game with 2 bad calls, who would have played the 5? Smith? Wolf? Bradley? could any of them play even remotely effectively against any of the elite centers out there?

with 10 players i do think we are 2 deep at every position, but probably only 8 will be used. i think Wolf and Bradley see PT only in blowouts. also, if for some reason Lamb and Boat are on the bench, there's no reason Giffey or DD couldn't "play" the 2. is it that big a difference to play with a PG, SG, W, PF and C vs. PG, W, W, PF and C? how much does the "2" actually have to handle the ball around the perimeter? some, but not as much as the PG. Niels and Deandre are competent with the ball. not necessarily SG competent, but good enough for 5-7 minutes in a half...
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,570
Reaction Score
571
Considering the fact we lost 1 scolie for NCAA reasons, and 2 more for APR reasons, the additions of DD & AD make us loaded.
Calhoun usually uses an 8 man rotation from Feb. on. I don't know if he can get away with anything less than a 9 man rotation this year.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
923
Reaction Score
200
Last season we had 8 different starters in overall games, and 10 players that averaged 9 minutes or more (Beverly had the least, but made contributions). In conference games we had 8 starters (4 of them started almost every game, and Giffey who started 7 did so in the early part of conference games), and 10 players who had 7 minutes or more. So the top 3 (AO,KB, and JL) had increased minutes by an average of one, and NG,TO had reduced minutes.Beverly's minutes went up by a half in conference games.
Unlike previous years, JC did not go to his 7-8 players. I don't know if you characterize it as depth, but he had more reliance on all his players but Wolf. Now that he has 11 players on the bench, why wouldn't he try to use 9 or ten of them?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
141
Reaction Score
20
I have never been a depth guy when it comes to basketball. Give me 8 guys who can play. Kemba last year showed that basketball is about a special guy who plays in a team concept not about numbers of guys.

Having said that, just looking at depth I still think the 2004 edition was our deepest. We had 4 Bigs that made the NBA and Ben. DB and RA weren't bad either. Taliek did learn how to play under control and who to give the ball to.

Agreed 100%...and I think JC will play 9-10 guys early, but go with a 7-8 man rotation come Feb-march
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
687
Reaction Score
222
Agreed 100%...and I think JC will play 9-10 guys early, but go with a 7-8 man rotation come Feb-march

Another reason depth is important...if the 9th and 10th guys arent capable of contributing then JC would have a hard time executing his famous early season quick hook/mass substitutions.

I would, of course, rather have 5 great talents than 10 average ones. Luckily it appears neither is the case for UConn this year...thare more than 5 immensely talented players on this team
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
4,074
Reaction Score
2,949
I have never been a depth guy when it comes to basketball. Give me 8 guys who can play. Kemba last year showed that basketball is about a special guy who plays in a team concept not about numbers of guys.

Having said that, just looking at depth I still think the 2004 edition was our deepest. We had 4 Bigs that made the NBA and Ben. DB and RA weren't bad either. Taliek did learn how to play under control and who to give the ball to.
Interesting concept to ponder. Cancer will kill any team chemistry. When Jerome Dyson left UConn accompanied by Robinson & Edwards it left a healthy team led by Kemba Walker. The result was a National Championship. Depth can be a double-edged sword. The more players with inflated expectations relating to PT will ultimately lead to debilitating team chemistry problems. That is an inherent risk that requires good coaching/leadership to overcome. I do not think a true respected leader (player) has emerged on this UConn team. Last year at this time it was KW. Both DD, RB and AD come to UConn with very high expectations for themselves. If these 3 players buy into their roles UConn theoretically could have the #1 team in America and repeat. PT is like gold and these three players come with challenges both foreseen and unforeseen. Great depth is accompanied by a wider spectrum of large egos. If this depth variable can be coached and is willing to make sacrifices for the best interests of the team then I expect great things. Otherwise we could be setting ourselves up for an over hyped disappointment.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
3,826
Reaction Score
2,949
I have never been a depth guy when it comes to basketball. Give me 8 guys who can play. Kemba last year showed that basketball is about a special guy who plays in a team concept not about numbers of guys.

Having said that, just looking at depth I still think the 2004 edition was our deepest. We had 4 Bigs that made the NBA and Ben. DB and RA weren't bad either. Taliek did learn how to play under control and who to give the ball to.

Isn't 8 guys who can play the definition of depth? Or is the 9th and 10th guy where deep is defined? To me 5 guys who can play and no bench is lack of depth, anything past a 6th guy who is quality and/or could start is major depth.

Also the PG position which is the most important one on the floor is not deep for this UConn team
 

EricLA

Cronus
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,352
Reaction Score
35,320
Interesting concept to ponder. Cancer will kill any team chemistry. When Jerome Dyson left UConn accompanied by Robinson & Edwards it left a healthy team led by Kemba Walker. The result was a National Championship. Depth can be a double-edged sword. The more players with inflated expectations relating to PT will ultimately lead to debilitating team chemistry problems. That is an inherent risk that requires good coaching/leadership to overcome. I do not think a true respected leader (player) has emerged on this UConn team. Last year at this time it was KW. Both DD, RB and AD come to UConn with very high expectations for themselves. If these 3 players buy into their roles UConn theoretically could have the #1 team in America and repeat. PT is like gold and these three players come with challenges both foreseen and unforeseen. Great depth is accompanied by a wider spectrum of large egos. If this depth variable can be coached and is willing to make sacrifices for the best interests of the team then I expect great things. Otherwise we could be setting ourselves up for an over hyped disappointment.
i don't disagree that Dyson was not great for team chemistry, and perhaps i'm wrong, but i'm not sure he was a cancer. and i never read anything to indicate that Edwards and Robinson were NOT consummate team players...
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,782
Reaction Score
5,780
Depth is overrated but it isnt so yes and no. It is a good to have though, just because we use lets say an 8 man rotation mainly. The guy who dont play can still contribute in practice if we are going up against a lineup of 2 7 footers guys like Wolf, Olander, and Bradley would be good for AD and AO to get them ready. Its good for guys to push each other practice makes perfect. Its like having a scout team QB that can give a good look for a defense.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
1,536
Reaction Score
2,506
I think we're in fine shape in the backcourt. We will want Lamb and Napier to play 30 minutes each leaving 20 minutes between the 1&2 for Boatright which should be enough to satisfy his desires for playing time. I think this is a healthy situation. Foul trouble may give RB more time in any given game. Still fine. A serious injury to a starter is almost always a major issue and I think it is very rare that teams have a contingency plan whereby there is no falloff. That said we have an obvious fill-in with Boatright at either guard spot. Beyond that Giffey looks to have some off-guards skills and Daniels may as well. Funny, up until the last month frontcourt depth looked to be the clear concern.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
3,826
Reaction Score
2,949
I think we're in fine shape in the backcourt. We will want Lamb and Napier to play 30 minutes each leaving 20 minutes between the 1&2 for Boatright which should be enough to satisfy his desires for playing time. I think this is a healthy situation. Foul trouble may give RB more time in any given game. Still fine. A serious injury to a starter is almost always a major issue and I think it is very rare that teams have a contingency plan whereby there is no falloff. That said we have an obvious fill-in with Boatright at either guard spot. Beyond that Giffey looks to have some off-guards skills and Daniels may as well. Funny, up until the last month frontcourt depth looked to be the clear concern.
I suspect the senior walk-on guard will see some time early in the year to see if he's competent. In case of injuries or major foul trouble you simply need a 3rd ballhandler. As I've said before I think they'll have Jeremy or Giffey bring the ball up at some point in each game to avoid overloading Napier. But I still think you need someone to come in and play that 5 minutes that Beverly gave them last year. That's the spot where loss of scholarships is hurting them, they can't carry the "EJ Harrsion" type.

Also even when he was playing PG, Napier almost always had a PG next to him at SG, in 2011-12 he's got a massive new amount of responsibilities.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,740
Reaction Score
13,172
UConn stayed remarkably healthy all last year. No significant injuries that I can recall. Depth is a nice thing to have in the event of an injury OR if an up tempo style suits your team. Personally, I like knowing that this years roster is at least 8-9 guys deep.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction Score
144
Depth is always good for a UConn team because Calhoun won't bury guys. A guy like Boeheim has pretty much settled on a seven-man rotation by Christmas. Calhoun will usually get a lot of guys on the floor at least a little, and if they play well, they'll get more time. A guy might play 4 minutes a game until one game he looks really good, then he'll play 25.

Last season, JCM seemed to be on the outs after his tweet, but played well when he got a chance and turned into a key contributor for a while. Olander usually didn't see a lot of time, but he would get a shot, and against Syracuse in the BE tournament, he was playing great and got a lot of time. Giffey was never as good as he was in Maui, and nearly disappeared for a while, but saw lots of time in the Final Four.

And, as Huskybass mentioned, UConn might not be as healthy as last season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
43
Guests online
372
Total visitors
415

Forum statistics

Threads
170,533
Messages
4,221,608
Members
9,128
Latest member
nilesa


Top Bottom