Want to explain why?
Emmitt Matthews Jr Commits to UConn
- Thread starter navery12
- Start date
Fishy
Elite Premium Poster
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 19,310
- Reaction Score
- 178,981
I'll ban you for being an accessory to stupidity if he tries to explain it.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction Score
- 1,242
Why did you have to play your self like that
You definitely know this, but I'll explain anyways. Because in the NBA, players are on average taller, so guys (especially wings) end up slotting in a position smaller than they presumably would play in college based on height. Guys then try to play that position in college in order to develop and showcase the skills they will need in the NBA.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction Score
- 5,128
I like his stroke, lefty to boot! Nice signing!
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,456
- Reaction Score
- 49,780
Always nice to get a guy that can be a zone buster.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction Score
- 5,813
I'll back you up a bit here KSC. Not sure I necessarily agree with him being "far more likely to play the 4", but it's not nearly as far-fetched as some of these posters seem to believe.
Matthews is not at all a typical UConn 2. He's 6'6" right now and many reports are saying he could be anywhere from 6'7" to 6'9" by the time he steps on campus, making him even further from a typical UConn 2. UConn has been most successful with 3 guard lineups, but at 6'7" and far from a point guard handle, he would definitely be more of the "3" in the 3 guard lineup. His game doesn't look all that different from Polley's, who no one is talking about as a 2, and many people have said he could be a small ball 4.
Not sure why you're taking so much heat for that comment when I literally cannot think of a UConn 2 guard in recent history who reminds me of him. Lamb is closest, but he was 6'4'', not 6'7".
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 659
- Reaction Score
- 2,512
Not for anything, but, based upon the picture posted earlier with EM, Jr. standing next to JC, if EM, Jr. is 'only'6'6', JC has really really shrunk like down to 6'1" or so.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,975
- Reaction Score
- 20,994
I'm confused. How is that not arguing?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2015
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction Score
- 35,825
Not saying they aren’t out there, but does anyone have a link in which it states Matthews has grown to 6’9? I haven’t seen it, but a few people have mentioned it.
What's far-fetched is thinking 1) a reporter has any idea how tall he's going to be, or 2) that will have anything to do with how Ollie uses him.
You literally called him one of the guards in a 3 guard lineup, and wonder why the other poster is taking heat for arguing he's closer to a 4 than a guard?
Matthews playing the 4 is as far-fetched as Diarra playing the 2.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction Score
- 5,813
"Matthews playing the 4 is as far-fetched as Diarra playing the 2."
That's an absolutely asinine line. I also didn't say he would never play the 2...and if we call it a "3 guard" lineup with say, Akinjo, Gilbert, and Matthews...Matthews is essentially the 3. It's all semantics, but I don't think there will be many instances where Matthews is on the court with only 1 of Gilbert, Akinjo, Vital...whoever else we may have that's a true "guard" on the roster.
Doctor Hoop
Prescribing Hardwood Excellence
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2016
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction Score
- 15,592
And also, your position, whether in college or in the pros, is skill-based not height based. Note: for the guys who need to defend inside, height and strength can be considered "skills."
LMAO. How long have you been a fan of basketball?
It's not semantics. You keep calling him the 3rd guard in a 3 guard lineup, you're literally proving yourself wrong.
If he's not a guard, then you wouldn't call it a 3 guard lineup. You'd have two guards, a small forward/wing, or whatever you want to call him. But you wouldn't call it a 3 guard lineup. It's been given that name because you didn't have the conventional SF and instead have three guards.
He'll be the 2 if we go big (rarely), and the 2nd/3rd guard most of the time. Matthews is never going to play the 4.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,837
- Reaction Score
- 20,713
From the videos I have seen of him he definitely looks like a prototypical 3 man at UCONN. Either way I don't see Carey being directly impacted by his decision as I can see him playing the 3 while Wilson plays the 4 and Carey and Akinjo play the guard positions. It just makes us more flexible with him on board. Still want a faster 2 guard if we can get Carey.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 56,138
- Reaction Score
- 213,091
He's not 6'9.
ctchamps
We are UConn!! 6 >>>1!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 17,784
- Reaction Score
- 45,781
He may see some time as a stretch 4 but he was recruited to play the 2. He's the first long guard we've had in a while.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction Score
- 5,813
J*sus. You're sort of intolerable. I put "3 guard" in quotes. You can call it whatever you want. It's very much semantics whether we call it a 3 guard lineup, or if it's a standard 1-2-3 with him as the 3. My point is I don't see him playing a role where he's the 2nd ball handler...99% of the time he'll be out there with 2 of Gilbert/Akinjo/Vital/another guard probably not on the roster yet. In many cases last year Vance Jackson was the 4...he's not all the different size wise and ball handling ability wise than Vance.
intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
Leave it to the lawyers to get all technical.
intlzncster
i fart in your general direction
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 28,910
- Reaction Score
- 60,188
Hilton units brah. Pay no mind.
Matthews is listed at 6'6" 175 on WVU's recruitng site.
Jackson is listed at 6'7" 229 on UConn's site.
Not remotely close.
Sid Wilson and Larrier are much closer in size/build (within 1-2" and 10 pounds), and both are listed as "Guard/Forward". That's what Matthews will play. 2/3. Not 4.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction Score
- 6,831
Gentlemen - is there any other reason than "having to be right" that you are getting pissy with each other with this argument about whether Mr. Matthews will be a 2, 3 or 4 here at UConn?
Our head coach has said over and over and over again... he wants players that are versatile and can play multiple positions depending upon situations and matchups within each game to execute his schemes. Matthews' game fits the mold of proto-typical Kevin Ollie player. That is seemingly a great thing for our program's future.
Why would you be stubborn about an argument that has no basis in fact based upon what our coach has said and done for 5 years whenever he had the players and versatility to execute his schemes?
For example: WingU-Conn, you tend to make good points in other threads... so why would you continue to argue that Matthews will never play the 4, when we all saw Niels Giffey play the 5, even in a National Championship game?
"Matthews is never going to play the 4." I will take the other side of that and all but guarantee that at some point Matthews will be playing the 4 in a game... in addition to the 2 and 3. I base that on the only thing that should really count: proof of actual games coached by KO.
Better to speculate on all the different combinations that KO and staff might come up with to best utilize this young man's blossoming talents once he is here, don't you think? Much more fun, too.
Our head coach has said over and over and over again... he wants players that are versatile and can play multiple positions depending upon situations and matchups within each game to execute his schemes. Matthews' game fits the mold of proto-typical Kevin Ollie player. That is seemingly a great thing for our program's future.
Why would you be stubborn about an argument that has no basis in fact based upon what our coach has said and done for 5 years whenever he had the players and versatility to execute his schemes?
For example: WingU-Conn, you tend to make good points in other threads... so why would you continue to argue that Matthews will never play the 4, when we all saw Niels Giffey play the 5, even in a National Championship game?
"Matthews is never going to play the 4." I will take the other side of that and all but guarantee that at some point Matthews will be playing the 4 in a game... in addition to the 2 and 3. I base that on the only thing that should really count: proof of actual games coached by KO.
Better to speculate on all the different combinations that KO and staff might come up with to best utilize this young man's blossoming talents once he is here, don't you think? Much more fun, too.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,837
- Reaction Score
- 20,713
Well TL will definitely see some time at PF this year like he did last year. Either way I think EM is being groomed more as a 3 as his handle doesn't seem tight enough to play 2 at UCONN. He might see some spot minutes at the 2 and the 4 but I see him more of a 3. I think Sid Willson will play the 4 when they are in together. That is why I think we can still sell JC on playing the 2 and some 1 here at UCONN.
.-.
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 36,406
- Reaction Score
- 101,790
That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction Score
- 5,813
Exactly. Thanks for proving my point WingU!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction Score
- 5,813
Agreed. This is why I defended the original poster who was getting crushed for saying he'd play more 4 than 2. He may be wrong, but everyone was acting like it was an insane thing to say.
Okay, I take it back. Sure Ollie COULD play Matthews at the four, if the rest of our frontcourt is so bad/injured/foul prone he has no choice but to play a guard there, then yeah, it could happen.
If Matthews plays the 4, then we swung and missed on Diarra, Williams, Cobb, Whaley, Carlton, and potentially Polley, and whoever else we bring in for the frontcourt in the next few years.
I don't see a frontcourt as thin as when Giffey played.
@3rdbass Same with Larrier last year. Durham wasn't ready, Diarra was out for the year, Facey had to spell Brimah at the 5, because Enoch couldn't stay on the floor, and no we had no frontcourt depth at all. If Larrier plays anything more than a few minutes at the 4 it's because we have nothing but freshman and juco transfers in the frontcourt who aren't ready to contribute. not because that's where he is best suited to play.
Jackson, who is 50 pounds heavier, played the 4 and transferred because of it.
Yes, Matthews could play the 4 out of necessity, you're right. But he's not more likely to play the 4 than the 2. His skills are 2/3. Not 4.
If Matthews plays the 4, then we swung and missed on Diarra, Williams, Cobb, Whaley, Carlton, and potentially Polley, and whoever else we bring in for the frontcourt in the next few years.
I don't see a frontcourt as thin as when Giffey played.
@3rdbass Same with Larrier last year. Durham wasn't ready, Diarra was out for the year, Facey had to spell Brimah at the 5, because Enoch couldn't stay on the floor, and no we had no frontcourt depth at all. If Larrier plays anything more than a few minutes at the 4 it's because we have nothing but freshman and juco transfers in the frontcourt who aren't ready to contribute. not because that's where he is best suited to play.
Jackson, who is 50 pounds heavier, played the 4 and transferred because of it.
Yes, Matthews could play the 4 out of necessity, you're right. But he's not more likely to play the 4 than the 2. His skills are 2/3. Not 4.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,837
- Reaction Score
- 20,713
Vance Jackson and his father were a head case. They would never be happy here it seemed.
The college game has changed as there are players that play the PF with Larrier's size. I mean look at Villanova year in and year out with undersized 4's. I bet you TL plays more than a few minutes at the 4 this year with a small lineup at times. It will be a big advantage to us scoring points if we can go small. We have him and Williams Polley and hopefully Wilson who are interchangeable at the 3 or 4. I don't think we will have this defined 4 like Diarra who I can see playing center at times. I think with our present talent , hoping that Wilson can play immediately, we just have a better lineup going small this year. None of our bigs can really play together as they just don't have the offensive skills to do so or are too young right now.
Yup, if Larrier plays the 4 it's because our frontcourt isn't very good. Same with Matthews.
.-.