I d love to see clingan/Adama for 2-3 min a half

[JustbrewitMan]

I deliberately waited a couple of days to let this thread get filled out with funny posts. Great read over Friday AM coffee.

That said, I think it would be hilarious if we did this in-game and one of them accidentally posted the other up on offense since they’re so used to doing it for hours each week during practice.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I read the title and see 2 responses I could offer. One is arguably obnoxious, which I'd rather not be, and the other relies upon a combination of inference & fact. I think both would be accurate if I offered them. Neither is what I want to be doing right now.

What a dilemma.

Maybe we just have different definitions of the word “multiple”.

 

[willie99]

13-0, ranked 1 or 2 in the country

I can't top that. Going to let Dan coach the team. My job is the ride the officials

 

[BlueMAB]

I think most people against this idea have a perfectly reasonable sense of nuance. We just think it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons, among the reasons is that 4-6 minutes a game together is 10-15% of the time, which is not insubstantial. It does change our lineup—and it has the possibility to do so even more if one of them gets into needless foul trouble.

I'd say the people advocating for this 2005 style offense are the one's who lack a nuanced understanding of basketball. Aside from the fact that it takes away the greatest strength's of our best player on offense, it disrupts our spacing all in the name of hitting some arbitrary minute total for another player. And then, uh...the defense? People advocating this are largely trapped in old thinking about positions. Many are the same people who scoffed at the idea of Jackson being the team's offense initiator when people suggested it last year. If you're married to positions, sure, he's not technically the point guard, but he's leading the team in assists, has a better A/TO ratio than our nominal PG, and we're best when he runs the offense.

The same old-style thinking that wants us to put two bigs on the floor is the same that poo-poo'd our obvious point forward.

I argued for Andre Jackson playing PG.

I don't think the double big offense is necessary or even desired; but once Samson is back and our depth improves, if Hurley shows it for a minute or 2 every few games, I don't think that makes him a complete moron as has been suggested repeatedly.

Creating a strawman argument by marrying the 2 totally separate discussions isn't nuance.

 

[Get a Job]

I read the title and see 2 responses I could offer. One is arguably obnoxious, which I'd rather not be, and the other relies upon a combination of inference & fact. I think both would be accurate if I offered them. Neither is what I want to be doing right now.

What a dilemma.

Which one of the responses was, "Oh yeah, I guess you're right. At least once per half is indeed multiple times."? You should have gone with that one

 

[tzznandrew]

I argued for Andre Jackson playing PG.

I don't think the double big offense is necessary or even desired; but once Samson is back and our depth improves, if Hurley shows it for a minute or 2 every few games, I don't think that makes him a complete moron as has been suggested repeatedly.

Creating a strawman argument by marrying the 2 totally separate discussions isn't nuance.

They are largely different issues. But I think many who want the double big are trapped in an old-style thinking, and as evidence for that I suggested —and I quote myself—"many of the same people" couldn't see Jackson as an offensive initiator. They are "married" if you insist in that each take stems from a similar way of viewing the game—one that hasn't been relevant in at least a decade.

 

[ARIDE]

It’s a novel idea

Would have like them together against GT in a zone..GT can't shoot outside..game may have been a big blowout if we force them to take more 3's or deeper shots.

 

[BlueMAB]

They are largely different issues. But I think many who want the double big are trapped in an old-style thinking, and as evidence for that I suggested —and I quote myself—"many of the same people" couldn't see Jackson as an offensive initiator. They are "married" if you insist in that each take stems from a similar way of viewing the game—one that hasn't been relevant in at least a decade.

They are only married by your assumption that "many" of the same posters fell on both sides of the disagreement. I don't think that is a fair assumption, but acknowledge it could be.

My issues is the posters who say it should be something we do in a limited and specific manner (and when we have more depth) are lumped in with the crazy suggestion (most often I think they're stirring the pot/trolling) that we go double big for 15-20 minutes a game.

 

[Scrappy3]

I only suggested this for x that karaban was not producing. He’s had 2-3 games where his shot goes off and he isn’t defending up to par.
It also rewards the players by allowing Adama to show off his burgeoning mobile 4 skills and giving clingan more opportunity which he has earned. It’s not really a double big concept—it’s putting Adama in the mobile 4 position for 2-3 minutes.
It would give us another situational look just like going small last game

 

[August_West]

Would have like them together against GT in a zone..GT can't shoot outside..game may have been a big blowout if we force them to take more 3's or deeper shots.

Hurley would just as soon wear a dress on the sideline than play a zone against a team that has lost 21 straight league games. He'd have to turn in his man card.


I don't question your premise in a general sense. Georgetown would be a great team to zone. Syracuse crushed them. I just don't think we are going to see much zone this year at all. We are too good defensively in some really high level areas and Hurley, like Calhoun, holds his nose when forced to play zone. He's all about toughness and man to man.

 

[Rico444]

I only suggested this for x that karaban was not producing. He’s had 2-3 games where his shot goes off and he isn’t defending up to par.
It also rewards the players by allowing Adama to show off his burgeoning mobile 4 skills and giving clingan more opportunity which he has earned. It’s not really a double big concept—it’s putting Adama in the mobile 4 position for 2-3 minutes.
It would give us another situational look just like going small last game

Problem is, I don't know how much success Adama has on the perimeter when he's being defended by a stretch 4 instead of a center.

 

[Scrappy3]

Problem is, I don't know how much success Adama has on the perimeter when he's being defended by a stretch 4 instead of a center.

He’s a very good player— I would never worry who’s guarding him

 

[August_West]

He’s a very good player— I would never worry who’s guarding him

Adama is a center in college. Start and end.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Problem is, I don't know how much success Adama has on the perimeter when he's being defended by a stretch 4 instead of a center.

I think any opposing team would be very happy to face a UConn lineup where Sanogo’s default is to play on the perimeter as opposing to ragdolling their center in the post.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

At tourney time playing them together for a short stretch might be a necessary adjustment.

Can’t wait til then to get this lineup working, give it a go during the season in spots where it makes sense.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

At tourney time playing them together for a short stretch might be a necessary adjustment.

Can’t wait til then to get this lineup working, give it a go during the season in spots where it makes sense.

I feel like I need someone to tell me what team and lineup we'll be facing where this is going to make sense. If SJ comes back with anything close to the level of play that was expected of him this year, I feel like an already tiny use case for the AS/DC lineup gets even smaller.