I d love to see clingan/Adama for 2-3 min a half | Page 2 | The Boneyard

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

The problem remains nuance is lost on this board. Many people can't/won't accept that showing a lineup for a few minutes at a time (whether by necessity or not) does not drastically change our lineup.

They prefer to mock and ridicule those who suggest trying it out in small doses...something Hurley has already done twice....as if those people (who repeatedly suggest small doses) are arguing they should play 20 minutes together.

They call posters morons for suggesting something the coaches have already done. 100% on brand for the Boneyard.
 
The only scenario I see these 2 on the court together is if Jackson fouls out in a big game against a team with a physical 4 man that Karaban can’t handle defensively. We could then slot Sanogo in the 4 spot and play Clingan at the 5, but it’s very very dependent on what the opponents are putting out there at the 4 and 5.
 
WingU-Conn said:
The problem remains nuance is lost on this board. Many people can't/won't accept that showing a lineup for a few minutes at a time (whether by necessity or not) does not drastically change our lineup.

They prefer to mock and ridicule those who suggest trying it out in small doses...something Hurley has already done twice....as if those people (who repeatedly suggest small doses) are arguing they should play 20 minutes together.

They call posters morons for suggesting something the coaches have already done. 100% on brand for the Boneyard.
Expand ...
Don’t see how it hurts to have as many game tested options as possible at your disposal. Like a fire extinguisher, break glass in case of emergency. No need to lean on it but should be available.
 
Who doesn't love a Freak Show? I want to see this out of curiosity at the very least, but I think it could have strategic value.
 
WingU-Conn said:
The problem remains nuance is lost on this board. Many people can't/won't accept that showing a lineup for a few minutes at a time (whether by necessity or not) does not drastically change our lineup.

They prefer to mock and ridicule those who suggest trying it out in small doses...something Hurley has already done twice....as if those people (who repeatedly suggest small doses) are arguing they should play 20 minutes together.

They call posters morons for suggesting something the coaches have already done. 100% on brand for the Boneyard.
Expand ...
He tried it out twice and hasn’t gone back to it at all. That should be telling. If it’s used in a serious game, it would be in a VERY specific matchup situation, not something we’ll ever see consistently.
 
Last edited:
.-.
WhereistheDove? said:
He tried it out twice and hasn’t gone back to it at all. That should be telling. If it’s used in a serious game, it would be in a VERY specific matchup situation, not something we’ll ever see consistently.
Expand ...
Almost everyone who has asked for it has said it should be limited and specific.
 
mauconnfan said:
I will say this. 9 minutes isn’t enough for DC. And you don’t want to take Sanogo out when he’s playing well so what’s the answer? Pretty simple.
Expand ...
The answer? Keep winning every game by double digits? Play Clingan more in games where Sanogo struggles or is in foul trouble? The same formula that’s made us the best team in the country. Also, I think it’s important to remember he played less because of his repeated shots to the mouth.
 
WhereistheDove? said:
The OP is saying every game multiple times per game.
Expand ...
Are you sure? Here the OP:
Scrappy3 said:
Adama is so mobile and has shown he can hit 3 ball and drive from 3 point line

When karaban is off- why not go Adama 4 clingan 5? I mean just for a2-3 minute run?


It will ensure rebounding and rim protection will be at max capacity. It will also showcase Adama as a pro 4 man.

What do u guys think?
Expand ...
Unless Karaban is off every game multiple times per game, I'm not seeing what's written by @WhereistheDove?
 
WhereistheDove? said:
He tried it out twice and hasn’t gone back to it at all. That should be telling. If it’s used in a serious game, it would be in a VERY specific matchup situation, not something we’ll ever see consistently.
Expand ...
Could have been a trial run in preparation for specific situations and we haven't seen it again cause it needs more work in practice.
 
.-.
AS shooting 43% from 3 and showing off ball handling. He wants to be a pro badly. Give him some minutes at the stretch 4 role. He can be a stationary 3pt threat If need be. Statistically I think our best lineup has DC at C? No? Maybe there’s bias because DC is playing against mostly backups?
 
This ridiculous idea should really be put to rest after the Georgetown game. If there was ever a team it could work against it's someone like Georgetown where they have a traditional C in Wahab and then play a 4 with very limited mobility like Akok. And despite that, our best lineup was when we went the complete opposite direction and had Joey Calcaterra guarding Akok and played 4 guards with a big
 
There is no 4 on offense with this lineup. You have AS and DC changing places at the lowpost and highpost setting a screen and rolling to the hoop.. DC may be the better passer. Ajax, Hawk and Diarra or Ajax , Newton and Joe C. Need more than 9 minutes for DC.
 
I don’t l
Scrappy3 said:
Adama is so mobile and has shown he can hit 3 ball and drive from 3 point line

When karaban is off- why not go Adama 4 clingan 5? I mean just for a2-3 minute run?


It will ensure rebounding and rim protection will be at max capacity. It will also showcase Adama as a pro 4 man.

What do u guys think?
Expand ...
I don’t like it. Adama can play inside out and Clingan a good passer, but I don’t see the benefit of having. Those two in the lineup at the same time

What are you getting with two that you don’t get with one of them?
 
As far as Adama. He is an nba 5. I do like his footwork though and maybe he can be a stretch 5 at the nba level. I am thinking a bigger grant Williams type.

But, he does seem to be more of a backup, offensive 5 man.
 
WhereistheDove? said:
Read the thread title…
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
WingU-Conn said:
The problem remains nuance is lost on this board. Many people can't/won't accept that showing a lineup for a few minutes at a time (whether by necessity or not) does not drastically change our lineup.
Expand ...
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 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.
 
Hans Sprungfeld said:
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.
Expand ...
Maybe we just have different definitions of the word “multiple”.
 
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
 
tzznandrew said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Hans Sprungfeld said:
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.
Expand ...
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 :)
 
WingU-Conn said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
August_West said:
It’s a novel idea
Expand ...
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.
 
tzznandrew said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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
 
ARIDE said:
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.
Expand ...


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.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,475
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom