Plus/Minus Wolf vs Olander

[Palatine]

Playing them together is a terrible awful no good idea. Tyler just isnt very good. He cannot hold up on defedse and has almost no offensive ability. He is not " great when he drifts to the perimeter.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

How do you KNOW if its never been tried.

I would like them to try it a little. It might have helped in the first half of the Pitt game. A few minutes here and there.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Playing them together is a terrible awful no good idea. Tyler just isnt very good. He cannot hold up on defedse and has almost no offensive ability. He is not " great when he drifts to the perimeter.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

I just don't understand why we're clamoring for Olander at the 4.

1) Most BE teams play a face-up guy at that position anyway - Henton, Melvin, Behanan, Fair, Pinkston, Porter, JaKarr Sampson - Olander can't guard any of those guys.

2) It's not like we gain an offensive advantage with the two big guys. Olander isn't going to dominate any of those guys in the post and the idea that he's a great, or even good, jump shooter has been proven time and again to be a myth. If anything, we lose the offensive advantage that we sometimes have when the opposing PF can't guard Daniels (see the DePaul game). And we certainly won't have any of the runout dunks that Daniels gets from time to time by being quicker than the other 4's.

3) We won't automatically become a better rebounding team just because we'll have 2 bigger guys in the game at the same time. We had Drummond and Oriakhi last year and were a lousy rebounding team. We had a 6'5'' PF in Jeff Adrien, yet he got every rebound.

 

[bmayuc]

How do you KNOW if its never been tried.

I would like them to try it a little. It might have helped in the first half of the Pitt game. A few minutes here and there.

To expand on HuskyfanBBALL point above, What do you gain in this lineup? You remove a versatile offensive player or strong defender from the game(daniels/giffey) and despite the weird clamoring for Olander, no offense to the kid, but he doens't do anything very well. He doesn't spot up shoot with confidence, he can't post and score with consistency, he doesn't rebound. And now, as touched on above, he's going to guard a perimeter player?

Not happening.

 

[aceboon]

Please save this and copy and paste it everytime someone mentions playing TO & Wolf together.

I just don't understand why we're clamoring for Olander at the 4.

1) Most BE teams play a face-up guy at that position anyway - Henton, Melvin, Behanan, Fair, Pinkston, Porter, JaKarr Sampson - Olander can't guard any of those guys.

2) It's not like we gain an offensive advantage with the two big guys. Olander isn't going to dominate any of those guys in the post and the idea that he's a great, or even good, jump shooter has been proven time and again to be a myth. If anything, we lose the offensive advantage that we sometimes have when the opposing PF can't guard Daniels (see the DePaul game). And we certainly won't have any of the runout dunks that Daniels gets from time to time by being quicker than the other 4's.

3) We won't automatically become a better rebounding team just because we'll have 2 bigger guys in the game at the same time. We had Drummond and Oriakhi last year and were a lousy rebounding team. We had a 6'5'' PF in Jeff Adrien, yet he got every rebound.

 

[defense]

Playing both of them at the same time would be disasterous because they are total liabilities on offense. It's worse to go 3 on 5 than 4 on 5.

 

[Palatine]

I just don't understand why we're clamoring for Olander at the 4.

1) Most BE teams play a face-up guy at that position anyway - Henton, Melvin, Behanan, Fair, Pinkston, Porter, JaKarr Sampson - Olander can't guard any of those guys.

2) It's not like we gain an offensive advantage with the two big guys. Olander isn't going to dominate any of those guys in the post and the idea that he's a great, or even good, jump shooter has been proven time and again to be a myth. If anything, we lose the offensive advantage that we sometimes have when the opposing PF can't guard Daniels (see the DePaul game). And we certainly won't have any of the runout dunks that Daniels gets from time to time by being quicker than the other 4's.

3) We won't automatically become a better rebounding team just because we'll have 2 bigger guys in the game at the same time. We had Drummond and Oriakhi last year and were a lousy rebounding team. We had a 6'5'' PF in Jeff Adrien, yet he got every rebound.

No one is clamoring. The idea is to try it when we're getting killed on the boards.

Olander is a face up guy. So you're saying he's perfect for the four.

Size matters. It's basically why Wolf succeeds. It's not about "dominating" it's about eating up space.

Do you get worse with two little guys in the middle? Of course, you do. As I said, eating up space matters.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

No one is clamoring. The idea is to try it when we're getting killed on the boards.

Olander is a face up guy. So you're saying he's perfect for the four.

Size matters. It's basically why Wolf succeeds. It's not about "dominating" it's about eating up space.

Do you get worse with two little guys in the middle? Of course, you do. As I said, eating up space matters.

He's a face-up guy by default. He's not very good on the block, so he must be a face-up guy. But you put him at the 4 and he's dead in the water trying to defend a kid like Melvin or Pinkston.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Olander is a face up guy. So you're saying he's perfect for the four.

Size matters. It's basically why Wolf succeeds. It's not about "dominating" it's about eating up space.

Do you get worse with two little guys in the middle? Of course, you do. As I said, eating up space matters.

Olander is a face-up guy with zero athleticism. Do you really not see the difference between TO and the other guys I mentioned?