When Daniels comes back

[huskiesnyc]

put him at the 3… That's his natural position and he has mismatches all day against almost everyone that's going to defend him. He's a good rebounder but not a power forward. 2 of Nolan, Facey, Brimah or Olander should be out there to pound the glass. Enough going small. We saw a glimpse of what I've been talking about all season last night and it worked.

p.s: I'm not in any way criticizing or telling KO how to coach because I know he's doing a phenomenal job and I love the guy. This is just my opinion on a message board, and it looks like he made the same adjustment last night.

 

[Strummer]

We saw a glimpse of what I've been talking about all season last night and it worked.

It was Houston. Probably could have put Tolksdorf at the 5 and we would have won. But I'd like to see your proposed line up for kicks and giggles.

 

[CTBasketball]

It was Houston. Probably could have put Tolksdorf at the 5 and we would have won. But I'd like to see your proposed line up for kicks and giggles.

The same Houston team that smacked us a month ago. Are we the better team? Yes. But Houston isn't a Yale, Eastern Washington, or Fairfield.

 

[champs99and04]

The problem with your proposal is that Daniels rebounds at roughly the same rate as Nolan, and better than Olander, so it isn't as if we're going to be getting a significant boost on the glass with them on the floor. Facey hasn't played more than garbage time minutes all year, so I think it's a bit late in the season to start giving him significant run against top competition. Brimah is purely a five. Not to mention, we're significantly more limited offensively with Daniels at the three - with small forwards guarding him, the pick and pop wouldn't be nearly as effective because defenses would be able to switch more frequently. We employed a two big lineup for large stretches in the Louisville game when Daniels was on the bench with foul trouble, and it wasn't pretty.

I wouldn't mind reverting back to more of a conventional two big set next year, but it just doesn't make sense with this roster.

 

[huskiesnyc]

Facey is averaging 14.3 rebounds per 40 minutes with a lot of his time being spent at center. Put him at his natural 4 spot in a conventional two big set and you see those numbers sky rocket. Point is most of our bigs are natural power forwards, not centers which is why I like going with 2 bigs. Daniels is an absolute nightmare for defenders playing at the 3.

 

[mauconnfan]

put him at the 3… That's his natural position and he has mismatches all day against almost everyone that's going to defend him. He's a good rebounder but not a power forward. 2 of Nolan, Facey, Brimah or Olander should be out there to pound the glass. Enough going small. We saw a glimpse of what I've been talking about all season last night and it worked.

p.s: I'm not in any way criticizing or telling KO how to coach because I know he's doing a phenomenal job and I love the guy. This is just my opinion on a message board, and it looks like he made the same adjustment last night.[/q

Like the idea but Cincy is made of bigger guys who can all take it from anywhere on the court……who of Nolan, Facey, Olander and Brimah - or should I say what 2, can we depend on guarding people on the perimeter? None of them are very capable of the and put 2 in at the same time without going to a zone, huge trouble vs Cincy. You now allow them to have mediocre ball handlers in the game and still have a true advantage. This game will have DD, Giff and Kromah in it together more often than 2 bigs for sure and it needs to…….I love your idea if we go to zone and force them to shoot the ball….

 

[selles]

Facey is averaging 14.3 rebounds per 40 minutes with a lot of his time being spent at center. Put him at his natural 4 spot in a conventional two big set and you see those numbers sky rocket. Point is most of our bigs are natural power forwards, not centers which is why I like going with 2 bigs. Daniels is an absolute nightmare for defenders playing at the 3.

Interesting idea and I think it's worth experimenting with a bigger lineup in small doses. It could be a useful tool for a couple minutes here and there. But the fundamental flaw in using it too much is you're taking minutes from Giffey/Kromah and giving them to Nolan/Facey/Olander.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I don't like the idea of having both a four and a five who are question marks offensively (the idea of two of Nolan, Brimah, Olander and Facey on the court at all times) but I wouldn't mind seeing about fifteen minutes each game with both Daniels and Giffey on the floor with one of the above mentioned four as our front court.

 

[pj]

Daniels is an absolute nightmare for defenders playing at the 3.

This is the part I don't get. Daniels has a limited handle and limited quickness. His offense would suffer tremendously at the 3. Kromah is a much better 3, offensively. Defensively Daniels may be a bit slow for the 3, though his height compensates. Kromah is probably a better 3 defensively too. Daniels adds by far the most value at the 4, where he is a mismatch coming out to the perimeter for the pick-and-pop or pick-and-roll plays that opposing 4s can't defend. It's true he lacks bulk but he has held up well this year for the most part.

 

[huskiesnyc]

This is the part I don't get. Daniels has a limited handle and limited quickness. His offense would suffer tremendously at the 3. Kromah is a much better 3, offensively. Defensively Daniels may be a bit slow for the 3, though his height compensates. Kromah is probably a better 3 defensively too. Daniels adds by far the most value at the 4, where he is a mismatch coming out to the perimeter for the pick-and-pop or pick-and-roll plays that opposing 4s can't defend. It's true he lacks bulk but he has held up well this year for the most part.

He's a legit 6'9-6-10' can shoot the 3, and take smaller defenders off the dribble. Not sure I see where you're coming from with the limited quickness comment. Eventually he will be an NBA pick, but trust me no one will be drafting him as an NBA Power Forward.

 

[UConnSwag11]

if we put daniels at the three, who will make up the scoring at the 4 for our 5's?

This is the part I don't get. Daniels has a limited handle and limited quickness. His offense would suffer tremendously at the 3. Kromah is a much better 3, offensively. Defensively Daniels may be a bit slow for the 3, though his height compensates. Kromah is probably a better 3 defensively too. Daniels adds by far the most value at the 4, where he is a mismatch coming out to the perimeter for the pick-and-pop or pick-and-roll plays that opposing 4s can't defend. It's true he lacks bulk but he has held up well this year for the most part.

yeah kromah is quicker and should defend the 3 and has a better handle to play the 3... i think daniels is more of a mismatch at the four bc he can take his guy away from the basket or he can back him down, he is great at the pick and pop and is a doing a great job from three... if daniels gets a better handle i can see him at the 3 but we need him with this roster to play the 4... he is legit 3 hopefully next year if he comes back he can play the three

 

[UConn990411]

Daniels is not an effective 3 in college. It's remarkable that not everyone has figured this out by now.

DD is far and away a bigger matchup problem playing the stretch 4 because he can draw shot blocking PFs away from the basket (or punish the ones that don't challenge him with his outside shot). And when he is contested from the perimeter, he can use his quickness to dribble right past his defender. When he was playing the 3, he didn't have that quickness advantage and usually got his pocket picked.

People need to stop proposing playing Daniels at the 3 because, well, it just doesn't make any sense.

(And I'm not saying DD should never get time at the 3 - I'm completely in favor of going big on some occasions. But playing him predominately at SF doesn't make sense for DeAndre or the team.)

 

[Tenspro2002]

No, no, a thousand times no. It amazes me we have to rehash this every few weeks.

You don't neuter your offense just so you can field a "traditional" or "NBA-sized" lineup (which, for what it's worth, the NBA itself is going away from). Jim Calhoun might have been the only remaining coach in the country who wanted a 6'9 guy at the 3 and two post-only players at the 4 and 5. That sort of basketball is going the way of the dinosaur.

And especially on this team, where our 5 best players are 6'7 or below, we want to have at least four of them out there at a time. Ollie has devised an effective, albeit simple offense predicated on ball-screens and the pick-and-pop, where our 4 is a credible 3-point threat (and Daniels is shooting damn close to 50% from 3 in conference play). Our offense works because we have four perimeter threats. Adding another big won't improve our rebounding more than it will kill our offense.

 

[Clockshop]

Simply put, the typical NBA 2 and 3 usually play up a position in college.

 

[UC990411]

The same Houston team that smacked us a month ago. Are we the better team? Yes. But Houston isn't a Yale, Eastern Washington, or Fairfield.

Yes they are. They're on par with those teams.

 

[Strummer]

Jim Calhoun might have been the only remaining coach in the country who wanted a 6'9 guy at the 3 and two post-only players at the 4 and 5. That sort of basketball is going the way of the dinosaur.

NC in 2004. FF in 2009. NC in 2011. Maybe JC was onto something.

 

[caw]

NC in 2004. FF in 2009. NC in 2011. Maybe JC was onto something.

1999 had Rip at a thin 6'7 at the three and a short Freeman at the four.

2004 had two bigs but Denham or Anderson at 6-5 to 6-6 at the three.

2009 had a three guard lineup half the year an Robinson at the three the other half. Robinson was listed as 6-8.

2011 had Roscoe starting at the three but Lamb played a lot of three after Napier checked in.

This teams best depth is at the three with Kromah and Giffey, whose minutes are you cutting to play Daniels there? Maybe Kromah can play some two, but still not giving you a ton of minutes extra, especially if Calhoun ever gets out of his funk.

 

[huskyharry]

He's a legit 6'9-6-10' can shoot the 3, and take smaller defenders off the dribble. Not sure I see where you're coming from with the limited quickness comment. Eventually he will be an NBA pick, but trust me no one will be drafting him as an NBA Power Forward.

I wouldn't mind seeing the experiment for a few minutes, but DD has been taking slower bigs off the dribble, not "smaller defenders"...that is the concern with him at the 3: less effective on offense because he would struggle to get by defenders and would have fewer open perimeter shots because the defenders at the 3 are more quicker and more comfortable staying with their man on the perimeter AND less effective on defense because he would be defending players with better dribble-drive ability and DD doesn't have the best lateral quickness. Rebounding and shot blocking would be improved but I don't think the pluses outweigh the minuses at this point.
I do agree that he will need to be better at these things to have a shot at the NBA, but he has next year to do that.

 

[James]

Jabari Parker basically plays the 5 for k, means nothing to his position in the pros.

 

[huskyharry]

1999 had Rip at a thin 6'7 at the three and a short Freeman at the four.

2004 had two bigs but Denham or Anderson at 6-5 to 6-6 at the three.

2009 had a three guard lineup half the year an Robinson at the three the other half. Robinson was listed as 6-8.

2011 had Roscoe starting at the three but Lamb played a lot of three after Napier checked in.

This teams best depth is at the three with Kromah and Giffey, whose minutes are you cutting to play Daniels there? Maybe Kromah can play some two, but still not giving you a ton of minutes extra, especially if Calhoun ever gets out of his funk.

All true, and I would say that for much of the season Stanley at the three was exposed at a weakness because he didn't handle the ball well (not great at passing or dribbling). By the NCAAs, the team had learned to adjust and SR's made a big impact with shot blocking and rebounding.

 

[skyct]

Well, if we have this kind of line up but we still underachieved for 2 years with RG at 3.
The year after Hilton replaced Charlie as a starter and Jeff came in as a reserve.

• Starters
• PG: Marcus Williams 6-3 205
• SG: Denham Brown 6-6 220
• SF: Rudy Gay 6-9 220
• PF: Charlie Villanueva 6-11 240
• C: Josh Boone: 6-10 237
• Reserves
• SG: Rashad Anderson 6-5 215
• PF: Hilton Armstrong 6-11 235
• PG: Antonio Kellogg 6-3 195
• PF: Ed Nelson 6-8 260
• PF: Jason Baisch 6-6 250

 

[SaeHusky]

No lineup with Olander in it makes us better. Brimah and Nolan rotate at Center. DD, Facey, Giffey play the 4, DD, Giffey, and Kromah play the 3, and Bazz, Boat, and Kromah play guard with a cameo here and there for Omar

 

[aceboon]

yea, lets put 2 of our better rotation players on the bench in Kromah and Giffey...don't understand how after almost 2 complete seasons we're still having this argument. What position DeAndre plays here has no impact on what position he plays in the pros if he makes it, KO utilizes him at all spots on the floor so his SF skills are being displayed.

 

[ctchamps]

I'm just hoping he's healthy for the Cinci game and brings his A game.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

The only way you Put DD at the three is Giffey at the 4

I don't like the idea of having both a four and a five who are question marks offensively (the idea of two of Nolan, Brimah, Olander and Facey on the court at all times) but I wouldn't mind seeing about fifteen minutes each game with both Daniels and Giffey on the floor with one of the above mentioned four as our front court.

Nolan is a possible future 4 . You can 't teach that touch to a big man.
If he want 's to go forward it's as a 4 .

 

[DogMania]

This is the part I don't get. Daniels has a limited handle and limited quickness. His offense would suffer tremendously at the 3. Kromah is a much better 3, offensively. Defensively Daniels may be a bit slow for the 3, though his height compensates. Kromah is probably a better 3 defensively too. Daniels adds by far the most value at the 4, where he is a mismatch coming out to the perimeter for the pick-and-pop or pick-and-roll plays that opposing 4s can't defend. It's true he lacks bulk but he has held up well this year for the most part.

You make a very good point here. Daniel struggles a bit defensively against quicker wings. What we might gain with him out on the perimeter, which I'm not sure is what's best, we might lose with what he doesn't give us defensively compared to Kromah and Giffey covering the other teams 3s. I like how Daniels is able to exploit slower fours who struggle to cover him out on the perimeter. Daniels gets a lot of open looks on high screens as he kicks out to receive passes from Boatright and Shabazz. I'm okay with Daniels playing a few minutes at the 3, but I like his rebounding on both ends of the floor and his ability to score from inside and outside. When Daniels gets beat off the dribble it causes our defense to scramble. Kromah and Giffey have done a really good job of keeping their men from getting by them. If it ain't broke why try to fix it. I don't mind moving Daniels to the three for a few minutes to get Facey a few more minutes but I like DD most as a stretch four.

 

[UConnDad]

Our players have to match up with the opposing five on the floor and so do they. Whose a 3, guard their 4, we will try to exploit our advantages and cover our shortcomings. All these position numbers are great. Let's score and play D!