We've got two spots for next year now...ideally we could bring in two bigs, one developmental frosh and one game-ready transfer IMO.
Chris Knight - Potential 2021 Transfer
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
I'll take any player if he's good and can help us. Transfer or recruit. Next year might look like a rebuilding year, and it seems reasonable to assume that when you lose what we will lose, but Burton, Goose, Wilson, Crabtree, Sal, Grace, Bailey, and Nelson and our other new recruits might beg to differ. There is some good talent returning, and I think an impact transfer or recruit could make us pretty solid next year.
The Greyhounds are Loyola of MD. Not likely they beat us out. But they do have a good lacrosse program.
Loyola-Chicago: What is a Rambler?
Loyola-Chicago's Cinderella story run in this year's edition of March Madness is incredible, but what's the team's mascot, the Rambler?www.si.com
That’s where Chemotti came from after they won the National Championship
I can't imagine there are many good HS senior bigs still uncommitted.
that's why I think we'll have to get one as a transfer.
it's hard to land a really good big and if we don't get one in this HS class or as a transfer, we're really up against the wall next year needing 2 ready to play bigs in the same class.
that's why I think we'll have to get one as a transfer.
it's hard to land a really good big and if we don't get one in this HS class or as a transfer, we're really up against the wall next year needing 2 ready to play bigs in the same class.
Isn’t this ostensibly why CM got the extension? He has to make it happen. We can’t get back into this multi year “off cycle” where we are struggling to have a viable lineup due to recruiting misses. The fact that our only starting options in the front court are MattG and Sal is really troubling.
I was happy with his recruiting, up to the point he can't recruit bigs, other than Weir - which at this point is a whiff.
Respectfully, what terrific forwards (4/5 types) have we recruited? I concur that recruiting has been good at the guard and small forward spots. But It’s been dubious or poor at the forward spots. In reality we are looking at probably two years of being young and talented 1-3 and at 4-5 we’ll be old but not super talented for a year and young and of unknown talent for a year after that, maybe more. Next ncaa chance is probably three years away barring TAMO.
I’m not trying to be a negative Nancy but those are massive gaps that have to be addressed and I think you’re disregarding the dearth of not just talent but actual options in the front court.
Tbone, my points exactly. I have pointed out those roster gaps in the past several years and the proof is in the pudding, they have come to fruition each time.
Hopefully I am wrong this time, and we can win with a bunch of athletic wings (Dji, Burton, Crabtree, Randolph, Noyes, Dread), and a semi serviceable big man rotation of two - but I have my doubts.
Mooney in an interview said one of the coaches / programs he models after is Wright at Villanova - so recruiting a bunch of guards and wings makes sense. BUT, the most success we have had the last two years is with a PF (Cayo) that exels at back to the basket and has only made a couple shots from 15ft+, and a very good all around center in Golden, that does not take/make that many 3's. When we have lacked a strong interior depth, we have been hurt - so Mooney following the Villanova method is not working in practice.
So again, need good bigs to at the very least defend, rebound, and score some.
Having two bigs that are threats on the interior really balanced the floor last year, so why not keep that up? I think he tried, but missed out on best looking prospects again. Now, that is compounded by unexpected loss of Weir. He had big man depth early on in his tenure, but has really really struggled the last 7 years to do this.
Hopefully I am wrong this time, and we can win with a bunch of athletic wings (Dji, Burton, Crabtree, Randolph, Noyes, Dread), and a semi serviceable big man rotation of two - but I have my doubts.
Mooney in an interview said one of the coaches / programs he models after is Wright at Villanova - so recruiting a bunch of guards and wings makes sense. BUT, the most success we have had the last two years is with a PF (Cayo) that exels at back to the basket and has only made a couple shots from 15ft+, and a very good all around center in Golden, that does not take/make that many 3's. When we have lacked a strong interior depth, we have been hurt - so Mooney following the Villanova method is not working in practice.
So again, need good bigs to at the very least defend, rebound, and score some.
Having two bigs that are threats on the interior really balanced the floor last year, so why not keep that up? I think he tried, but missed out on best looking prospects again. Now, that is compounded by unexpected loss of Weir. He had big man depth early on in his tenure, but has really really struggled the last 7 years to do this.
Right. So, who have we recruited to replace Grant and Cayo at the 4/5? You can't say "recruiting" has been great for a while and then look at our roster and literally have no one on the roster to fill out 2 entire positions on the roster.
And don't come at me with Sal/Grace. Those guys are good role players, 10 minute guys. Do we really want to be playing Grace starter minutes next year? He literally does not look at the basket on offense, unless it is launch a 3 ball every once in a while. If they are our options next year, it is rebuild.
And then guess what they graduate and we have to break in some young front court centers after that, which also isn't a recipe for greatness in Mooney's system.
Mooney has literally no other other choice than to go out and get a quality big man transfer for next year.
the 5 spot was well addressed and now lost with Weir. CM will have to find a strong replacement there.
the 4 is Burton. I know he's a 3 this year. he's absolutely the 4 next year. clearly our strength in recruiting has been with wings and guards. so Burton becomes the big forward. he's big enough and a good enough rebounder for that 4 spot. and he's a really athletic stretch 4 who will be a huge problem to defend.
I'm not sure Noyes will be physically strong enough as a freshman, but he'll likely play the big forward spot for us too if he's up to 6'7" like some reports say.
plus Crabbtree has been getting some time there this year.
reading about GW's 3rd transfer already in midseason, I'm thinking there are a lot of kids that might be unhappy this season. college life is so different with so much remote learning. if you're not getting playing time on top of that, it has to be tough. so between that and the whole Ivy thing where all those seniors have a year left, I think there's never been a better year to be in need of a transfer or two. so we'll see how that goes.
the 4 is Burton. I know he's a 3 this year. he's absolutely the 4 next year. clearly our strength in recruiting has been with wings and guards. so Burton becomes the big forward. he's big enough and a good enough rebounder for that 4 spot. and he's a really athletic stretch 4 who will be a huge problem to defend.
I'm not sure Noyes will be physically strong enough as a freshman, but he'll likely play the big forward spot for us too if he's up to 6'7" like some reports say.
plus Crabbtree has been getting some time there this year.
reading about GW's 3rd transfer already in midseason, I'm thinking there are a lot of kids that might be unhappy this season. college life is so different with so much remote learning. if you're not getting playing time on top of that, it has to be tough. so between that and the whole Ivy thing where all those seniors have a year left, I think there's never been a better year to be in need of a transfer or two. so we'll see how that goes.
Fair points sman, I know we have had this conversation on here a few times.
1) I think putting Burton at the 4 does a disservice to him. I think it does make perfect sense considering the issues with replacing Cayo and now Golden. And on offense gives us a true stretch 4 that should be able to pull his man out and make plays off the dribble and shoot the 3. BUT, I think this tires him out banging inside on D, and he has been a little foul prone when he has to guard bigger heavier players. To be a legit pro prospect, the more minutes at the wing are more beneficial.
As far as Noyes, etc being utilized underneath. THat worked with Cayo obviously, but not a viable option as a recruiting model. I'm sure Noyes is not thrilled to be banging around with 230 pounders if that is what happens eventually. He is a driver and a shooter, not a banger.
1) I think putting Burton at the 4 does a disservice to him. I think it does make perfect sense considering the issues with replacing Cayo and now Golden. And on offense gives us a true stretch 4 that should be able to pull his man out and make plays off the dribble and shoot the 3. BUT, I think this tires him out banging inside on D, and he has been a little foul prone when he has to guard bigger heavier players. To be a legit pro prospect, the more minutes at the wing are more beneficial.
As far as Noyes, etc being utilized underneath. THat worked with Cayo obviously, but not a viable option as a recruiting model. I'm sure Noyes is not thrilled to be banging around with 230 pounders if that is what happens eventually. He is a driver and a shooter, not a banger.
Well Mooney has said he is watching what Villanova does, BUT we have had our most success in awhile with two bigs doing work inside, so I am with you 2k, not sure how Mooney works it with two point guards and 8 wings
I know we have this debate a lot, but just so I know where you are coming from, what exactly do you mean by Burton will be the 4? We will likely play mostly man to man next year, so he will guard his guy all over the court, not just in or near the lane if that is what you are thinking. I'm not too worried about teams in our conference having 2 excellent bigs down low where we need to worry about having him guard a guy at the basket all game. Who even has a strategy with 2 low post bigs anymore? Offensively, what do you mean by the 4? I don't see his game changing at all no matter what number you want to give him. Rebounding? He is our best rebounder now, and I don't think anyone is calling him a "4" out there, so what will putting a position number on him have to do with rebounding? I guess maybe you look at Nate and say he is clearly our four because he's mostly inside and doesn't shoot threes? But, look at it this way, what happens when Nate goes out? We don't just slide someone into Nate's position and have him do exactly what Nate does just so we can have a "4" out there, right?
I agree in our offense we have a "5" if that is what you want to call him because Grant has specific things we need him to do in our offense and we run a lot of sets through him. So, yes, that is a position. Same, of course, with "1" because of the PG position.
I do try to see where you are coming from with the other numbers, but I just can't see it at a time when so many teams play 4 guard lineups and have so many guys doing different things offensively now.
VT, sorry but I'm sooo tired of this. Game after game announcers routinely reference positions 1-5. Analysts do. Sports writers do. Die hard fans do. De Nial is more than just a river in Africa.
So game announcers are the tell all? Whatever they say goes? Plenty of game announcers can't even pronounce our guy's names right so I doubt they know too much about who we need to play the "4" or the "3". Sorry, I will stick with the opinions of the college coaches I know right now, and the AAU ones who talk to college recruits all the time. And, if you are soooo tired of this, there is an ignore feature. People use it on me and I use it on them. It works. I read and like smans's posts and asked him a question....not sure why this would bother you so much.
VT, I would never ignore you for fear of missing a multitude of truths.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
We all can agree that it's not like the center has to stay in a restricted area for centers, etc., but I do think that our offense is predicated on the idea of creating space by drawing the defense out of its normal position to defend against bigger guys who can shoot and/or pass. So if we just have 5 guys who are all 6'5" and interchangeable, I think we lose a little bit of a potential advantage there – unless of course they are all four-star guys.
At the same time, we need to be able to defend the other team's players effectively, and it's tough to do that with a bunch of interchangeable 6'5" guys, too.
At the same time, we need to be able to defend the other team's players effectively, and it's tough to do that with a bunch of interchangeable 6'5" guys, too.
This is ridiculous. We have two guards that couldn’t guard a 3 or a 4. Cato can’t shoot from the outside nor bring the ball up the floor, he is a 4. It might be nice to have four players 6’5” to 6’7” that are interchangeable, but that is not us now and not in the near future.
I have never said a team should or has to have five 6'5" guys out there. You obviously want a good PG regardless of height, and you do want a guy with size out there. But, I don't think it's a good idea to make sure you have a "2", a "3", and a "4" at the other 3 spots. Just give me real good players who can do more than one thing well, and I will take my chances, but with the 3 pointer being so important, most of them need to be able to knock that down.
Who is asking our guards to guard a "3" or a "4"? Who is asking Nate to shoot 3s or bring the ball up the floor? Call him a 4 if you want, but my point is you don't need to have an old school "4". Why are we worried about who plays the "4" next year? We don't worry about that when Nate goes out. We just shuffle the lineup around and go from there. We can replace Nate with a smaller guard or someone like Sal, but we don't need to make sure we have a "4" out there. It's not like Andre comes in for Nate, and now Burton has to do everything Nate does. No, Burton can still be Burton so we don't need to panic and say, "Oh no, who can play the "4" now?" And, no one is asking for four 6'5" to 6'7" interchangeable guys, but wow, if teams had that and they were talented with a good PG and big, they would rarely lose.
So is it agreeable amongst us posters that we will refer to the positions on the court as a 1, a 5 and 3 3s or the 9 position?
I will wade into this "positionless" vs. positions mess with my opinion (because there is no right or wrong). And for what its worth, I am a coach who has regularly discussed "roles", "positions", "fit" whatever you want to call it with college coaches (albeit on the girls' side).
First off let's understand that when anyone (coach, player, announcer etc.) talks about "positionless basketball" they are really only talking about offense only. The term refers almost exclusively to that. There are defenses that "switch everything" (another misunderstood term) but that's not what people mean by "positionless basketball".
Coaches(!!) who preach it and teach it (players and announcers often have no idea what they mean) are almost always referring to an offensive system that is "rules based". That is, there are a series of rules (usually with options) and the rules and spots on the floor they can take a player are the same for everyone and not position based. Example,- its a rule that after you make a pass from the perimeter, you must cut to the basket and once you get to the basket, you have 3 options what to do next - - - post up, set a back screen for a perimeter player or fill open space on the perimeter. So your shortest guy (often historically called the PG) can make a pass, basket cut and then post up if he (or "she" as I am used to saying) wants to. And your tallest guy (historically the C) can pass, cut and fill right back out to the perimeter if she wants. The rules are the same for everyone and as a result, everyone is learning exactly the same thing. And there are no labels on positions ) and players can be freely interchanged because everyone has been taught the same thing regardless of size etc. And following this offense we have seen, in particular, the dawning of "bigs" out on the perimeter - - - shooting, passing etc. when they traditionally were more stationed down low somewhere. There are some that think its just "motion" offense on steriods, but it really is more than that because most true motion offenses had multiple sets of rules for different players/positions.
That's "theory" of positionless offense. Reality is not that "pure".
Coaches don't always want their short guys posting up and shooting Kareem sky hooks or their big brute working on his Curly Neal dribbling routine on the perimeter etc. So they teach players that when they have "options" they want to be taking the "best" action and that's based on a whole host of things - - who is guarding you, what teammates are where etc. AND --- whether explicitly stated or not - - - your own size and skills. Thus the big guys (that aren't great shooters) will learn that the "right" "option" for them involves a lot of posting up and screen setting and not so much perimeter filling and the short guy might learn the opposite etc. Some coaches are somewhat "pure" with their positionless concept (almost always because they have bigs who can shoot) while others are extremely rigid about the options within the positionless system such that players are playing more traditional roles even if not labeled. One thing that's crucial here is to understand that postionless basketball rarely means 5 of the same skill set guys. There will be bigs, quick guys, in between guys, shooters, slashers, and down low beasts. You will want a balance of skills etc. (for defense as well as offense) and you will attempt to play to each players strengths (duh!). What this ends up looking like is often a LOT like regular old offense looks like as you try to get your beast down low but not on the perimeter where even dribbling might be a challenge and to open up floor space for super quick little guy to try and drive etc. So
even positionless offenses end up with roles that get filled and they look a lot like traditional roles a lot of the time - - especially as you move down in level because the number of multi-skilled players diminishes quickly.
So, I coach a "positionless" offense on my AAU teams and we never, ever use the terms PG, SG, SF, PF or C or "1" "2" etc. to teach it or play it. This has another huge advantage at my level - - - I typically have 4-6 kids on my team who are PG on their high school team and/or think they want or need to be a PG in college. By being positionless, I never have to disappoint any of them.
As it applies to the Spiders and the debate about using the terms etc. - - - its unclear to me if we are positionless on offense or not. We are certainly not "pure" positionless, but we may have a common set of rules that apply to all but simply end up looking more structured based because of what kids are taught about their options or next best actions. But its not all that important because we clearly have roles that are fairly well defined. We look really only for Grant or Nate (all this is based on the starting 5 playing together) down low and our preferred spot for them down low is much more in the short corner than on the block and we are happy to let them dribble and back their man in etc. But no one else gets the ball here. Similarly, the offense runs through the high post entry pass to the same two guys. These two roles for example are well defined and we don't very often see another member of this 5 man group getting the ball in these spots. The two, however, seem somewhat interchangeable on offense with each other although not with the others. Most notably, Blake and JAcob's spots also seem somewhat interchangeable too. Tyler's spot appears unique and not so interchangeable with either of the other two sets. Again, this may be because we are in fact not positionless or we are, but more defined roles emerge anyway.
On defense, Grant almost always takes the biggest, strongest player ( a job that is traditionally labeled center). This is his role - - to cover that guy. The word Center or "5" man may not appear on anything in our playbook - - offensively or defensively - - but its the role that Grant plays that 5's traditionally play. Especially on defense.
So labeling Grant as our 5 because he does the things that 5's typically do seems totally appropriate to me. And when someone says Trey will have to be the 4 next year, I understand that to mean, he would take on a different role in our offense (where Grant and Nate play the interchangeable "4" and "5" ROLES now) assuming we ran the same offense and he would cover the other teams 2nd biggest or most physical player and not their 3rd most on defense. These are roles - - - we might not be worried about that say on defense because we don't think there will be a big difference on most of our opponents between their 2nd and 3rd biggest guy etc. but Trey is taking a different guy most nights next year than this year - - a new role. I understand these things based on the traditional positional names and numbers. To me, saying we can't label a player ignores the reality that he plays a role. The number is just short hand to define the role that exists in both positionless and non-positionless offense and even more so exists on defense.
Now, all of that said, regardless of whether we are or aren't positionless, we may think its a bad idea to put Trey in that role. So we could either put someone else in that 4 role OR change our offense such that, for example, instead of having two big guys (Nate and Grant) filling interchangeable roles (that look like 4 or 5 roles) we have only one role for a "big" and we have more interchangeable "3" and "4" roles. So under old parlance we might go from a 3 Out offense to a 4 out offense (or even a 5 out). But using the positions to define roles still seems easier and more intuitive to me than the alternative of defining the roles is detail etc.
I will say that its plain misleading in my opinion to think that positionless basketball means all players roles are interchangeable. Thus, for example, to say Trey might not have to play a different role next year because we are positionless (even assuming we are) is misleading. There are different roles. If we play the same offense next year, Trey will almost certainly have a different role. That may be because he is actually asked to play say the role that Nathan plays and because he is asked to be more assertive or whatever. In any event, I think its still "accurate" to define roles by reference to their traditional positional names/numbers and far more accurate than implying that positionless basketball means free interchangeability and no clearly established roles!
First off let's understand that when anyone (coach, player, announcer etc.) talks about "positionless basketball" they are really only talking about offense only. The term refers almost exclusively to that. There are defenses that "switch everything" (another misunderstood term) but that's not what people mean by "positionless basketball".
Coaches(!!) who preach it and teach it (players and announcers often have no idea what they mean) are almost always referring to an offensive system that is "rules based". That is, there are a series of rules (usually with options) and the rules and spots on the floor they can take a player are the same for everyone and not position based. Example,- its a rule that after you make a pass from the perimeter, you must cut to the basket and once you get to the basket, you have 3 options what to do next - - - post up, set a back screen for a perimeter player or fill open space on the perimeter. So your shortest guy (often historically called the PG) can make a pass, basket cut and then post up if he (or "she" as I am used to saying) wants to. And your tallest guy (historically the C) can pass, cut and fill right back out to the perimeter if she wants. The rules are the same for everyone and as a result, everyone is learning exactly the same thing. And there are no labels on positions ) and players can be freely interchanged because everyone has been taught the same thing regardless of size etc. And following this offense we have seen, in particular, the dawning of "bigs" out on the perimeter - - - shooting, passing etc. when they traditionally were more stationed down low somewhere. There are some that think its just "motion" offense on steriods, but it really is more than that because most true motion offenses had multiple sets of rules for different players/positions.
That's "theory" of positionless offense. Reality is not that "pure".
Coaches don't always want their short guys posting up and shooting Kareem sky hooks or their big brute working on his Curly Neal dribbling routine on the perimeter etc. So they teach players that when they have "options" they want to be taking the "best" action and that's based on a whole host of things - - who is guarding you, what teammates are where etc. AND --- whether explicitly stated or not - - - your own size and skills. Thus the big guys (that aren't great shooters) will learn that the "right" "option" for them involves a lot of posting up and screen setting and not so much perimeter filling and the short guy might learn the opposite etc. Some coaches are somewhat "pure" with their positionless concept (almost always because they have bigs who can shoot) while others are extremely rigid about the options within the positionless system such that players are playing more traditional roles even if not labeled. One thing that's crucial here is to understand that postionless basketball rarely means 5 of the same skill set guys. There will be bigs, quick guys, in between guys, shooters, slashers, and down low beasts. You will want a balance of skills etc. (for defense as well as offense) and you will attempt to play to each players strengths (duh!). What this ends up looking like is often a LOT like regular old offense looks like as you try to get your beast down low but not on the perimeter where even dribbling might be a challenge and to open up floor space for super quick little guy to try and drive etc. So
even positionless offenses end up with roles that get filled and they look a lot like traditional roles a lot of the time - - especially as you move down in level because the number of multi-skilled players diminishes quickly.
So, I coach a "positionless" offense on my AAU teams and we never, ever use the terms PG, SG, SF, PF or C or "1" "2" etc. to teach it or play it. This has another huge advantage at my level - - - I typically have 4-6 kids on my team who are PG on their high school team and/or think they want or need to be a PG in college. By being positionless, I never have to disappoint any of them.
As it applies to the Spiders and the debate about using the terms etc. - - - its unclear to me if we are positionless on offense or not. We are certainly not "pure" positionless, but we may have a common set of rules that apply to all but simply end up looking more structured based because of what kids are taught about their options or next best actions. But its not all that important because we clearly have roles that are fairly well defined. We look really only for Grant or Nate (all this is based on the starting 5 playing together) down low and our preferred spot for them down low is much more in the short corner than on the block and we are happy to let them dribble and back their man in etc. But no one else gets the ball here. Similarly, the offense runs through the high post entry pass to the same two guys. These two roles for example are well defined and we don't very often see another member of this 5 man group getting the ball in these spots. The two, however, seem somewhat interchangeable on offense with each other although not with the others. Most notably, Blake and JAcob's spots also seem somewhat interchangeable too. Tyler's spot appears unique and not so interchangeable with either of the other two sets. Again, this may be because we are in fact not positionless or we are, but more defined roles emerge anyway.
On defense, Grant almost always takes the biggest, strongest player ( a job that is traditionally labeled center). This is his role - - to cover that guy. The word Center or "5" man may not appear on anything in our playbook - - offensively or defensively - - but its the role that Grant plays that 5's traditionally play. Especially on defense.
So labeling Grant as our 5 because he does the things that 5's typically do seems totally appropriate to me. And when someone says Trey will have to be the 4 next year, I understand that to mean, he would take on a different role in our offense (where Grant and Nate play the interchangeable "4" and "5" ROLES now) assuming we ran the same offense and he would cover the other teams 2nd biggest or most physical player and not their 3rd most on defense. These are roles - - - we might not be worried about that say on defense because we don't think there will be a big difference on most of our opponents between their 2nd and 3rd biggest guy etc. but Trey is taking a different guy most nights next year than this year - - a new role. I understand these things based on the traditional positional names and numbers. To me, saying we can't label a player ignores the reality that he plays a role. The number is just short hand to define the role that exists in both positionless and non-positionless offense and even more so exists on defense.
Now, all of that said, regardless of whether we are or aren't positionless, we may think its a bad idea to put Trey in that role. So we could either put someone else in that 4 role OR change our offense such that, for example, instead of having two big guys (Nate and Grant) filling interchangeable roles (that look like 4 or 5 roles) we have only one role for a "big" and we have more interchangeable "3" and "4" roles. So under old parlance we might go from a 3 Out offense to a 4 out offense (or even a 5 out). But using the positions to define roles still seems easier and more intuitive to me than the alternative of defining the roles is detail etc.
I will say that its plain misleading in my opinion to think that positionless basketball means all players roles are interchangeable. Thus, for example, to say Trey might not have to play a different role next year because we are positionless (even assuming we are) is misleading. There are different roles. If we play the same offense next year, Trey will almost certainly have a different role. That may be because he is actually asked to play say the role that Nathan plays and because he is asked to be more assertive or whatever. In any event, I think its still "accurate" to define roles by reference to their traditional positional names/numbers and far more accurate than implying that positionless basketball means free interchangeability and no clearly established roles!
Okay, so you tell me what number you would give guys like Nick or Andre? Or, guys like Buck, JJ, and Wood? Or, even small guards like Khwan and ShawnDre? Or, Allen, Davis, Taylor, and Robins? Or, how about Harper? Was he really a "4"? Really?
Not at all. When you don't understand the game, make everyone the same?
The position number isn't stamped on the players forehead. It's assigned to the responsibility on the floor. Harper was used in Mooney's system as a Stretch 4 but I guess if he was asked to routinely bring the ball up the floor, break the press and run the offense he would have been a 1. Since he didn't do that I guess that wasn't his position.
Last edited:
3 and 4 guard lineups don't have numbers beside them, but we can just disagree. All good. I was originally just asking for sman's comments because he and I have discussed this before. He mentioned Burton will be the 4. My point is what does it matter what number he has, he will still be Burton and play like Burton. If we play a team with 3 or 4 guards on the floor, are we really worried about who will guard their "4"?
To Philly's point, Cayo always operates low post and Grant at high post 5. As did TJ before him. We seem really rooted in position basketball, but some like to make it rocket science like Mooney and his match up zone that worked for a couple years, then only fooled Mooney and his own players.
Cayo definitely doesn't play offense like a 3 so it's easy to call him a 4. that's not the case with all bigger forwards.
when I'm calling Burton a 4 next year, I'm not looking to change ANYTHING about his offensive game. I'm just saying that with our roster construction, he'll be the bigger forward on the floor so he'll cover other teams' bigger forwards. right now he's the smaller forward ... even if he's as tall or a little taller than Nate.
this would change if we add a late big forward type who's one of our top 5 players. or if Nathan decides to come back. Burton still starts but then he's the smaller forward. nothing changes about his game.
that's why I say Crabtree will also play some 4 for us. his game doesn't change. but if Burton is out, he might be the bigger forward on the floor at times. I know Crabtree was called a guard at Tulane. in the NBA he might be a 2 guard. but with our roster construction, we have a lot of smaller guard types who are better ball handlers. we always play 2 of them. so I never see Crabtree playing the 2 for us. he's a true 3 who might have to defend a 4 sometimes.
when I'm calling Burton a 4 next year, I'm not looking to change ANYTHING about his offensive game. I'm just saying that with our roster construction, he'll be the bigger forward on the floor so he'll cover other teams' bigger forwards. right now he's the smaller forward ... even if he's as tall or a little taller than Nate.
this would change if we add a late big forward type who's one of our top 5 players. or if Nathan decides to come back. Burton still starts but then he's the smaller forward. nothing changes about his game.
that's why I say Crabtree will also play some 4 for us. his game doesn't change. but if Burton is out, he might be the bigger forward on the floor at times. I know Crabtree was called a guard at Tulane. in the NBA he might be a 2 guard. but with our roster construction, we have a lot of smaller guard types who are better ball handlers. we always play 2 of them. so I never see Crabtree playing the 2 for us. he's a true 3 who might have to defend a 4 sometimes.
Similar threads
