Well...
if they both shoot better than Sherod and handle better than Anthony, I think we will be ok...
Minutes
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
if they both shoot better than Sherod and handle better than Anthony, I think we will be ok...
Reading the tea leaves, it's sounding like in competitive games:
Wilson backs up Gilyard and Francis (10 mins)
Goose backs up Francis and Burton (25 mins)
Sal backs up Burton and Cayo (15 mins)
Grace backs up Golden (7-10 mins)
Wilson backs up Gilyard and Francis (10 mins)
Goose backs up Francis and Burton (25 mins)
Sal backs up Burton and Cayo (15 mins)
Grace backs up Golden (7-10 mins)
Sigh. There is no "3". When was the last time you heard the words "small forward" used? I just can't figure out why you stubbornly keep saying "the 1, the 2, the 3, the 4, and the 5" when no one uses those terms anymore. Not in high school, especially not at AAU, not in college, and not in the pros. AAU coaches know the last thing you want to do with a kid is give him a position number because colleges would not be interested in kids who are not versatile. The game has changed. Come aboard.
Last edited:
If you go look at any coaching diagram, they typically label the positions 1-5. I don’t think anyone is being dogmatic about this, it’s a very normal way of talking about the general roles that guys play.
Not in the past 10 years. That's why you now see 4 guard lineups and positions listed as G or F. And, I seriously doubt too many people on other message boards are debating and worrying about "who will play the 4", and "who will play the 3", but it seems like we can't get through a thread without hearing that. It's just outdated, that's all. Depending on who else is on the floor, of course Sal could come in for Burton sometimes. Doesn't mean he has to be the same player and play the same way as Burton. Sometimes, we will go big and other times we will go small, so why would it make sense to have to sub a so called 3 for a 3?
We might as well discuss things like how we would play without the 3 point line or shot clock. But, no worries. We can just disagree.
We might as well discuss things like how we would play without the 3 point line or shot clock. But, no worries. We can just disagree.
Last edited:
I think you can both be right. AAU and college coaches are not going to pigeon hole a kid in the recruiting process. But once he gets to campus and in games, you essentially need to be able to guard and play a position. Sherod is not a guard, he is a wing /SF/ 3, what ever you want to call it. So was Scottie Pippen. I remember telling my buddy who is a Celtics fan a couple years ago - roster does not really work - you have three wings - Tatum, Brown and Hayward. Never fit. Never had that knock down Ray Allen type at 2. I still see this occuring with rosters. Most variance is 2/3/4 but SHerod was never a 1,2,4 or 5. But yes, we basically list everyone as a guard or forward. Don't want to scare anyone away.
Numbered positions or not, if Sal at 6'9" is regularly playing out on the perimeter on either side of the ball, we're in trouble.
Of course we don't want him out there, and there is no reason for him to ever have to do that. There are plenty of lineup scenarios where he won't be doing that. But, no matter where he plays, you can always survive what might be a strange looking lineup for a few minutes here and there, especially if the matchup warrants it.
like you said. we can just disagree.
I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think lineups still fall into the 1-5 slots. I'm not saying guys can't play multiple positions. we do have flexibility. but just because we call Grant and Matt and Andre forwards doesn't make them forwards. they aren't interchangeable with other forwards. they do different things.
I have no idea why some people are so reluctant to use positional terms anymore. it's not an accident that when a player like Jacob Gilyard is graduating, we replace him on the roster with a guy like Jason Nelson. Marcus Randolph is also called a guard, but they're not the same player. I don't have to ignore that to just call them both guards.
our starting lineup is:
Gilyard
Francis
Burton
Cayo
Golden
in that order. that's our 1-5. we'll likely never see a lineup without either Golden, Grace or Weir at the 5 ... because teams still use a 5.
and my point stands about Sal not coming in for Burton because I don't think we'll ever see Sal on the floor with Nathan and a big like Grant. at least I hope not.
I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think lineups still fall into the 1-5 slots. I'm not saying guys can't play multiple positions. we do have flexibility. but just because we call Grant and Matt and Andre forwards doesn't make them forwards. they aren't interchangeable with other forwards. they do different things.
I have no idea why some people are so reluctant to use positional terms anymore. it's not an accident that when a player like Jacob Gilyard is graduating, we replace him on the roster with a guy like Jason Nelson. Marcus Randolph is also called a guard, but they're not the same player. I don't have to ignore that to just call them both guards.
our starting lineup is:
Gilyard
Francis
Burton
Cayo
Golden
in that order. that's our 1-5. we'll likely never see a lineup without either Golden, Grace or Weir at the 5 ... because teams still use a 5.
and my point stands about Sal not coming in for Burton because I don't think we'll ever see Sal on the floor with Nathan and a big like Grant. at least I hope not.
Well, yes, teams have a PG and some have a big, but that is a far cry from saying they worry about having a 1 through 5.
You could look at our starting lineup and make them 1-5, but when we sub for Nate, we don't have to bring in a "4", right? You would probably say if Andre subs for Nate, move Burton to the "4", but is that really what we are doing? Is Burton really going to play like Nate then, or will he still be Burton? There will be plenty of times our lineup doesn't have what looks like an old 1-5 lineup because we, like every other school now, don't worry about that anymore.
And, Sal could then come in for Burton depending on who else is on the floor. The game has changed. There are usually numerous lineup changes with subs coming in and out now. Gs come in for Fs, and vice versa all the time. As for worrying about the "4" position, I mentioned small forward earlier, but how long has it been since we heard "power forward"?
You could look at our starting lineup and make them 1-5, but when we sub for Nate, we don't have to bring in a "4", right? You would probably say if Andre subs for Nate, move Burton to the "4", but is that really what we are doing? Is Burton really going to play like Nate then, or will he still be Burton? There will be plenty of times our lineup doesn't have what looks like an old 1-5 lineup because we, like every other school now, don't worry about that anymore.
And, Sal could then come in for Burton depending on who else is on the floor. The game has changed. There are usually numerous lineup changes with subs coming in and out now. Gs come in for Fs, and vice versa all the time. As for worrying about the "4" position, I mentioned small forward earlier, but how long has it been since we heard "power forward"?
I hear "stretch 4" all of the time if that player can shoot the 3, if he can't I hear him called a "traditional/back to basket 4". That is what we have on the floor in Cayo, a traditional 4. Either way that player cannot typically be 6'4 b/c needs to guard the other teams big guy.
exactly. I'm not saying every 4 has to play like Kevin McHale. he's a bigger forward. he can be 100% inside like Cayo, or banging 3's like Harper. other 4's over the years include Sal, Terry Allen, Marshall Wood, Derrick Williams, Jarhon Giggings, Gaston Moliva ...
some are strickly 4's. some are 4/5's. some are 3/4's. but they can all defend another team's big forward.
some are strickly 4's. some are 4/5's. some are 3/4's. but they can all defend another team's big forward.
I think it is pretty obvious looking at Mooney’s substitution patterns that there are 5 distinct positions on Mooney’s teams. Call them whatever you want, I see no reason to not use the term 1-5.
I get what VT is saying, but I also think it's somewhat important to have a pecking order and depth chart. Particularly with the guard positions, I was just curious whether we view Wilson or Nelson as the primary ball handler. I feel like it could be Wilson because I think Nelson might be a true scorer. But hopefully they can both fill each role and it's a non-issue.
I hear you, EL. While I think it would be great if both can play the point, you do want one of them to be the guy at PG. But, not sure about the importance of pecking order because lineups and reserve minutes can change a lot based on matchups.
I do like Mooney's comments on WIlson, though hopefully not the kiss of death haha. It does back up my thoughts on him from the limited highlights I have seen: Quick, tough, bulldog, plays defense and distributes. He is getting a great "education" going up against Gilly and Francis everyday in practice, and it does sound like he will get PT this year so that is good. I listened to Noah's podcast, and I do agree with Mooney that playing in actual games is very valuable in order to develop. I am hoping Dji, Andre and WIlson all get significant playing time, though it doesn't seem really likely. All look like future starters to me.
it will be interesting to see develop. Wilson gets the year advantage. both are natural PGs, but one will rise above and end up a 30 mpg guy at that spot. the other can certainly play along side, but he'll be in competition with a bunch of guys at that off-guard spot.
