Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 13:40:11 GMT -5
Idk what type of PG Dsr can become but I know he an all BE SG and probably a top 3 player in the conference when he plays the SG position. He’s an efficient 18 ppg 4-5 boards and 4 assists as a SG. He’s the best scorer in the League as a SG.
I think that’s the sentiment. It’s not about him playing poorly or not playing poorly, it’s about where he will be most successful and what maximizes the potential of this team.. You can make a good argument for either one imo..
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 20, 2014 13:51:05 GMT -5
Ehhh Peak is 6’5 unless he shrunk… That lineup is definitely bigger than the Louisville lineup that cut down the Nets a few years back I would disagree. Louisville was huge in the front court with Center: 6-11 Gorgui Deng (7-4 wingspan) Power Forwards: 6-7 Montrezl Hazell, 6-7 250 lbs Chase Behannen Small Forwards: 6-6 Luke Hancock, 6-5 Kevin Ware, 6-5 William Blackshear Shotblocking and rebounding eraser Gorgui Deng and Hazell who has elite athleticism were able support and cover for the small backcourt. We really don't have that type of athleticism and shot altering presence in the front court to make up for a smaller 1,2,3. As far as Peak, alot of sites have him listed at 6-4. Even at 6-5, that's not big for a forward as you had guys like 6-8 Otto Porter and 6-8 Dajuan Summers/6-9 Jeff Green at those positions.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,861
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 20, 2014 13:51:41 GMT -5
Why don't we just play: 6-10: Josh Smith 6-9: Mikael Hopkins 6-6: Aaron Bowen 6-3: DSR D-1: Tre Campbell that's not all that small in fact that's probably the height of an average high major line up. and Heck you could even put White or Copeland and SF and be taller than the average team. Because Josh Smith will probably only give you 20-25 minutes. So Hopkins will have to play center where he will be undersized against the more elite teams. That causes a trickle down effect as now Hopkins vacates power forward and you will have to put a shorter/smaller guy at power forward. Stubbornly forcing DSR exclusively to the 2, limits our size and length potential. You want to have DSR and LJ Peak (undersized 3) on the floor as much as possible because they appear to be our only consistent scorers/outside shooters. Against the more elite teams Peak is undersized at small forward, so ideally you want him as the de facto shooting guard with DSR at the point. Essentially, any lineup where Tre Campbell is getting the majority of the minutes at the point, with DSR getting the majority at the two will be problematic in terms of rebounding and size issues. The least successful postseason unit had 6-1 Wright at Point, 6-2 Jason Clark (albeit with 6-7 wingspan) at shooting guard and 6-3 Austin Freeman at small forward. It was a very small lineup and I think against elite teams with length or during the tournament, the size disadvantage hurt us. Playing at that kind of disadvantage, especially when you are essentially undersized at center and powerforward (when Josh Smith is on the bench) is a recipe for disaster. I don't like your theory because it works off the premise that if DSR plays off the ball then Jabril or Peak has to sit so Tre C. can start.. This does not have to be the case at all.. DSR, Jabril & Peak can & should continue to play a lot of minutes and Campbell's role should stay the same as well..
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 20, 2014 13:55:19 GMT -5
Idk what type of PG Dsr can become but I know he an all BE SG and probably a top 3 player in the conference when he plays the SG position. He’s an efficient 18 ppg 4-5 boards and 4 assists as a SG. He’s the best scorer in the League as a SG. I think that’s the sentiment. It’s not about him playing poorly or not playing poorly, it’s about where he will be most successful and what maximizes the potential of this team.. You can make a good argument for either one imo.. For the makeup of this team, it's best that DSR plays point. Because there are two many good shooting guard/swingmen/small forwards in Trawick, LJ Peak, Bowen, Copeland and playing Tre Campbell alot will cut into those guys minutes. That's basically the issue. If you want to make Trawick or LJ Peak the de facto point that's fine as long as you still have DSR in there with them. I want LJ Peak, Trawick and DSR in there for the majority of the game. They are the most reliable players. If DSR is forced to exclusively play the 2 then we don't have our best guys out there.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 20, 2014 14:01:21 GMT -5
Because Josh Smith will probably only give you 20-25 minutes. So Hopkins will have to play center where he will be undersized against the more elite teams. That causes a trickle down effect as now Hopkins vacates power forward and you will have to put a shorter/smaller guy at power forward. Stubbornly forcing DSR exclusively to the 2, limits our size and length potential. You want to have DSR and LJ Peak (undersized 3) on the floor as much as possible because they appear to be our only consistent scorers/outside shooters. Against the more elite teams Peak is undersized at small forward, so ideally you want him as the de facto shooting guard with DSR at the point. Essentially, any lineup where Tre Campbell is getting the majority of the minutes at the point, with DSR getting the majority at the two will be problematic in terms of rebounding and size issues. The least successful postseason unit had 6-1 Wright at Point, 6-2 Jason Clark (albeit with 6-7 wingspan) at shooting guard and 6-3 Austin Freeman at small forward. It was a very small lineup and I think against elite teams with length or during the tournament, the size disadvantage hurt us. Playing at that kind of disadvantage, especially when you are essentially undersized at center and powerforward (when Josh Smith is on the bench) is a recipe for disaster. I don't like your theory because it works off the premise that if DSR plays off the ball then Jabril or Peak has to sit so Tre C. can start.. This does not have to be the case at all.. DSR, Jabril & Peak can & should continue to play a lot of minutes and Campbell's role should stay the same as well.. Well that's the status quo though. If those three are out there the majority of the time (DSR, Jabril, Peak) then it doesn't really matter who is the point things will work itself out. It would be relatively simple to share or change ball handling duties or play off the ball. I have no problem with that. But I get the feeling, that those who want DSR exclusively at the 2 want to bring in Tre Campbell to play alot of minutes at the point, and I don't think that best for the makeup of this year's unit. Because if I had to pick 3 guys out of DSR/Jabril/Peak/Tre Campbell to be on the floor, I would always want DSR/Jabril/Trawick out there for the majority of the time for this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:05:26 GMT -5
Ehhh Peak is 6’5 unless he shrunk… That lineup is definitely bigger than the Louisville lineup that cut down the Nets a few years back I would disagree. Louisville was huge in the front court with Center: 6-11 Gorgui Deng (7-4 wingspan) Power Forwards: 6-7 Montrezl Hazell, 6-7 250 lbs Chase Behannen Small Forwards: 6-6 Luke Hancock, 6-5 Kevin Ware, 6-5 William Blackshear Shotblocking and rebounding eraser Gorgui Deng and Hazell who has elite athleticism were able support and cover for the small backcourt. We really don't have that type of athleticism and shot altering presence in the front court to make up for a smaller 1,2,3. As far as Peak, alot of sites have him listed at 6-4. Even at 6-5, that's not big for a forward as you had guys like 6-8 Otto Porter and 6-8 Dajuan Summers/6-9 Jeff Green at those positions. Every Small Forward you listed above is 6’5 except the unathletic Luke Hancock who is 6’6? And their guards were maybe 6’0 (Siva) and 6’0 (Smith). Kid looks a legit 6’5 to me. he looks bigger than Jabril or at minimum the same height. 6-10: Josh Smith 6-9: Mikael Hopkins 6-5: Peak 6-3: DSR 6-2 or 6-5: Tre Campbell, Trawick That’s really not small for College Basketball but you aren’t stuck with that lineup you still have options off the bench to go Big if you would like. Obviously if you start Trawick at PG it’s the same line-up just diff positions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:10:51 GMT -5
Idk what type of PG Dsr can become but I know he an all BE SG and probably a top 3 player in the conference when he plays the SG position. He’s an efficient 18 ppg 4-5 boards and 4 assists as a SG. He’s the best scorer in the League as a SG. I think that’s the sentiment. It’s not about him playing poorly or not playing poorly, it’s about where he will be most successful and what maximizes the potential of this team.. You can make a good argument for either one imo.. For the makeup of this team, it's best that DSR plays point. Because there are two many good shooting guard/swingmen/small forwards in Trawick, LJ Peak, Bowen, Copeland and playing Tre Campbell alot will cut into those guys minutes. That's basically the issue. If you want to make Trawick or LJ Peak the de facto point that's fine as long as you still have DSR in there with them. I want LJ Peak, Trawick and DSR in there for the majority of the game. They are the most reliable players. If DSR is forced to exclusively play the 2 then we don't have our best guys out there. I’m not changing the starting lineup just the positions next to their names I think there’s a bigger drop off between DSR’s scoring ability and the next best SG (Trawick) Than there is between DSR at PG and the next best PG’s (Tre and Jabril). I would argue that Tre has run the team better than D at this point and between him and Jabril there is very little if any drop-off…
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 20, 2014 14:13:46 GMT -5
Obviously if you start Trawick at PG it’s the same line-up just diff positions. That's what I'm saying though. No matter how you put it I want Trawick, Peak, DSR in there most of the time. And you still have to account for Bowen and Copeland to take minutes from those 3. Now Copeland may backup at power forward but just looking at him I think he may be too skinny (this year) to play that position against elite competition and that at least for this year his best position will also be small forward. There's such a log jam of guys at the 2 and 3 position that having DSR nominally at the 1 opens up minutes for the rest of those guys. Essentially what I'm saying is I don't want Tre Campbell playing too many minutes because it adversely effects all our swingmen.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Nov 20, 2014 14:19:39 GMT -5
I like Tre Campbell. I can easily see him playing 15+ mins per game. But this early in the yr, who really knows with freshmen...
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 20, 2014 14:21:22 GMT -5
For the makeup of this team, it's best that DSR plays point. Because there are two many good shooting guard/swingmen/small forwards in Trawick, LJ Peak, Bowen, Copeland and playing Tre Campbell alot will cut into those guys minutes. That's basically the issue. If you want to make Trawick or LJ Peak the de facto point that's fine as long as you still have DSR in there with them. I want LJ Peak, Trawick and DSR in there for the majority of the game. They are the most reliable players. If DSR is forced to exclusively play the 2 then we don't have our best guys out there. I’m not changing the starting lineup just the positions next to their names I think there’s a bigger drop off between DSR’s scoring ability and the next best SG (Trawick) Than there is between DSR at PG and the next best PG’s (Tre and Jabril).I would argue that Tre has ran the team better than D at this point and between him and Jabril their is very little if any drop-off… Scoring wise I would agree. I think Tre may be a more reliable 3pt shooter but it's still a small sample size. However, Jabril is a much better slasher and attacker of the rim and offensive rebounder, and much longer and better defender and rebounder on the defensive end than Tre. And on the press Trawick's length and athleticism will make him much more effective than Tre especially when combined with Peak/Bowen. So when you take their overall game Trawick's game is alot better than Tre's at this stage. Now if Tre turns into Allen Iverson that is a different story but Iverson was ranked top 2 in the nation coming out of high school and Tre's ranking is nowhere near that so it's probably doubtful that that happens.
|
|
|
Post by lancasterhoyafan on Nov 20, 2014 14:25:31 GMT -5
If John Wallace could run pg for a Hoya team that made the Final 4, DSR can definitely do this. The biggest difference is that We had Hibbert catching the ball at the top and Josh Smith is more of a down low player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:25:57 GMT -5
Obviously if you start Trawick at PG it’s the same line-up just diff positions. That's what I'm saying though. No matter how you put it I want Trawick, Peak, DSR in there most of the time. And you still have to account for Bowen and Copeland to take minutes from those 3. Now Copeland may backup at power forward but just looking at him I think he may be too skinny (this year) to play that position against elite competition and that at least for this year his best position will also be small forward. There's such a log jam of guys at the 2 and 3 position that having DSR nominally at the 1 opens up minutes for the rest of those guys. Essentially what I'm saying is I don't want Tre Campbell playing too many minutes because it adversely effects all our swingmen. I don’t understand how moving Bril to the 1 eats up any minutes and honestly for me that’s a small concern. I don’t really care if some guys minutes get cut, that’s going to happen anyway. When games get closer and more competitive rotations will tighten
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:28:57 GMT -5
If John Wallace could run pg for a Hoya team that made the Final 4, DSR can definitely do this. The biggest difference is that We had Hibbert catching the ball at the top and Josh Smith is more of a down low player. Can, but is that most effective? Kobe CAN play the point but is it smart to put the best SG in the world at the 1? Obviously that’s an extreme example but in our league DSR is the best SG and an 18 4 and 4 guy at the 2
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,861
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 20, 2014 14:29:59 GMT -5
If John Wallace could run pg for a Hoya team that made the Final 4, DSR can definitely do this. The biggest difference is that We had Hibbert catching the ball at the top and Josh Smith is more of a down low player. Sapp was the lead guard for that team not Wallace
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Nov 20, 2014 14:32:13 GMT -5
Valid point by EasyEd. I think the lack of comments is due, to a significant degree, to the inability of a number of HoyaTalk posters to actually see the game live because of the inaccessibility of Fox Sports 2 on their local cable outlets. Maybe that is the functional equivalent of a cold night. Is there anywhere to even see highlights? I can't find any of either game online.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:32:54 GMT -5
I’m not changing the starting lineup just the positions next to their names I think there’s a bigger drop off between DSR’s scoring ability and the next best SG (Trawick) Than there is between DSR at PG and the next best PG’s (Tre and Jabril).I would argue that Tre has ran the team better than D at this point and between him and Jabril their is very little if any drop-off… Scoring wise I would agree. I think Tre may be a more reliable 3pt shooter but it's still a small sample size. However, Jabril is a much better slasher and attacker of the rim and offensive rebounder, and much longer and better defender and rebounder on the defensive end than Tre. And on the press Trawick's length and athleticism will make him much more effective than Tre especially when combined with Peak/Bowen. So when you take their overall game Trawick's game is alot better than Tre's at this stage. Now if Tre turns into Allen Iverson that is a different story but Iverson was ranked top 2 in the nation coming out of high school and Tre's ranking is nowhere near that so it's probably doubtful that that happens. I wasn’t really comparing Tre and Brill. I was comparing their play at PG to DSR’s play at PG. If you replace DSR at the 1 with Trawick how much is there a dropoff at that position? I would argue it’s minimal if any.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Nov 20, 2014 18:38:07 GMT -5
If John Wallace could run pg for a Hoya team that made the Final 4, DSR can definitely do this. The biggest difference is that We had Hibbert catching the ball at the top and Josh Smith is more of a down low player. Sapp was the lead guard for that team not Wallace No, Wallace was the lead guard, Green was the facilitator and Sapp dribbled the ball up the court when we weren't being pressed. In our offense there can be very very little difference between the 1,2, 3, and 4 positions as 2005-2008 proved. We don't need a point guard. My point is that you can call DSR a 1,2, or 3 all you want, I don't think it's his "position" that is what is causing a subpar fir two games. I think it's adjusting to 5 new players, added leadership responsibilities, and losing a guy who can create for him like Starks. He will adjust, we just need to be patient.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Nov 20, 2014 19:32:27 GMT -5
Sapp was the lead guard for that team not Wallace No, Wallace was the lead guard, Green was the facilitator and Sapp dribbled the ball up the court when we weren't being pressed. In our offense there can be very very little difference between the 1,2, 3, and 4 positions as 2005-2008 proved. We don't need a point guard. My point is that you can call DSR a 1,2, or 3 all you want, I don't think it's his "position" that is what is causing a subpar fir two games. I think it's adjusting to 5 new players, added leadership responsibilities, and losing a guy who can create for him like Starks. He will adjust, we just need to be patient. Yes
|
|
|
Post by BubbleVisionBiff on Nov 20, 2014 20:19:52 GMT -5
I think DSR sat because of Jordan's ability to get into the lane seemingly at will, not necessarily because of DSR's struggles on offense. He did get a 3 ball and earned two trips to the line.
To play Devil's Advocate, if you start Tre, which of Jabril or LJ do you sit? Not sure I want to have to make that choice.
If there is a way to get DSR off the ball a couple of times in the half court, then I think he will get on track. When you think about it, the new tempo is taking some of his shots, since he is not likely to be the one attacking on the break, and so much was built around him and Markel last year.
I wonder if better defenses will, ironically, be better for him, since driving lanes are likely to be closed off a little more frequently and doubles will come on Joshua more quickly, and DSR can get the ball back off a kick out or reversal, and then do his voodoo.
EDIT: SF and Big Dog said it better a few pages back.
|
|