If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
If BU plays this starting line up this year and finishes 5th again at .500, would you re-consider?
No. When every single coach uses the same strategy in the MVC, theres probably something to it. The #1 team uses it, the #10 team uses it. In the MVC you simply cannot get solid enough big men to play a 3 'big' line up. You guys are also getting way to hung up on AW being called a guard. 6'6" is big enough to be considered a SF in the NBA, why is it such a problem at BU? (Average SF NBA Height is 6' 7.5"). Basketball is far more intricate than going from a 3 'guard' to a 3 'big' line-up. Why is it that if we play a 3 'guard' lineup, we're nto changing anything and destined for mediocrity (even though it is the same thing as everyone else in the conference is doing)?
No. When every single coach uses the same strategy in the MVC, theres probably something to it. The #1 team uses it, the #10 team uses it. In the MVC you simply cannot get solid enough big men to play a 3 'big' line up. You guys are also getting way to hung up on AW being called a guard. 6'6" is big enough to be considered a SF in the NBA, why is it such a problem at BU? (Average SF NBA Height is 6' 7.5"). Basketball is far more intricate than going from a 3 'guard' to a 3 'big' line-up. Why is it that if we play a 3 'guard' lineup, we're nto changing anything and destined for mediocrity (even though it is the same thing as everyone else in the conference is doing)?
IMO the teams in the MVC utilize the same strategy as it is very difficult to land big players to MVC type schools. When they do land the bigs, they are most likely to be "projects". --again I am generalizing here--- However, I think that this year, we can be different than those MVC schools and utilize a bigger lineup! If JP is as good as I think he is, we can go with a larger starting lineup which in turn, will allow us to have multiple substitution options.
Bradley 72 - Illini 68 Final
???It??™s awful hard,??™??™ said Illini freshman guard D.J. Richardson, the former Central High School guard who played prep school ball a few miles from here and fought back tears outside the locker room. ???It??™s a hometown thing. It??™s bragging rights.??™
IMO the teams in the MVC utilize the same strategy as it is very difficult to land big players to MVC type schools. When they do land the bigs, they are most likely to be "projects". --again I am generalizing here--- However, I think that this year, we can be different than those MVC schools and utilize a bigger lineup! If JP is as good as I think he is, we can go with a larger starting lineup which in turn, will allow us to have multiple substitution options.
Lay out the minutes with a 3 big lineup. Who is our sub? AT? If he doesn't develop? It really doesn't make sense. We have 2 'proven' bigs, and 2 backups, if we start three we're talking about them all playing more minutes than SM, AW, DD, DSE. There is no way they could physically handle that, nor would it be good for the team. If we're relying on a freshman or a player who has never shown a basketball IQ to start, and the worse one as pretty much our sole back up for the 4 and 5 spots, we are going to be playing at a time other than 2:30, but on the wrong side of the seeding. Seriously, any coach knows with our roster that starting 3 bigs is asking to just get dumped on.
not sure where this is all going and how much it matters...I am all for SM AW TB WE and JP playing some minutes together as that would give many teams fits on matching up...but our strength is found in our guards...with the seniors we have..it gives us an advantage as well as one of the best coming off the bench (DSE) ...
SM AW DD TB and WE looks great....but I am really thinking JP will give us a nice option inside...
I guess in the end...who cares who starts...lets find some magic with a bunch of options...
Lay out the minutes with a 3 big lineup. Who is our sub? AT? If he doesn't develop? It really doesn't make sense. We have 2 'proven' bigs, and 2 backups, if we start three we're talking about them all playing more minutes than SM, AW, DD, DSE. There is no way they could physically handle that, nor would it be good for the team. If we're relying on a freshman or a player who has never shown a basketball IQ to start, and the worse one as pretty much our sole back up for the 4 and 5 spots, we are going to be playing at a time other than 2:30, but on the wrong side of the seeding. Seriously, any coach knows with our roster that starting 3 bigs is asking to just get dumped on.
First, the thing I like about DSE and JP is that I believe that they are among the best players with a basketball IQ that we have recruited in a while. In the past, I have felt that we have recruited people who are athletes first. That being said, I think that the starting lineup that I have suggested is our best chance to win and REBOUND! The larger lineup is what I would like to see at crunch time.You are correct by stating that AT is a wildcard.......it is a starting lineup that offers a lot of different substitution patterns. A few examples below. Assuming AD is a redshirt and MK is a deep deep reserve...
Starters
SM
AW
TB
WE
JP
sub DSE for JP which gives you a traditional JL offense
SM
DSE
AW
TB
WE
sub DD for SM, JE for AW, JP for WE and we get
DD
DSE
JE
TB
JP
bring back SM for DSE, WL for TB, AW for JE, WE for JP
SM
DD
AW
WL
WE
From here, we could also use this lineup to give sticks a shot by blending AT in with an experienced lineup and yet another chance to go big.
Sub AT for WL
SM
DD
AW
AT
WE
Again just using these substitution patterns to illustrate how we can change things up with opponents and blend the experience with some youth.
Bradley 72 - Illini 68 Final
???It??™s awful hard,??™??™ said Illini freshman guard D.J. Richardson, the former Central High School guard who played prep school ball a few miles from here and fought back tears outside the locker room. ???It??™s a hometown thing. It??™s bragging rights.??™
I whole-heartedly believe that our team is better with DD starting over AT. How can you even say you don't know where I'm coming from. DD was a high major recruit who has proven himself as a solid contributor with 2 years of D-1 experience. You're telling me you want AT or JP who have ZERO productive D-1 years of expereince under there belt, over arguably the best defender in the MVC. And AW is small for a 3 in the MVC???
Last years '3's' in the MVC as of the tourney:
UNI - Kwadzo 6'3"
Drake - Frank Wiesler 6'2"
Evansville - Colt Ryan 6'5"
MSU - Jermaine Mallet - 6'3"
SIU - Justin Bocot - 6'3"p
ILSU - OE -6'3"
WSU - Toure' Murray
CU - Justin Carte - 6'4"
INSU - Jordan Printy - 6'4"
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? AW is the tallest 3 in the MVC, and only one team even listed their '3' as a forward.
Where do people keep saying 'we should play bigger', 'it's the way to success in the MVC', 'AW is small for a 3' etc. Sorry guys, I live in the real world where BU plays in the MVC, not the Big Ten. 6'0" 6'3" 6'6" 6'6" and 6'10" actually gives us a size advantage over several teams in the MVC and puts our best players on the court. No coach in the MVC would start TB, WE, AT/JP if they had the same roster as us. It leaves you with no depth and two of your most talented players, DD and DSE both on the bench, and buries guys like JE and WL. It just doesn't make sense.
Shouldn't be directed at me at all. I never once suggested that a 3 big lineup should start... I believe that SM AW DD TB WE is our best lineup. Look at my original post and all subsequent ones. In original post I gave TB 10 minutes at the 3. Point about boogie and AW is that they're the sane height but considerably different players. I believe bradley listed both guys at 6'5. The whole point of my post was that AWs size isn't the issue. His style of play is when it comes to being aforward.
Last edited by thefish7; 10-26-2010, 11:20 PM.
Reason: Typo/phone
Shouldn't be directed at me at all. I never once suggested that a 3 big lineup should start... I believe that SM AW DD TB WE is our best lineup. Look at my original post and all subsequent ones. In original post I gave 10 minutes at the 3. Point about boogie and AW is that they're the sane height but considerably different players. I believe bradley listed both guys at 6'5. The whole point of my post was that AWs size isn't the issue. His style of play is when it comes to being aforward.
I agree with your starters with DSE probably our 6th man in a guard oriented rotation and we really have to hope that at least JP or AT can fill in at the 5. If they can't we are in trouble. Then we can expect to see WE come in at the 4 to give TB a breather. I expect to see AW and TB play a ton on minutes. The guards will rotate nicely between DD, SM and DSE. I expect JE to give AW his breather for the most part. We will go with a 8/9 man rotation for the most part. If MK can give us minutes that will be great.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
??” Thomas Jefferson
sigpic
Shouldn't be directed at me at all. I never once suggested that a 3 big lineup should start... I believe that SM AW DD TB WE is our best lineup. Look at my original post and all subsequent ones. In original post I gave TB 10 minutes at the 3. Point about boogie and AW is that they're the sane height but considerably different players. I believe bradley listed both guys at 6'5. The whole point of my post was that AWs size isn't the issue. His style of play is when it comes to being aforward.
Yeah, like I said, most of that wasn't directed at you. But FYI BU listed Boogie at 6'4" his senior year, and AW at 6'6" - both are generous. Agreed on the different playing styles, but I think AW will average more rebounds than boogie did, albeit in a lot more minutes. (I may eat my words on that one though...)
Yeah, like I said, most of that wasn't directed at you....)
You talkin' about me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME? Then who the heck else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the heck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK. Listen, you fanatic, you supporter. Here is a fan who would not take it anymore. A fan who stood up against the believeers, the put downs, the XYZ Tourneys, the disappointing finishes, and the mediorce records. Shoot. Here is a fan who stood up.
I'm standing here; you make the move. You make the move. It's your move...
Tweet
Comment