-
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.
Possible Winning Lineup For The Braves
- Thread starter RaiderOfBradley
- Start date
OK, I was never really all that concerned about our offensive rebounding, I'm more concerned that we were atrocious when trying to stop MSU from getting offensive boards...
But you said that it was our lack of size that caused us to be so ineffective on our defensive boards in the MSU game...
And so now you say that if we compare Richards, Lamberth, and Mitchell to Salley, Wilson, and Crouch, it will be clear as to why we couldn't keep them from rebounding...
OK, I'll do that...but I think it is wrong to include Richards in this comparison as he only had 1 offensive board and 3 rebounds total, I believe...but I'll go ahead and compare them...
Richards - 6'9" 250
Lamberth - 6'5" 215
Mitchell - 6'5" 210
Salley - 6'7" 230
Wilson - 6'5" 200
Crouch - 6'5" 215
OK, I compared them, but I fail to see anything in the size of these players that makes it clear as to why we couldn't keep them off of the offensive boards...Richards is the only guy that even has a slight height advantage in this comparison, and he did nothing on the boards in that game...
Mitchell and Lamberth killed us on the offensive boards and they are no bigger than Wilson, Crouch, or Andrew Warren, for that matter... That's why I have to believe that it is something other than size that caused us to do a horrible job on the boards in the MSU game...hands?...toughness?...desire?...positioning?...failure to block out?... I think these are the areas you have to look at if you want to understand why this team did a lousy job on the boards...and I sincerely hope that the coaching staff is doing something to address these deficiencies...
Does anyone realize that JC cannot out jump lamberth or Mitchell and is not as quick to the ball as either of those 2 players; he will never be able to out rebound either of them just like they are not as good as shooting 3 pointers as he is; if you don"t have some good leapers to rebound for you then you need to have more size if you expect to compete on the boards; blocking out is overated as many players have a tendency to back into their man but fail to go get the ball and someone else ends up getting it; the one thing that I will agree with the most is we need for our players to be a lot more aggressive and fight a lot harder instead of being soft when it comes to fighting for a rebound as the aggressor will always win the battle.
MacabreMob
New member
I'm not sure who should be starting and/or playing now.... but I think we didn't start/play the right people earlier in the year when we had the chance.
We had a Sweet 16 team that had a great center along with other great players. Last year, because we lost the great center, we had to make do with what personnel we had. That meant going to a heavy guard offense - forfeit rebounds and try to make it up with deflections/steals and 3's. For this year, we were supposed to have filled the gaps with some inside players to compliment the great guards.
Instead of focusing on developing the inside players more, we kept our emphasis on last years model of a heavy guard rotation.
I'm sorry, the heavy guard rotation was exciting but it was an NIT year. The great guard play complimented with an inside game produced a Sweet 16. The Sweet 16 team shot 33.6% from 3 - the NIT team shot 42% from 3. I know, I know... the NIT team made about twice as many 3's per game. But, the NIT team grabbed about 7-8 less rebounds a game.
So I guess we need to take our lumps now with emphasizing an inside game which may cost us a couple/few Conference games. By that, I mean... go more with RA... work some plays around him... let him get a feel for developing HIS game. Go ahead and go with DC... he misses assignments.... let him miss them... talk to him in timeouts but LEAVE him in the game to learn as he goes... show more video of him in action to him (which if he played more, he'd have more tape).
Suppose all I am trying to say is... if we are gonna let ourselves get beat (which is what we are doing), then let's get beat while letting guys we need help from learn while playing.
Let's go back to more of the Sweet 16 style team.
We had a Sweet 16 team that had a great center along with other great players. Last year, because we lost the great center, we had to make do with what personnel we had. That meant going to a heavy guard offense - forfeit rebounds and try to make it up with deflections/steals and 3's. For this year, we were supposed to have filled the gaps with some inside players to compliment the great guards.
Instead of focusing on developing the inside players more, we kept our emphasis on last years model of a heavy guard rotation.
I'm sorry, the heavy guard rotation was exciting but it was an NIT year. The great guard play complimented with an inside game produced a Sweet 16. The Sweet 16 team shot 33.6% from 3 - the NIT team shot 42% from 3. I know, I know... the NIT team made about twice as many 3's per game. But, the NIT team grabbed about 7-8 less rebounds a game.
So I guess we need to take our lumps now with emphasizing an inside game which may cost us a couple/few Conference games. By that, I mean... go more with RA... work some plays around him... let him get a feel for developing HIS game. Go ahead and go with DC... he misses assignments.... let him miss them... talk to him in timeouts but LEAVE him in the game to learn as he goes... show more video of him in action to him (which if he played more, he'd have more tape).
Suppose all I am trying to say is... if we are gonna let ourselves get beat (which is what we are doing), then let's get beat while letting guys we need help from learn while playing.
Let's go back to more of the Sweet 16 style team.
I wish we could be more like the S16 team. It was crazy talented. They started 3 future pro's (POB Cellus and Tony), 4 if Ruff makes it. and had 2 or 3 off the bench (Boogie Zach and did Franklin make it?)
Anyway, the S16 team usually played (4) three point threats: Ruff, Tony, Boogie and Cellus AND played 3 post threats: POB, Cellus and Boogie. AND 2 little guys that were decent at getting to the rim (Ruff and Tony) When they worked together, it was crazy, insane trying to defend all of those inside / outside options at the same time!
Now, the weakest inside threat (Ruff) from the S16 team is now this years guy most likely to take the ball inside...
If we played "big" we may have the same amount of post threats, but we'd be down in the outside threat category compared to the S16 team. (We do not have anyone near a Cellus, in a few years, I hope Egolf gets there as an inside/outside big playing the 4)
It comes down to the difference in shooting accurately vs being a scorer. The S16 team had more scorers.
Anyway, the S16 team usually played (4) three point threats: Ruff, Tony, Boogie and Cellus AND played 3 post threats: POB, Cellus and Boogie. AND 2 little guys that were decent at getting to the rim (Ruff and Tony) When they worked together, it was crazy, insane trying to defend all of those inside / outside options at the same time!
Now, the weakest inside threat (Ruff) from the S16 team is now this years guy most likely to take the ball inside...
If we played "big" we may have the same amount of post threats, but we'd be down in the outside threat category compared to the S16 team. (We do not have anyone near a Cellus, in a few years, I hope Egolf gets there as an inside/outside big playing the 4)
It comes down to the difference in shooting accurately vs being a scorer. The S16 team had more scorers.