Stating that WL should come off the bench is before Charonn is a little misleading. WL is most certainly higher than Woods on the depth chart. But WL is not a PG. It's scary when he runs the offense, and I don't want him doing it - at least at this point in his career. Woods comes in to try to get the offense back in to a more disciplined rhythm, the opposite of what WL brings. Also, anyone that has seen Woods play knows that he could be playing D-1 ball with heavy minutes in the OVC or another 'medium' mid-major. I don't think WL should be starting because he takes plays off on defense like TB did his freshman year. Not because he's not trying, just mental mistakes. I think this is very correctable(TB did it!), but until then I don't want to have WL start over DSE and run the point or have him start over our best on-ball defender.
I don't want to have WL start over DSE and run the point or have him start over our best on-ball defender.
I should have clarified myself a little further. I don't want WL as the pg if he starts either. Why not try DD at point guard. He may be uncomfortable at pg, but he should be able to run the offensive sets by now. Sooner rather than later, teams will start keying on AW as he is our one legitimate offensive threat. If we have WL in the lineup, we at least have another player that they have to keep an eye on. After a 4 assist 19 turnover game, I think that we need to experiment with lineups.But I do agree with you on WL is no point guard and should not be starting, :!:
As far as DSE at the point, from what I have seen, Lord have Mercy too:!:
I should have clarified myself a little further. I don't want WL as the pg if he starts either. Why not try DD at point guard. He may be uncomfortable at pg, but he should be able to run the offensive sets by now. Sooner rather than later, teams will start keying on AW as he is our one legitimate offensive threat. If we have WL in the lineup, we at least have another player that they have to keep an eye on. After a 4 assist 19 turnover game, I think that we need to experiment with lineups.
What I want to see. We need to go back to a simple pick and roll with DSE and WL handling the ball. Set a few low screens for AW to free him up. Teach WE that when he has the ball in the post he may want to look for an open guy on the wing once in awhile. This team needs to get back to the basics offensive scheme and find another 3 point threat so they can create space where WL and DSE can be very effective driving in.
WL and DSE may of been able to get by with driving to the hoop with consistency in High School ball but its not going to happen in Div 1:!:
I have to disagree. They are both finishers and what they need is a bit more space to operate and they'll be able to score or find an open guy ala Stockton and Malone. Back to basics is what I would do.
Pre SM injury, who would have been BU's point guard next year if DSE or WL can't do it?
I should have clarified myself a little further. I don't want WL as the pg if he starts either. Why not try DD at point guard. He may be uncomfortable at pg, but he should be able to run the offensive sets by now. Sooner rather than later, teams will start keying on AW as he is our one legitimate offensive threat. If we have WL in the lineup, we at least have another player that they have to keep an eye on. After a 4 assist 19 turnover game, I think that we need to experiment with lineups.
Simple Answer: Donivine Stewart
Simple Answer: Donivine Stewart
It is not going to be that simple. DS is definately going to help us in the ball handling and passing game. That is a plus. But he is going to be below average in other areas early in his Bradley career. He lacks true quickness, struggles as a defender, and is not a good shooter from the outside or free throw line. He is going to be like 90% of all incoming freshmen. He should show flashes of his potential some games and make you want to pull out your hair in others.
think you are selling a little short here....he is better than that
think you are selling a little short here....he is better than that