Loving is so bad at defense.
can you imagine a national championship season with a loss to michigan?
Maybe I am in the minority, but something would not feel right about that.
Will winning the division really be a consolation if we go into AA undefeated and lose? I know that it wouldn't make losing to UM any better for me. Hell, we still hear about '69 all the time. In my mind, it really does not matter who wins- PSU or UM. It would make me feel a little less nervous, though, if PSU can run on UM and stifle Rudock.
Your fear of an undefeated Ohio State being left out of the final four is irrational.
3rd place, 15th place. Who gives a shit?
Cardale up to his old tricks again...
I get that it is a big assumption that Loving, KBD and Lyle can consistently score from outside but it is an equally big, if not bigger, assumption that AJ and Grandstaff are ready to play or that Kam can handle pressure- he has not shown that he is any better of a ball handler than Tate. Also, pressing is very difficult to do at the college level. Very few teams do it regularly and even fewer are successful at it. Ultimately, even with great ball handlers, you beat the press and half-court trapping teams by passing and this lineup would have length to see/pass above traps.
I agree that in an ideal world, it would be nice to have Harris run the point and Lyle at the 2. Or Lyle at the point and Kam and Grandstaff at the two. I just don't think we are ready for any of those scenarios for significant amounts of time, yet. And all of this will be moot come Sunday. I just think Thad will elect to have his 5 best players on the court as much as he can. IMO, that would be Lyle, Tate, KBD, Loving, and Thompson.
Playing 3 forwards may lead to more turnovers, but it certainly allows you to create a whole bunch of issues/mismatches on the offensive side of the ball.
You think this team had issues scoring last year, put 3 forwards on the floor with a freshman Lyle and unpolished Thompson and you will see struggling to score.
Who is the other option? Tate and Loving are the only guys on the team that have proven that they can score. Kam was awful in B1G play last year and, though KBD didn't prove anything last year, and I know it was against Walsh, he legitimately looked like our best offensive weapon on Sunday.
and I like Tate a lot but having a 2 guard that hangs around the paint on offense is a mistake.
Just because you would theoretically be asking him to guard a 2, it doesn't mean he would be the 2 on offense. Again, everything is predicated upon Lyle, Loving and KBD being able to hit from the outside, Assuming that they are able to at least keep defenders honest, allowing Tate to be play around the free throw line where he was very comfortable last year, would be ideal.
that lineup won't happen. Tate couldn't play 2 guard.
If Tate can guard the opposing team's 2-guard, then a lineup of Lyle, Tate, KBD, Loving, and Thompson could absolutely happen. At the end of the day, you have to get your best 5 on the court and those 5 appear to be the best 5. Offensively, that lineup still allows Tate to play where he is most comfortable: from the free throw line and down, gives you three capable shooters on the outside in Loving, KBD and Lyle, and it gives you nightmarish size advantages at almost every position.
The only question is guarding the perimeter. If the Bucks can find a way to do that with those 5, I think you will see that lineup quite a bit. Seeing as though they could not guard the perimeter Sunday, it will obviously be a big concern going forward. Makes you wonder if going to a zone is a possibility.
I think we are going to have a starting lineup where all 5 guys can actually score. When's the last time we had that?
Probably have to go back to the '10-'11 team with Diebler, Sully, Lighty, Buford, and Thomas. Though, those 5 were not necessarily starters, they could all score.
Consistently not blocking out your man and giving up offensive boards that lead to points is, in fact, being lazy. That may be his personality but it doesn't take away from the fact that not hustling is being lazy. A huge percentage of defense and rebounding is effort and he needs to exert more of it. If that means he has to play less minutes because he doesn't have the endurance to give it all on defense, then so be it. The team will be better if he works harder.
That being said, it was just an exhibition game and I am not willing to say that he will be like that all year. He did, however, give up at least 4 offensive rebounds that led to buckets against a D2 team. That can't happen when the real games start Sunday.
Kam is not a consistent outside threat- far from it. He shot 8-36 from deep throughout B1G and conference play last year. That's no bueno.
I don't admit that and I think we have very differing opinions of Tate. I admit that he was forced to play down low because of our lack of a talented big man but not having a big man is not why Tate played. Tate would have been in that lineup whether we had Greg Oden or Amir Williams playing down low. He was already one of the best rebounders last year and he probably the hardest worker. Yes, he needs to develop a shot but he scored plenty of points last year grinding out points down low and the lane should be even more open for him this year playing with an offensively skilled big man.
For what it is worth, I was against Thad playing zone in the past- especially last year. He also had guys who were very good at guarding the perimeter- something he seemingly does not have this year after what I saw Sunday. And, as I mentioned, the principles of a matchup zone defense are VERY similar to the principles of a switching man defense- which we ran Sunday. Converting back to a man-to-man would not be difficult to do next year when Harris and Grandstaff and hopefully Kobi Simmons are ready to go.
I guess we will just have to wait and see then, TP. Again, no one is arguing that the 6th man isn't important. Whether he comes off the bench or starts, Tate will play 30+ minutes a game (the last 15 games of the year last year, he played 26+ minutes in 12 of them). So, if he plays starter minutes, it is pretty much irrelevant if he comes off the bench.
And, I disagree that playing a zone would be bad for the development of this team. Thad has employed a matchup zone in the past. Matchup zones have man-to-man principles and really are not that different from a man-to-man defense. He has three guys who are taller than most guards but not nearly as quick. Unless Thad plans on playing two guards at all times (any combo of Lyle, Harris, Grandstaff, and Kam) he is going to have issues guarding smaller backcourts. I am guessing that Thad will play his best players most of the time and that includes Loving, Tate, KBD, and Lyle. If he thinks he can guard smaller lineups with that group man-to-man then ok, but we just gave up 14 threes to a D2 school...
I know that it was just an exhibition game against a D2 opponent but after last night it certainly seems as though Lyle will be the best freshman. Harris and Grandstaff do not look ready, Giddens is good but I was more impressed with Thompson and he will probably see the most minutes down low, and it looks like Lyle won't come out of the game much. I think we are going to see a seven man rotation with Lyle, KBD, Loving, Tate, and Thompson starting and Kam and Giddens off the bench. Bell may get a few minutes here or there but I think that will be about it once Thad shortens his bench.
Lol I don't think anyone said being the 6th man is an insult. And as BSK mentioned, I think we are getting too wrapped up in positions on the offensive end of the court. If we did have to label them, I would actually have Tate as the "4" which allows him to play around the rim where he is most comfortable. And, also as BSK mentioned, you have very capable shooters in Loving, KBD, and Lyle around him. So, I really don't think the issue with that lineup would be on the offensive side of the ball. The issue is guarding the perimeter- which we saw last night- when you have so many "wing" players on the court. That is why it would not surprise me if Thad goes to a zone.
Also, on Loving, I know that he is our most experienced guy and that he can score the basketball but even as our most experienced guy, he still does not do the little things the right way. Should he get a pass on being lazy on the defensive side of the ball and not boxing out because he is a junior? You run the risk of losing your younger guys if you preach as a coaching staff that defense comes first yet you let one of the older guys play even though he doesn't put defense first.
I don't foresee Tate being on the bench much at all unless he is in foul trouble. My guess is that the starting lineup will be Lyle, Loving, KBD, Tate and Thompson. Loving will be on the outside looking in if he doesn't get better on the defensive end.
That lineup should allow us to create mismatch problems for most teams and we should be able to outrebound most teams. Being able to guard the perimeter will be the toughest task, though.
What is our fanbase like when we aren't winning every game?
KBD scored pretty much any way possible- from deep, mid range jumpers, taking his man to the hole, and posting up when guarded by a smaller defender. He will probably be our best offensive player this year.
Giddens looked better as the game went on. He played most of the second half. He will battle Thompson for minutes. Both of those guys are already better than the senior bigs from last year.
Lyle commands the offense and is also very vocal on the floor. He probably won't come out much. Loving gave up at least four offensive rebounds that led to points because he refuses to box out. He can obviously score the ball but will still have several "Amir" moments this year.
Grandstaff got lost on defense quite a bit and gave up quite a few open looks. I'm sure he will get better but I don't think he and Harris will see too many minutes this year.
The lineup of Lyle, KBD, Loving, Tate, and Thompson/Giddens should be pretty tough on offense. Defensively we will struggle against smaller, quicker guards who can shoot from the outside. That lineup gives us length but not much quickness at all. Might see a return to the zone defense...
You're not wrong in posting this.
Yea! Sign Tebow and Craft, too!
As many problems he's had so far, he still is your franchise QB for the future.
He is? Since when?
Even if the Browns believe that he is their future, there is absolutely nothing wrong with leaving him on the bench to learn for a few years. In fact, doing that may be the smartest thing the Browns have done in years.
Lol, this obviously isn't a serious post. It will be fun to see all the MGoBlog posters get their panties in a bunch over this. Well done, OP.
Ha, that is definitely true.
I thought I was laying it on pretty thick...