Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



Username Post: 3 bigs        (Topic#22042)
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 12:12 PM - Post#264257    

if you thought I made a stink before on playing Max and AJ, just wait for any of these garbage Max/AJ/Wang lineups.

Unless Mike and Max lost 25 lbs and/or attached a rocket pack to their ankles, we can not possibly play three bigs on defense. This is not 1992. I'm willing to buy that spacing won't be worse on offense because Wang is a willing and able 3 point shooter (I mean Max already gums it up for AJ, but it won't be WORSE). Guys, we're all old here, but we need to move on. Big guys are dinosaurs in today's NBA. We need pace, we need space. Nova has been playing one big guy at a time for about 15 years, it's worked out pretty well for them. Let's get ahead of the curve - after AJ graduates let's pull a Navy and only recruit dudes under 6'7.

I'm kidding. Or maybe I'm not.

 
TheLine 
Professor
Posts: 5597

Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
11-05-18 01:13 PM - Post#264268    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Donahue has embraced the concept of positionless basketball as best as I can tell. Penn played many minutes with Betley as the 2nd tallest player on the court.

Based on Donahue's recruiting, a 3 big lineup - if it happens - is going to be an anomaly. Next year's recruiting class is flush with guys who can play multiple positions. Monroe, for example, could wind up being anything from a short 4 to a tall point.

I take the 3 big lineup as a temporary thing to potentially get Mike more minutes because the alternatives aren't attractive to Donahue. I don't blame him for trying.


 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 01:25 PM - Post#264272    
    In response to TheLine

NAH. It's like one of those brainstorming meetings:

"Come on guys, no bad ideas, just shout out anything"

"We could try playing 3 bigs!"

"Get out."

 
TheLine 
Professor
Posts: 5597

Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
3 bigs
11-05-18 01:31 PM - Post#264273    
    In response to Jeff2sf

I was a skeptic with last year's projected lineups. I'm more open minded this year. The team played a modern style last year, I expect Donahue to continue in that vein. If he doesn't then I'm with you.


 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3765

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
11-05-18 01:41 PM - Post#264277    
    In response to TheLine

I don't expect to see three bigs played very much this season unless Wang demonstrates that he actually can play the perimeter well on both sides of the ball-- in other words, truly function as a quality 3. The only other situations might be to exploit a specific, transient mismatch opportunity, or EOG offense/defense substitutions.

 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 3615
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
3 bigs
11-05-18 02:11 PM - Post#264284    
    In response to Silver Maple

I’m skeptical of a 3 big lineup also especially if Wang’s current challenge is defense.

That said, as we saw last year, these lineups are very fluid to start the season and I’m open minded to what the coaches want to test out. We have definite holes to fill so it will take creativity just like year year to make it work.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-05-18 02:44 PM - Post#264295    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Max is down 20 lbs from last year. He and AJ can guard all 5 spots. That allows them to play with 2 bigs (which you will see 90% of the time I suspect) and 3 bigs for long stretches. The defensive prowess of Max and AJ allows Steve D to play Mike at the 3. Mike is a perimeter player who can go inside and get rebounds. He is not a post player so he functions more like Caleb than he does like AJ.

 
penn nation 
Professor
Posts: 21086

Reg: 12-02-04
11-05-18 02:47 PM - Post#264297    
    In response to PennFan10

I hope neither one has to guard Mike Smith.

  • PennFan10 Said:
Max is down 20 lbs from last year. He and AJ can guard all 5 spots.




 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 02:53 PM - Post#264299    
    In response to PennFan10

I will be shocked if Max can guard a 3 credibly let alone a 2 or a 1. But let's see.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 03:08 PM - Post#264303    
    In response to Jeff2sf

He can give a forearm shiver to any guy blowing by him

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-05-18 03:33 PM - Post#264305    
    In response to Jeff2sf

  • Jeff2sf Said:
I will be shocked if Max can guard a 3 credibly let alone a 2 or a 1. But let's see.



You didn’t watch many games last year. Wouldn’t be the first time you have been “shocked” (a.k.a. Wrong)

They aren’t assigned to those guys, they take them off switches, which is how most offenses who run pick and roll try to get an advantage. Our 2 bigs can credibly guard other players off switches or via soft hedging, which is within our system.


 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 03:36 PM - Post#264306    
    In response to palestra38

3 bigs = at least some zone D - I suspect

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-05-18 03:43 PM - Post#264309    
    In response to Streamers

I suspect we will be all man to man, maybe some of the 1-3-1 we have seen. We were a top 100 defense last year and substituting Mike Wang for Caleb isn’t going to change that ranking. Replacing Darnell is where we need to hope and pray that Dev Goodman (or Bryce/Jake, etc) can play at that level on the defensive end.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 03:43 PM - Post#264310    
    In response to PennFan10

Of course, but those guys cannot afford to come out and play guards on the perimeter....that's what we saw happening far too often with Jerome's defenses. We got out late and gave up high percentages on 3 point shots. Jeff is right that we cannot play 3 bigs as a regular defensive unit except with very specific matchups and are far more likely to use 4 smaller guys and 1 big than the 3 bigs formation.

But I want to see Wang in a regular game and trust Donahue to keep our defense at the level it was last year.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
3 bigs
11-05-18 03:43 PM - Post#264311    
    In response to PennFan10

*

Edited by palestra38 on 11-05-18 03:44 PM. Reason for edit: unnecessary duplicate

 
Penndemonium 
PhD Student
Posts: 1878

Reg: 11-29-04
11-05-18 03:54 PM - Post#264313    
    In response to palestra38

Donahue's offense relies on ball movement and good timing on cuts. I can construct a 3 big scenario, although our cuts won't be so fast. I could envision a matchup where one of our bigs gets a defender that's too slow or too small for one of them with 3 bigs.

On defense, we'd need to be playing against a pretty static opponent. We wouldn't keep up with many teams with great penetrators.

I realize this is all hypothetical and unlikely to be a prominent set.


 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 04:28 PM - Post#264320    
    In response to Penndemonium

no doubt i've been wrong before. but it's COMPLETELY different to be matched up primarily on a 3 vs to cover on a switch at the end of a shot clock (or whatever). There's no way Steve wants that on any sort of regular basis.

Our best lineup is closer to 1 and 4 Smalls than 3 and and 2 smalls. Just is, man. just is.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 04:35 PM - Post#264322    
    In response to PennFan10

  • PennFan10 Said:
I suspect we will be all man to man, maybe some of the 1-3-1 we have seen. We were a top 100 defense last year and substituting Mike Wang for Caleb isn’t going to change that ranking. Replacing Darnell is where we need to hope and pray that Dev Goodman (or Bryce/Jake, etc) can play at that level on the defensive end.


1-3-1 with Woods on top, AJ down low and and two bigs in between would likely work quite well as a change of pace against many of the teams on our schedule. Just think of the defensive rebounding.


 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 04:39 PM - Post#264323    
    In response to Streamers

i don't think AJ is quite up to playing the Matt Howard role of the 1-3-1. Feel like Woods is the only one with that shot.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 04:49 PM - Post#264325    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Correct. It’s generally not a big playing under the basket in the 1-3-1. AJ would play in the middle.

Sight unseen, I do wonder if Wang’s length would work at the top of the 1-3-1. Yale uses Bruner there.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-05-18 04:58 PM - Post#264327    
    In response to Jeff2sf

  • Jeff2sf Said:
no doubt i've been wrong before. but it's COMPLETELY different to be matched up primarily on a 3 vs to cover on a switch at the end of a shot clock (or whatever). There's no way Steve wants that on any sort of regular basis.

Our best lineup is closer to 1 and 4 Smalls than 3 and and 2 smalls. Just is, man. just is.



We can agree to disagree on this, again. We just can.


 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 05:00 PM - Post#264328    
    In response to Jeff2sf

I’m generally right with you in this Jeff, but I’m keeping an open mind. If Wang is a “big” in anything close to the traditional sense, it absolutely won’t work. But he also could just be a 6’10 guard. Those things do exist, though not normally at our level. The narrative here makes it sound more questionable— he talks like a big who is being asked to defend guards, rather than like a very tall guard. But that could just be narrative.



 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 05:09 PM - Post#264329    
    In response to SomeGuy

right, someguy. if he's Koko, then ok. But 1. I don't think Koko was Koko his freshmen year and 2. generally if you're a 6'10 guard, you're thinking NBA and playing at a level a little higher than us.


Hey tho, Steve's pretty good at this. So we shall see.

 
T.P.F.K.A.D.W. 
PhD Student
Posts: 1169

Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
11-05-18 05:09 PM - Post#264330    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Correct. It’s generally not a big playing under the basket in the 1-3-1. AJ would play in the middle.

Sight unseen, I do wonder if Wang’s length would work at the top of the 1-3-1. Yale uses Bruner there.


I seem to recall Betley being at the top of that 1-3-1. Worked pretty well there I thought.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 05:10 PM - Post#264331    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Correct. It’s generally not a big playing under the basket in the 1-3-1. AJ would play in the middle.

Sight unseen, I do wonder if Wang’s length would work at the top of the 1-3-1. Yale uses Bruner there.


Interesting. I didn't get the sense watching him that one time that Wang's feet are quick enough to be the top of a 1-3-1, but he sure is long. As to the bottom, I see the point about AJ belonging in the middle, but the closest thing we have to Howard underneath would be Tyler.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-05-18 10:16 PM - Post#264351    
    In response to Streamers

What about Tyler is remotely comparable to Matt Howard?

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
11-05-18 10:53 PM - Post#264356    
    In response to PennFan10

Drew the biggest offensive foul in Penn history

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 11:05 PM - Post#264358    
    In response to PennFan10

Well, they are of similar height and at times Tyler spelled Howard as the undersized four.

The thing about that back guard spot in the 1-3-1 is that it really seemed to depend upon Howard’s decision making. To me, Woods is unquestionably the guy who would play there if we did it.

That said, I hope we have the horses to play man again. Last year was fun.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
11-05-18 11:10 PM - Post#264359    
    In response to Jeff2sf

True. Of course, Koko was ultimately a 4 his last two years anyway.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
11-06-18 08:59 AM - Post#264368    
    In response to SomeGuy

To me, the best thing about playing zone is that you can use it situationally as a change of pace when you need it. I’m not talking about using it as the primary defense. As for Tyler, his size, quickness and leaping ability make him one of our best defenders when he wants to be. I can think of several Ivy players I’d love to see him guard man-man, but he could also be an exceptional zone defender. Like Howard, he would be more of a factor if he developed a reliable outside shot. He has talent and could be a great experienced option to have off the bench if the coaches develop some more confidence in him.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
11-06-18 01:07 PM - Post#264385    
    In response to Streamers

Confidence is earned through a complete understanding of how to play within a system. Things like shot selection, defense, passing, spacing. Playing time isn’t just about what you can do on the court, it’s about what you won’t do. You can’t make 1 great play and 2 negative plays. If there is a player who isn’t on the court despite obvious talent, it’s often because of an obvious flaw in one or more of these areas.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
11-06-18 03:51 PM - Post#264396    
    In response to PennFan10

  • PennFan10 Said:
Confidence is earned through a complete understanding of how to play within a system. Things like shot selection, defense, passing, spacing. Playing time isn’t just about what you can do on the court, it’s about what you won’t do. You can’t make 1 great play and 2 negative plays. If there is a player who isn’t on the court despite obvious talent, it’s often because of an obvious flaw in one or more of these areas.


Oh no doubt you are right about this. I just think that Tyler could be a significant contributor if things fell into place for him.

 
OldBig5 
Masters Student
Posts: 639

Age: 66
Reg: 02-18-18
11-07-18 10:36 PM - Post#264732    
    In response to Streamers

This discussion reminded me a little of the Quakers when Bilsky and Wohl graduated. They went with that Cotler/Calhoun/Morse/Hank inson/Littlepage lineup the next year. Everyone between 6'5" and 6'8". Of course there was no 3 point line to cover. Or 3 point line for Morse to exploit. Just imagine.

 
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

1407 Views





Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.422 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 07:22 AM
Top