PDA

View Full Version : The REALLY BIG line up



former1dog
10-10-2011, 10:28 AM
A thought -

PG - Marquise Carter
SG - Elias Harris
SF - Kelly Olynyk
PF - Sam Dower
C - Robert Sacre

Would we ever use a line up like this? Would it be effective?

Zagdawg
10-10-2011, 10:35 AM
We would have trouble on the defensive end of the ball.

We would only be able to run a zone with that lineup.

You think we have a hard time rotating out on screens now-- it would be tough.

Teams would try to run us to death.

CanadianZagFan
10-10-2011, 10:42 AM
We would have trouble on the defensive end of the ball.

We would only be able to run a zone with that lineup.

You think we have a hard time rotating out on screens now-- it would be tough.

Teams would try to run us to death.

In order to run an effective zone defense you still need to be bale to get in a stance, close out, and make rotations. The advantage that the perceived smaller quicker players would have could be negated with the added length and great team defense with lots of help and solid rotations.

BULLDOG#1
10-10-2011, 11:33 AM
CanadianZagFan, i gotta disagree. While what you say about zones is true, there's no way this lineup could stop zone penetration. Even average perimeter teams would slash this zone to pieces.

With Rob in the middle, both KO and Sam would have to guard to the three point line. The zone could possibly make up for one of them, but not both. In addition, the E of last year cannot even guard to the three point line...

Maybe they've all grown more and gotten stronger and quicker. If that's the case, then this zone would be daunting indeed. Doesn't seem likely though.

mgadfly
10-10-2011, 02:39 PM
We won't use this lineup because it wouldn't be effective.

The added rebounding/blocks at the guard positions would not come close to the higher field goal percentage the other team would shoot (mostly because we couldn't get back to set up a zone, but partially because our zone would be extremely slow at rotating to protect against 3 point shooting - which is already an issue with our zone), the additional turnovers they would generate (E and KO would be handling the ball on the wings, and although they have good skills, they don't have the same passing and dribbling skills as our actual guards), and the massive amount of trips to the freethrow line the other team would get (three of the players averaged greater than 4.2 fouls per 40, and that was guarding big guys like them, Harris was at 3.3, but once again against other bigs, and Carter was at 3.1 -- I don't think the zone would hide the fact that they can't match the speed of littler guys).

So the other team would probably shoot a higher percentage, draw more fouls, and force more turnovers.

NotoriousZ
10-10-2011, 02:52 PM
My only problem is that you left Spangler out of the REALLY BIG lineup.

maynard g krebs
10-10-2011, 03:10 PM
Jacksonville did this in 1970 with 7'2 Artis Gilmore, 7' Pembrook BurroughsIII and 6''10 Rod McIntire in the starting lineup, making the title game against UCLA. But the easy 3 point shot makes the big lineup obsolete. They won because nobody could score inside against them, and shooting 40% from 21' doesn't do any good when they only counted for 2 points. Today you can beat a big, slow team like that by spreading the floor against them.

Not to mention the ballhandling issues if that lineup is pressed fullcourt.

JPtheBeasta
10-10-2011, 04:33 PM
My only problem is that you left Spangler out of the REALLY BIG lineup.

With KO at the PG? That would make some of our friends up in the great white north very happy.

Vanzagger
10-10-2011, 05:52 PM
let's use it and run other teams to death. Might want to have a few extra back boards ready though.

Malastein
10-10-2011, 06:17 PM
Jacksonville did this in 1970 with 7'2 Artis Gilmore, 7' Pembrook BurroughsIII and 6''10 Rod McIntire in the starting lineup, making the title game against UCLA. But the easy 3 point shot makes the big lineup obsolete. They won because nobody could score inside against them, and shooting 40% from 21' doesn't do any good when they only counted for 2 points. Today you can beat a big, slow team like that by spreading the floor against them.

Not to mention the ballhandling issues if that lineup is pressed fullcourt.

That Artis Gilmore fellow was no stiff though. I'm sure you could a large lineup if you had an adept 6'4 point such as Derrick Rose. You'd need a guy like 6'8 Stephen Jackson at the two. And then you'd need a facsimile of a Kevin Garnett at the 3. After that, I'm sure almost any 2 7-footers would look good in the lineup.

This sort of line up was more realistic when Ammo could play 2 guard. What's the all time all-height Zag team? How about:
6'5 Blake Stepp
6'8 Adam Morrison
6'7 Casey Calvary
6'10 Ronny Turiaf
7'0 Robert Sacre

And give it four years and I'm thinking we switch out Ryan Spangler for Calvary. Although Bakari Hendrix might be the better bet on that one regardless.

awberke
10-10-2011, 09:14 PM
I think d rose is closer to 6'2 but that is kind of beside the point. There is no way this would work.