PDA

View Full Version : Harris at the 3



Oregonzagnut
12-08-2012, 10:14 PM
At least against opponents like Illinois! It is time to do this in order to match the size and athleticism of bigger, stronger back courts. Man to man, our PG's cannot handle the elite guards. If we want to beat these types of power teams, we have to have a different game plan for these situations. We need our most athletic line-up from top to bottom. and not be forcing our PG always be Pangos and Stockton. If Bell can manage the PG then I say lets step up and try a lineup that utilizes our best size and athleticism at each position and "get by" skill wise at PG.

How about these lineups with Harris at the 3?

5. Karno
4. Olynyk
3. Harris
2. Bell
1. Pangos

Even this.....

5. Karno
4. Kelly
3. Harris
2. Hart
1. Bell

Or this....

Karno
Harris
Kelly
Hart
Bell

Kelly has shown that he can play the 3 IMO.

But Few changed something drastically in the rotation down in Pullman. He continued with it against illinois in spite of what common sense told everyone including or opponent.

These are just ideas and Harris was always considered for the three spot if we needed it. Bell might be a decent PG too. We needed that physicality at the point today.

CaliforniaZaggin'
12-08-2012, 10:26 PM
I'm not sure I understand. How would playing E at small forward help us guard more athletic guards?

Oregonzagnut
12-08-2012, 10:31 PM
I'm not sure I understand. How would playing E at small forward help us guard more athletic guards?

It helps compensate for our lack of and brings Harris closer to their 3. Did you see where Harris is at the 3 that I suggest hart and bell shift down too? We figured we might see Harris at the three this year sometime, and when we run into this type of team, we shift our guys into a larger more athletic lineup so we can use two of our three centers together.

So cali, you would NEVER put Harris at the 3 spot?

MDABE80
12-08-2012, 10:38 PM
Those are adjustments that could have been made tonight..........why mess with the starters. It's really just as simple to do the correct substitutions. No worries..all those kids were there and available tonight.

Oregonzagnut
12-08-2012, 10:44 PM
Those are adjustments that could have been made tonight..........why mess with the starters. It's really just as simple to do the correct substitutions. No worries..all those kids were there and available tonight.

I'm not suggesting a starting line-up. Sorry I meant bench rotation substitutions to use our depth and bolster our perimeter defense.

Our back court failed, Harris is one of our best defenders, and I think to bring him to the 3 spot occasionally to help the perimeter defense a little bit MAY help. Maybe? Why not try against teams like this?

Vanzagger
12-08-2012, 11:21 PM
the bigger line up takes time to perfect. Some of John Cal's teams didn't hit their stride till mid season but he stuck with the concept.

We should have been going big vs the South Dakota Techs of the world getting some confidence. Now it's just reactive and probably too late.

Expectations have been lowered again so no pressure.

Oregonzagnut
12-08-2012, 11:29 PM
the bigger line up takes time to perfect. Some of John Cal's teams didn't hit their stride till mid season but he stuck with the concept.

We should have been going big vs the South Dakota Techs of the world getting some confidence. Now it's just reactive and probably too late.

Expectations have been lowered again so no pressure.

Still though, I think Harris at the 3 and rotating our bigs between the 4-5 is something we should try against teams like this. We will see this at Kansas St OKSt and to a lesser extent Baylor and Butler.

It doesn't have to be perfected. It just has to compete. What we did tonight was just plain wrong, IMO. Bell can feed the post, hit the three and defend the perimeter. Harris moving to the SF position brings him out to the perimeter too where his top defense is clearly needed.

Hart is a no brainer at the 2 when we need tough physical play.

I like Karno, Kelly, Harris, Hart and Bell if we are going t try and match our most physical backcourt opposition.

ValencyLovesZagsInAtlanta
12-09-2012, 02:08 AM
At least against opponents like Illinois! It is time to do this in order to match the size and athleticism of bigger, stronger back courts. Man to man, our PG's cannot handle the elite guards. If we want to beat these types of power teams, we have to have a different game plan for these situations. We need our most athletic line-up from top to bottom. and not be forcing our PG always be Pangos and Stockton. If Bell can manage the PG then I say lets step up and try a lineup that utilizes our best size and athleticism at each position and "get by" skill wise at PG.

How about these lineups with Harris at the 3?

5. Karno
4. Olynyk
3. Harris
2. Bell
1. Pangos

Even this.....

5. Karno
4. Kelly
3. Harris
2. Hart
1. Bell

Or this....

Karno
Harris
Kelly
Hart
Bell

Kelly has shown that he can play the 3 IMO.

But Few changed something drastically in the rotation down in Pullman. He continued with it against illinois in spite of what common sense told everyone including or opponent.

These are just ideas and Harris was always considered for the three spot if we needed it. Bell might be a decent PG too. We needed that physicality at the point today.

On our journey to the ATL???? :)

I agree with you that the mind game is most important OZN and will make the difference in a winning performance against 4**** and 5***** teams. RISK, confidence, strategy, tactics and decision making come to the forefront after you get beat and adjustments are needed. The last college hoops team that didn't have to recover from a loss was Indiana's Bobby Knight team before I was born in 1976 with a starting lineup of Benson, May. Wilkerson, Buckner and Abernathy!

Thinking ahead and measuring or remembering this loss to Illinois should help devise strategy based on a winning formulae. Playing championship caliber basketball takes time. Sure it is great to "blow the opposition away" but this does not happen easily and if it doesn't happen are you ready and able to work yourself into a winning position? That is what makes your post so beautiful! Most of the time it takes time and patience. I understand precedent has been set in previous years on strategy ect ect... but this is a new year and a new team and a new beginning! We will share this joyous ride together even if we have the occasional learning experience. This is our year I know it!

Zags self belief is essential. If you don't think you can win championships then you probably won't. Confidence is powerful and a strong attribute of a champion. Part of this mind set is to predict what the opponent will do next. Run a few scenarios through your head and come up with a definite planů be prepared to take RISK if the reward is great (VALUE) but equally important is RESPECT for the opponents skill. This is not a weakness but a strength in your understanding and maturity as a player and team.

Everything is a chess match and I also have some strategies relating to personnel and tactics! :) Just don't want to bore anyone or interfere with the negative Nellies or Doubting Thomas's. :)

I love reading your analytical posts and fans like you deserve to reach the top of the mountain as fans. One step at a time. There are always ways to get the message across in the world I live in.

Warmest Always
Vxo :)

MickMick
12-09-2012, 02:49 AM
Does Harris at three stop Brandon Paul?


Nope.


A solution looking for a problem.

Chicken Ball
12-09-2012, 05:30 AM
Size on the perimeter was only part of the problem. Quickness was even more of a problem. Harris at the three exacerbates our quickness deficit.

Oregonzagnut
12-09-2012, 09:06 AM
Size on the perimeter was only part of the problem. Quickness was even more of a problem. Harris at the three exacerbates our quickness deficit.

Harris at the three and putting hart at 2 and Bell at the point bolsters our quickness IMO.

BTB
12-09-2012, 09:33 AM
I don't think Harris is quick enough to guard an athletic 3 or quick enough to drive on an athletic 3, both of which would hurt us big time. Hart also seems to match up better with 3s than 2s to me. I wouldn't mind seeing Bell play the point though.

Oregonzagnut
12-09-2012, 10:00 AM
I don't think Harris is quick enough to guard an athletic 3 or quick enough to drive on an athletic 3, both of which would hurt us big time. Hart also seems to match up better with 3s than 2s to me. I wouldn't mind seeing Bell play the point though.

I'm also trying to get Karno and Kelly in to dominate the inside. that means either Kelly or Harris has to be a the three. Hart may guard the three better but I am talking about coming up with a plan where we hit a team like Illinois. No the normal 3 that Hart defends. If Hart is one of our best defender then he must shift to guard the most critical spots and their Paul Abrahms and Richardson killed us. Period. If you don't throw our best defenders (Bell Hart Harris) at guys like that, they will do what they did again.

But at least if our bigger back court gets beat, we would have a front court that could score at a 65% clip and stop drives by blocking their slashers.

I fail to see how shifting Harris to the three spot makes us that much slower when we were getting beat all night and had no answer for their 45% 3 pt shooting.

Oh wait......how about 65% shooting from the paint. Karno was 80%, 4/5 in 9 minutes. Keep Karno in, keep Olynyk in, keep Harris in, Keep Hart in, Keep Bell in. Then rotate like crazy to keep the defensive legs in the game while feeding the bigs and rebounding.

Seems like you have to have that lineup at some point against the toughest teams in the nation.

BTW I am not saying it is THE solution and yes there are problems but I see it as something they should attempt to deal with far over matched guards like Illinois has.

Plus Bell, Hart and Harris have all shown to hit the 3 ball so I'm not worried there. Kelly can hit apparently too.

Reborn
12-09-2012, 03:06 PM
I do agree that changes need to be made. It will be interesting to see what happens. I don't like Edi starting,and in fact I don't like him playing at all. And I don't like Stockton playing as much as he does, nor Dower. Dower plays absolutely no defense.

I would try to build Kyle Dranginis's confidence up. He is 6' 5", and if he is given the playing time I think he can develop into a good 3 by the end of the season. I think it's the best chance we have. Dranginis will not gain confidence in the role he is now in. It's very similar to other Zags we have lost in the past because of Few: Arop and Gibbs are two that come to mind. I felt that after Dranginis had that great game that Few would reward him, and yet he didn't. He kept him in the same role.

I like Mike Hart for a sub who plays in a situaltional role. He is getting too many minutes in a game like last night's.

Karnowski also need more minutes. I agree with everyone that he played great last night. to move Karnowski in, would mean to move either Harris or Olynyk to the 3. We would have to play Zone....Honestly, I don't know why Few never tried the match up zone in the second half...I thought it looked better than our man to man looked.

Knowing Few, I DO NOT EXPECT any changes. I think he's waiting for Coleman to be the 3 next year. Maybe Few is content with just winning one game in the NCAA tournament.

BTB
12-09-2012, 03:48 PM
Maybe Few is content with just winning one game in the NCAA tournament.

I don't get why people keep saying stuff like this.. do we really think that we want to win more than Few or the players want to??

Hoopaholic
12-09-2012, 03:49 PM
He did go matchup in second half and was torched by ball rotation for widen open looks in the mid corner area that is the soft spot of the matchup so it worked directly into Illinois strength providing them wide open looks. At least in the m to m and forward 2-3 Illinois had to shoot with defender nearby and they made key shots when it counted

Oregonzagnut
12-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Karnowski also need more minutes. I agree with everyone that he played great last night. to move Karnowski in, would mean to move either Harris or Olynyk to the 3. We would have to play Zone....Honestly, I don't know why Few never tried the match up zone in the second half...I thought it looked better than our man to man looked.

Knowing Few, I DO NOT EXPECT any changes. I think he's waiting for Coleman to be the 3 next year. Maybe Few is content with just winning one game in the NCAA tournament.

Thank you for you honest opinion Reborn, and not taking the stance that so many are taking that no one has the right to analyze, question or scrutinize our coach's game plan. This loss is on Few. But so are the 9 wins!

1. I think Hart was used not enough in the first half, but Hart passed on shots he should have taken. Maybe Hart isn't using himself enough. I think he is useful to disrupt a physical guard tandem like with illinois. Bell needs some time at PG IMO.

2. Not using Karno is not only shocking , it is disappointing. The media told us, the opponents told us, the opponents fans told us, our fans, EVERYONE said we needed to run our offense through our bigs and continue to pound it inside. Few decided not to. Even when Karno was shooting 80%, he pulled him right after a foul and never played him again. Few will never change in that he will NEVER explain the rationale for his line-ups and substitutions. But ignoring Karno in the 2nd half was stubborn and it didn't help build confidence in our guards either. It hurt in every way. If we would have lost because our bigs lost it, that would be easier than not trying. Especially when tit was obvious to everyone but Few and the staff.

3. But Few did change a lot. So I know he can. He changed from what was working the first 8 games, to something that did not work at WSU and UI. The 10 man DEEP winning rotation was obviously dropped to a 6-7 man rotation. The results are clear. So go back to what was working and develop that. So I have faith he can change back to what worked. Dominate inside, and draw the D in, then hit from outside and all the while control the game.

4. We spoke much about using Harris at the 3 over the course of his career and the off season. Now I think seeing our weaknesses against elite teams, we need to try using Harris at the 3.

5. Tic tac toe is just a game. Gonzaga NCAA basketball is not. It is real life competition that means something for careers, the university, the economy and in each of our hearts. Like it or not, I take it seriously and I enjoy discussion and hearing everyones opinions about the team and games.

Reborn
12-09-2012, 06:35 PM
I don't get why people keep saying stuff like this.. do we really think that we want to win more than Few or the players want to??

Because I'm angry. Do you ever get upset and say things you may not mean? Probably not. You're perfect. I'm sure Few wants to win a national championship. We all do. If you know me, and have followed me on this board you know I am a Few supporter and like him alot. At times I think he does a lousey job coaching, and I believe last night was one of them. I know I shouldn't have said he doesn't want to win a National Championship....and I apologize for saying such an emotional statement.

My particular critcism was that he seems to be accepting the fact that we do not have a person who can play the 3. It is causing huge difficulty for the team. He knows Edi isn't the answer and he believes that the small lineup of Stockton and Pangos in together is the answer, and I am baffled why a coach as good as Few can have such poor judgement. I wonder what the other coaches think. He recruited Dranginis to be a 3 and I can not understand why he doesn't give him a chance. I said it last year and I'll say it again, we will not go beyong the first round with Stockton being a key player. I don't dislike David. I'm sure he's a fantastic kid, and as I've said a number of times he does desrve to have a role, but not as big as the one he has. And unfortunately when he is in, most of the time Pangos is also in and that makes our team extrememly small. Few believes that pangos can be a wing player and so far he's been totally wrong. Pangos has always been a point guard, and for Few to move him to the wing to make room for David STockton really upsets me. ALOT.....And I won't say why.......at least not publicly.

BTB
12-09-2012, 06:47 PM
Because I'm angry. Do you ever get upset and say things you may not mean? Probably not. You're perfect. I'm sure Few wants to win a national championship. We all do. If you know me, and have followed me on this board you know I am a Few supporter and like him alot. At times I think he does a lousey job coaching, and I believe last night was one of them. I know I shouldn't have said he doesn't want to win a National Championship....and I apologize for saying such an emotional statement.

My particular critcism was that he seems to be accepting the fact that we do not have a person who can play the 3. It is causing huge difficulty for the team. He knows Edi isn't the answer and he believes that the small lineup of Stockton and Pangos in together is the answer, and I am baffled why a coach as good as Few can have such poor judgement. I wonder what the other coaches think. He recruited Dranginis to be a 3 and I can not understand why he doesn't give him a chance. I said it last year and I'll say it again, we will not go beyong the first round with Stockton being a key player. I don't dislike David. I'm sure he's a fantastic kid, and as I've said a number of times he does desrve to have a role, but not as big as the one he has. And unfortunately when he is in, most of the time Pangos is also in and that makes our team extrememly small. Few believes that pangos can be a wing player and so far he's been totally wrong. Pangos has always been a point guard, and for Few to move him to the wing to make room for David STockton really upsets me. ALOT.....And I won't say why.......at least not publicly.

Totally agree with Dranginis and David. I think that David and Pangos can play together exceptionally well against teams that don't have a lot of athleticism, but then again how many top teams have small/unathletic guards? Not many. My guess with Draino is that Few doesn't think he's ready (just because Draino looked scared to me) but how is he supposed to get more comfortable and confident without playing? If we have a consistent and confident Dranginis by the end of the year it would be HUGE

Reborn
12-09-2012, 07:24 PM
Totally agree with Dranginis and David. I think that David and Pangos can play together exceptionally well against teams that don't have a lot of athleticism, but then again how many top teams have small/unathletic guards? Not many. My guess with Draino is that Few doesn't think he's ready (just because Draino looked scared to me) but how is he supposed to get more comfortable and confident without playing? If we have a consistent and confident Dranginis by the end of the year it would be HUGE

Yeah. The only way kyle will get confidence is for few to play him more.

Oregonzagnut
12-09-2012, 09:14 PM
Edi tends to force shots IMO. Hoping to be as efficient as he was in his first 3 games. if he focussed on lock down defense like Hart does, his shots will come if he just stays patient. So Edi either is misused by Few, or Edi breaks down and blows the assignment.

David Stockton is our back up PG and shouldn't play with Pangos like he has lately. But Few, ever so mixing it up, has tended to go small again and his comfort zone is with his favorite guards. He is confident in that. Fine. But know when you can't afford to be so small especially when they are cold shooting.

Dranginis, I can see needs time, but also needs to be a consistent part of having those fresh legs and working with the same guys on a substitution.

Iwatched this game 2 times today and am even more confused about Mark Fews stubborness to not use Karnowski more in the 2nd half. But we just got rattled and we made 5-6 bad BAD TO's and our guard shot cold. Everyone must recognize cold streaks and find the hot hand.

GeorgiaZagFan
12-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Does Harris at three stop Brandon Paul?


Nope.


A solution looking for a problem.

No - it's not about stopping Paul in that game, we could have let him get his 35 and still won the game ...but it IS about maximizing our offense against their defense ...and we did not do that ...

Oregonzagnut
12-09-2012, 11:47 PM
No - it's not about stopping Paul in that game, we could have let him get his 35 and still won the game ...but it IS about maximizing our offense against their defense ...and we did not do that ...

Bingo. I watched the game 2 more times and we chased them all second half rather than sticking to our bread and butter and utilizing our bigs to the max. Run Karno Kelly and Harris. Then run whoever at SG and PG because no matter what they were going to get beat.

If after 8 games, the bread and butter stops working, then we know why. We played WSU and UI. Two significantly better teams. But if you change one variable for the last two games, like shrinking to a 6 man rotation and holding your biggest center to 12 minutes in two games, then we have something that doesn't work for sure. Why did Few change what was working brilliantly and became nationally renowned. I would rather prove that wrong and move forward than lose a game experimenting at the biggest time when we needed solid answers most.

WSU and Illinois was not the time to leave our bread and butter 10 man front court dominated game in favor of ANYTHING else. There was absolutely no reason to choose any other game plan then what we did to win the OSC.

I think Bells tweet was a warning that some changes were coming.

Crazy
12-10-2012, 12:54 AM
I am not sure, if it was the key to beat illinois. Especially when Dower still was sick i doubt it.

But in geneal i like the idea, since i have more trust in the backup Bigs then in our main 3's. So i think if Elias or Kelly play partially at the 3, and Dower and K get more playing time at 4/5. I believe the better player on 3 make up, for the lower quality on 4/5.

gu03alum
12-10-2012, 04:50 AM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8yquvQMaz1rz6i9zo1_500.jpg

BMAN
12-10-2012, 06:28 AM
We have to play to our strength. Our teams strength is the bigs. We must create matchup problems for other teams

We have 3 NBA type players. Harris, Kelly and Karno. Any great coach would devise a plan to keep them on the floor as much as possible. Especially since we have Dower to back them up.

We did not have the personell to match up with their 3 guards so we should have made them try to match up against our 3 bigs. Harris can guard the perimeter as well as Hart. Hart is a great energy guy and fights in the paint but he is not a great perimeter defender. And on offense his guy sagged way off to help inside. Put Harris there and let them sag off. Or post Harris up with the smaller defender. Cause nightmares for them.

We go small with Stockton, Bell and Pangos and make it easy for the other team.

We have to start using our strength to our advantage. Other coaches would die to have the bigs we have. Why doesnt Few use them? If we wanted to keep our best players on the court we would start Harris , Kelly, Karno, Pangos and Bell and have Dower, Edi and Kyle coming off the bench. Stockton and Hart are good WCC players but they are not going to get us to a sweet 16. And with those guys in the game our better players are on the bench