PDA

View Full Version : is there anyone that still honestly thinks...?



soccerdud
11-13-2015, 09:23 PM
that playing our three best players (wilt, karno, sabonis) together is our best lineup? or even a generically (as opposed to situationally) viable lineup?

that lineup lost to eastern oregon, and was doubled up on by pitt--admittedly in limited minutes in both cases (thank god).

moreover, that lineup looked even worse offensively than it did defensively. it forces wiltjer to be a one dimensional jump-shooter (the difference between him being the 6th man of the year in the SEC and a legitimate candidate for POY is everything else he does), gives neither of the other two enough room to work (because few isn't going to tell any of wiltjer, karno, sabonis, or one of the two ballhandlers on the court with them to hang out in the corner), and makes driving impossible and playing inside-out nearly so. how many good sets have we seen with this lineup? how many entry passes to a big with room to work? heck, have we seen a single halfcourt possession with this lineup end in ANYTHING other than a long-range jumpshot, turnover, or karno blocked in traffic?

it is time to end the experiment, and time for everyone involved to move past the fallacy that the best lineup/team is as simple as putting the best individual players on the court together.

ZagaZags
11-13-2015, 09:26 PM
2 bigs > 3 bigs.

CDC84
11-13-2015, 09:49 PM
I've been saying the same thing all along....that lineup will fail unless Few employs a zone defense like he did with the 2008/09 team. A well drawn up zone protects Wiltjer defensively and keeps the bigs out of foul trouble. The guards can pressure the perimeter with all the size in the middle protecting the rim. But for some reason MF wants to use man defense with that group. It invites mismatches. A zone would reduce the impact of those mismatches.

From an offensive standpoint, I just don't know how using three guards/wings is going to work when none of them have proven to be a reliable 40% three point shooter. Those guys are going to have to prove they can stick shots from deep.

soccerdud
11-13-2015, 09:52 PM
I've been saying the same thing all along....that lineup will fail unless Few employs a zone defense like he did with the 2008/09 team. A well drawn up zone protects Wiltjer defensively and keeps the bigs out of foul trouble. The guards can pressure the perimeter with all the size in the middle protecting the rim. But for some reason MF wants to use man defense with that group. It invites mismatches. A zone would reduce the impact of those mismatches.

Forget defense. It isn't the problem. We can't play offense with this lineup. As I said in the initial post.

Zagdawg
11-13-2015, 09:53 PM
Agree--- it was a nice idea--but we saw the results and it did not work.

Pargo the Destroyer
11-13-2015, 09:54 PM
I've been saying the same thing all along....that lineup will fail unless Few employs a zone defense like he did with the 2008/09 team. A well drawn up zone protects Wiltjer defensively and keeps the bigs out of foul trouble. The guards can pressure the perimeter with all the size in the middle protecting the rim. But for some reason MF wants to use man defense with that group. It invites mismatches. A zone would reduce the impact of those mismatches.

Agreed, although going zone may impact us in the rebounding dept. How did we do on the glass tonight? Seemed like we held our own all things considered. Back to the main point, I dont know if playing the big 3 makes the most sense. Good points here.

CDC84
11-13-2015, 09:57 PM
I don't think Few is going to stop experimenting with that lineup. It will be used throughout the rest of the season, even if it seems to some fans like he's trying to pound a round peg into a square hole. They would rather have Wiltjer as a stand alone jump shooter than have 3 guards/wings on the floor who can't stick a 3 point shot. The guards are going to have to prove they can hit 3 pointers before Few will be willing to discard "the big three" concept on offense. He doesn't want teams packing the middle, daring the perimeters to shoot. He's also going to have to learn to trust the guards and their decision making. If you have more of them on the floor right now, more mistakes will be made. That's the way it has been going during practices and such.

soccerdud
11-13-2015, 10:01 PM
From an offensive standpoint, I just don't know how using three guards/wings is going to work when none of them have proven to be a reliable 40% three point shooter. Those guys are going to have to prove they can stick shots from deep.

Addressing the part you added after...

2 bigs on offense means wilt can play inside the lane, opens space for pick n rolls, high-low, ballhandler drives, and means we can have a guard-type spread to the corner and cut baseline if space opens. We can do none of those things effectively with the big three on the court together. None of those require (but everything is obviously aided by) our guards shooting better from 3.

Or, if you don't want to take my word for it, rewatch either game and compare our offensive sets, shot quality, and results when playing 2 vs 3 bigs. We were more effective inside (and in actually every way, including transition, slashing, drawing fouls, and ball movement) with 2 bigs. And it's not close. Wilt can shoot 50% from 3 either way. But with 2 bigs we can succeed in other ways. We have shown absolutely no ability to do anything else with the big 3 on the court together.

Few has shown the willingness to abandon failed experiments in the past (see E at the 3). I strongly believe that our success this year hinges on him doing so again.

CDC84
11-13-2015, 10:07 PM
I just don't know if you can say that something is a failed experiment after just one 20 minute half of real basketball (on a slippery floor) when the big three only played together for a few minutes. They aren't used to playing with each other. Remember, Karno was out most of October. I could care less about the performance in the exhibition game and in the "rumored" performance against Baylor. We need to see what occurs in real games. There needs to be a larger sample size.

Marcus
11-13-2015, 10:09 PM
Although it hasn't looked great so far it is still way too early to write it off. I don't think 5 min of an exhibition game and a half of basketball on a slippery floor is a good enough sample size. It may not work but they need to give it an honest effort to click. Just like the guards, this team and its rotations are a work in progress. Especially since 2 of the 3 bigs are coming off significant set backs due to illness/injury. We should have a clearer picture after the next couple games.

CdAZagFan
11-13-2015, 10:16 PM
I agree with those that say it is way too early to tell the results. Also, matchups are going to dictate what works best. There will be times this season where the three-big lineup will be much more advantageous and times where it will be a big hindrance. I feel like we haven't even had the opportunity to see a "real" game yet...

CDC84
11-13-2015, 10:17 PM
You need to take all exhibition game performances and throw them in the Spokane River. They don't count. The coaches do so much experimenting in these games that they would rather lose the game than fail to get those experiments in.

I think a lot of this is being motivated by the fact that Few doesn't trust the guard play right now. The more guards he has on the floor, the more uncomfortable he is with the decision making and mistakes. These guys are going to have to prove themselves.

soccerdud
11-13-2015, 10:19 PM
You guys really willing to bet an NCAA game in the Spokane Arena on that? In the face of the (admittedly limited) evidence? I sure hope Few isn't.

The problem with experimenting in the regular season is that failure costs you. And while I might only have limited evidence backing me up, people saying it is a viable lineup have NO evidence backing them up.

Zagricultural
11-13-2015, 10:22 PM
Time will tell, but I am still not convinced that 3 bigs > 2 bigs. The sample size is admittedly small, but it is compelling.

Zagricultural
11-13-2015, 10:24 PM
You guys really willing to bet an NCAA game in the Spokane Arena on that? In the face of the (admittedly limited) evidence? I sure hope Few isn't.

The problem with experimenting in the regular season is that failure costs you. And while I might only have limited evidence backing me up, people saying it is a viable lineup have NO evidence backing them up.

Exactly!

CDC84
11-13-2015, 10:30 PM
I'm saying we don't know if it's a viable lineup because it hasn't been given time to mature. And I doubt that it's going to matter all that much in the next two games where there will be a massive talent disparity. I have no opinion either way. I'll go with whatever works. If it fails, it fails.

Again, I think a lot of the "big three" idea is being motivated by the fact that Few doesn't trust the guard play right now. The more guards he has on the floor, the more uncomfortable he is with the decision making and mistakes. The more opportunity there is for bad decision making and mistakes. These guys are going to have to prove themselves, because quality guard play is the single most important thing to Few and his system. They haven't been cutting it in practice. Few has been constantly ranting about a lack of attention to detail and such.

Marcus
11-13-2015, 10:30 PM
I don't think that Few is that stubborn that he would let it cost the team a game. So far the team hasn't played a game that counts. They are still 0-0 in the eyes of the committee. None of us have any evidence either way, but let's see how it plays out. The two games coming up should paint a clearer picture. If it's a total train wreck, against what should be easier competition, than I trust Few will make a decision that's best for the team.

MickMick
11-13-2015, 10:40 PM
It will last about as long as the Harris at 3 experiment.


Mark Few has handled this intelligently. He will get this experiment out of the way early and convince his star players that he gave it a go, it doesn't work, and now it is time to get serious about winning. At least the players know that Few tried to accommodate them. In the end Few always knew this lineup would not work. Just like he knew that Harris was better suited as a power forward. He has to occasionally do such crazy things to keep the recruiting pipeline open.

CDC84
11-13-2015, 10:41 PM
I don't think Few ever seriously entertained the idea of the Harris at the 3 experiment. How many minutes did he actually play in real games at the three? He is much more determined to make the "big three" concept work.

And it wouldn't surprise me if Few doesn't start the big three against Northern Arizona who goes 6-9, 6-7 and starts 3 short guards. By the way, the Cougs beat NAU by 12 tonight.

seacatfan
11-13-2015, 10:43 PM
We may have a small sample size, but it's looked REALLY bad. How large of a sample size is required to determine that it doesn't work? The guy that seems to be hurt the most by the 3 Bigs lineup is Sabonis, who you would think had the most to gain from it (increased PT). He can't operate on O with that alignment. I can't recall him getting a single bucket when all 3 bigs are on the floor. As soon as it's only 2 of the bigs, he starts getting easy buckets in the lane. Seems fairly obvious to me. Wiltjer can put points on the board regardless, and Karno is struggling a bit no matter what lineup is on the floor.

This might turn into an interesting exercise in how stubborn will Few prove to be.

soccerdud
11-13-2015, 10:46 PM
It will last about as long as the Harris at 3 experiment.


Mark Few has handled this intelligently. He will get this experiment out of the way early and convince his star players that he gave it a go, it doesn't work, and now it is time to get serious about winning. At least the players know that Few tried to accommodate them. In the end Few always knew this lineup would not work. Just like he knew that Harris was better suited as a power forward. He has to occasionally do such crazy things to keep the recruiting pipeline open.

I dig it. Certainly jives with my high opinion of Few, as well as the fact that he broke up the big 3 with his second sub, and we never saw them on the court together again.

And, sorry Marcus, but there is evidence on our side. Not definitive, but plenty compelling to me (and, hopefully to Few) given what's at stake. There's a difference between being properly skeptical when faced with insufficient evidence and just pretending it doesn't exist.

Marcus
11-13-2015, 10:53 PM
Ok , I will concede that there is more evidence that says it will not work but I still don't think it should be scrapped yet until they know for sure. I'm fine if they do scrap it, I'm just saying wait a bit longer. It hasn't cost the team anything yet.

Worthington
11-13-2015, 11:33 PM
Completely agree with you soccerdud. Yes the sample size is still small, but your analysis is spot on. There are plenty of glaring reasons why this is not a good strategy. There's enough minutes to go around for all 3 bigs. Sabonis brings so much energy off the bench and absolutely punishes other teams second units. I feel like the obvious choice for the starting 3 is Dranginis. When there is so much inexperience in the back court it makes no sense to me why you wouldn't want a 5th year player and ultra glue guy on the court as much as possible. He's not a lights out 3 point shooter, but he's capable and will get better with more confidence. From what I've seen Draino should be getting 30 minutes a game for his defense, ability to get the bigs involved, ball movement, and penetration. Given Few's love for stability and players who make the smart play, I've been very surprised not to see this so far.

Martin Centre Mad Man
11-14-2015, 01:29 AM
I cannot recall a single individual offensive play in either of these exhibitions where that lineup flowed well.

Zagger
11-14-2015, 03:15 AM
Completely agree with you soccerdud. Yes the sample size is still small, but your analysis is spot on. There are plenty of glaring reasons why this is not a good strategy. There's enough minutes to go around for all 3 bigs. Sabonis brings so much energy off the bench and absolutely punishes other teams second units. I feel like the obvious choice for the starting 3 is Dranginis. When there is so much inexperience in the back court it makes no sense to me why you wouldn't want a 5th year player and ultra glue guy on the court as much as possible. He's not a lights out 3 point shooter, but he's capable and will get better with more confidence. From what I've seen Draino should be getting 30 minutes a game for his defense, ability to get the bigs involved, ball movement, and penetration. Given Few's love for stability and players who make the smart play, I've been very surprised not to see this so far.

Nail on head IMHO .... More KD please.

Baldwinzag
11-14-2015, 05:02 AM
I've been saying the same thing all along....that lineup will fail unless Few employs a zone defense like he did with the 2008/09 team. A well drawn up zone protects Wiltjer defensively and keeps the bigs out of foul trouble. The guards can pressure the perimeter with all the size in the middle protecting the rim. But for some reason MF wants to use man defense with that group. It invites mismatches. A zone would reduce the impact of those mismatches.

From an offensive standpoint, I just don't know how using three guards/wings is going to work when none of them have proven to be a reliable 40% three point shooter. Those guys are going to have to prove they can stick shots from deep.

Excellent point. Shocked we haven't zoned considering - at least - one of our bigs are forced to cover someone quicker, smaller, more athletic.

I wonder if we will ever employ zone again? Coach Few was against last season, yet that team ran thru every ball screen and was about precision and details.

I can count on one hand how many times we zoned last season.

The 3-big lineup is silly, and show unrealistic if we don't zone. Pitt abused it and so did a NAIA team.

Numerous posters said all along, it kills Wiltjer's versatility, Sabonis ability to rebound, and Karno isolation. It honestly neutralizes all their respective strengths by playing them together.

GonzagasaurusFlex
11-14-2015, 06:16 AM
I don't think Few is going to stop experimenting with that lineup. It will be used throughout the rest of the season, even if it seems to some fans like he's trying to pound a round peg into a square hole. They would rather have Wiltjer as a stand alone jump shooter than have 3 guards/wings on the floor who can't stick a 3 point shot. The guards are going to have to prove they can hit 3 pointers before Few will be willing to discard "the big three" concept on offense. He doesn't want teams packing the middle, daring the perimeters to shoot. He's also going to have to learn to trust the guards and their decision making. If you have more of them on the floor right now, more mistakes will be made. That's the way it has been going during practices and such.

Thanks CDC...that sums it up nicely.
After watching UW beat Texas last night, I too am not at all confident in the 3-big lineup especially vs bouncy, athletic teams like UW. However, our guards have to knock down shots and show they can handle the big stage in every respect. I forsee growing pains ahead...but to be expected when Pangos/Bell were getting all the burn the past two seasons.

DixieZag
11-14-2015, 06:53 AM
I wonder if we will ever employ zone again? Coach Few was against last season, yet that team ran thru every ball screen and was about precision and details..

There is a certain subset of NCAA coaches, i.e. Bob Knight and Mike K, that take man to man defense to an almost spiritual level, like if you play zone you've made a concession that they're better than you, that you can't "man-up" in more ways than one, like a zone is a gimmick defense. I have often wondered if Few fell into this thinking long ago. (Coach K grudgingly evolved into using it on occassion, iirc)

I can recall many a game over the last 10 years where he suddenly went to a zone after getting killed and it turned the tide on the defensive end, only to go right back to man to man a few possessions later.

I do get that it makes rebounding harder.

As a "play your 3 best players" advocate, gotta admit it looked awful last night, however, in addition to the caveats below, I'd like to point out that Karno couldn't even get a shot off clean, never mind make one, so that factors into the awfulness aspect.

bartruff1
11-14-2015, 07:14 AM
Given the guard play, I don't think he has any choice.

willandi
11-14-2015, 07:18 AM
that playing our three best players (wilt, karno, sabonis) together is our best lineup? or even a generically (as opposed to situationally) viable lineup?

that lineup lost to eastern oregon, and was doubled up on by pitt--admittedly in limited minutes in both cases (thank god).

moreover, that lineup looked even worse offensively than it did defensively. it forces wiltjer to be a one dimensional jump-shooter (the difference between him being the 6th man of the year in the SEC and a legitimate candidate for POY is everything else he does), gives neither of the other two enough room to work (because few isn't going to tell any of wiltjer, karno, sabonis, or one of the two ballhandlers on the court with them to hang out in the corner), and makes driving impossible and playing inside-out nearly so. how many good sets have we seen with this lineup? how many entry passes to a big with room to work? heck, have we seen a single halfcourt possession with this lineup end in ANYTHING other than a long-range jumpshot, turnover, or karno blocked in traffic?

it is time to end the experiment, and time for everyone involved to move past the fallacy that the best lineup/team is as simple as putting the best individual players on the court together.

The question as asked is wrong. The question should be..."Does Mark Few still believe..." It doesn't really matter what you or I think, at least as far as lineups go.

Zag365
11-14-2015, 07:40 AM
As I reported, Tommy Lloyd accurately previewed what we are seeing (albeit in cryptic coach-speak) during the Seattle tip-off event. I think the coaches know the team has some issues, that November will be a little rocky/uneven, but they are confident they will figure out the best combinations that will get us back to the tourney.

Comments that stuck out: Focus is on getting ready for March - it's never a given; would rather start slow and improve; wants to win every game, but sometimes you lose and it motivates you to improve. He indicated that this team will likely play faster but it is unclear how well that will work until the new combinations are tried out under game conditions. Stressed that each team each year has its own identity that needs to be worked out. KP and GBJ were tough, very steady, kept the team in rhythm, were extensions of the coaches. This year will take a few games to see who can handle what.

spike_jr
11-14-2015, 07:40 AM
People are arguing that we need to play the big 3 because the guards can't shoot well enough to keep defenses honest and that teams will just collapse on defense and dare us to shoot. As mentioned above, playing all 3 at once seems to mitigates each one of their strengths. I would take it even farther - it limits the strengths of Perkins and EMac as well. They are drivers and slashers more than jump shooters. They have the ability to stress the defense by driving the lane and making the defense react. So if Few is going to stay with EMac (we all know Perkins is going to start and play a lot of minutes) and the Big 3, the offense is going to sputter.

Now on defense, there is no upside to the Big 3. Watching Sabonis chase a 6'-2" guy all over the court is never going to be a good idea Zone would be a better option (and an option that we have not even seen tried yet). But both of these compromise our rebounding and also limits our ability to always have a fresh big ready to play.

The big 3 are arguably the 3 best players on the team, but that does not mean they make up the best 5 man unit.

ProjectMKUltra5
11-14-2015, 09:09 AM
This is part of post I made back in July about playing the big 3 on offense. Hopefully Few is contact with Hoopaholic so he can get all those magical sets from him


The thing that really irks me is that while it doesn't make any sense on defense, it makes even less sense offensively. Why would you make Kyle just stand outside the 3 point line? Why force him to be the same player he was at UK when he's so much more dynamic then that? It's not like he can go inside out with another big, Kyle IS the outside in that scenario...

...By putting PK, Sabo, and Wiljter in at the same time your taking your best player out of position just because you don't want to rotate your bigs...

http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?53847-Sabonis-has-a-real-shot-at-making-it-into-Lithuania-s-Men-s-National-Team/page6


Everyone made (a rather foolish) assumption that for all the defensive shortcomings, we'd just power through teams on offense. Unfortunately it's not that simple. You're starting to see how many chances are created when our guards move the ball around the perimeter in a traditional manner. When the 3 bigs are in that movement is flat and no chances are created. PK and Sabo are reduced to space eaters while Wiljter drifts outside the 3 point line waiting for the ball. Your then left with a group of of guards that are playing tentative to create chances out of nothing. It's a recipe for disaster that hasn't worked in any way shape or form.

soccerdud
11-14-2015, 09:34 AM
everyone keeps bringing up the guards. yes, they clearly need to mature, cut down on turnovers, and generally do (shoot, pass, dribble) better. but what matters most is the score, and guard play is just one input into that. it is clear that, at least to this point, 2 bigs does a better job on offense than 3. moreover, there is absolutely no evidence in support of the unstated assertion that our guard play is improved by having only 2 ballhandlers on the court as opposed to 3.

the argument seems to be that you guys (and few) would rather have one more guy he trusts out there and put all 5 (or at least 4 of 5-- wilt can "succeed" anywhere, in any position) in a position to fail, than deal with a wildcard and put the team in position to succeed. this seems like stubbornness bordering on insanity to me.


As a "play your 3 best players" advocate, gotta admit it looked awful last night, however, in addition to the caveats below, I'd like to point out that Karno couldn't even get a shot off clean, never mind make one, so that factors into the awfulness aspect.

my response to karno's struggles getting a shot off would be that it is caused by the lineup (and the lack of space to work, the ease [and lack of risk] in getting a help defender to him in close quarters). this is a result of the lineup, rather than an incidental, and therefore mitigating, factor.

also, props on your prescience, MK. it didn't get enough attention the first time.

Zagricultural
11-14-2015, 10:01 AM
Completely agree with you soccerdud. Yes the sample size is still small, but your analysis is spot on. There are plenty of glaring reasons why this is not a good strategy. There's enough minutes to go around for all 3 bigs. Sabonis brings so much energy off the bench and absolutely punishes other teams second units. I feel like the obvious choice for the starting 3 is Dranginis. When there is so much inexperience in the back court it makes no sense to me why you wouldn't want a 5th year player and ultra glue guy on the court as much as possible. He's not a lights out 3 point shooter, but he's capable and will get better with more confidence. From what I've seen Draino should be getting 30 minutes a game for his defense, ability to get the bigs involved, ball movement, and penetration. Given Few's love for stability and players who make the smart play, I've been very surprised not to see this so far.

Agreed

roxdoc
11-14-2015, 10:24 AM
Our guard play may not be stellar but they are not going to improve unless they play some extended minutes and gain some confidence. Floor last night took away from JP and McC play but I thought there was a little glimmer of hope from Melson.

Outraged
11-14-2015, 11:34 AM
I never thought of it as a either or problem. I think it is a viable set with certain opponents and at certain times that occur with certain matchups in the flow of a game. I think the bigger issue is getting the guards and bigs flowing together and getting the most value from each other's strengths whether two bigs or three bigs. I think the big question Mark remains but I think these types of international trips etc. help with that bonding.

primal23
11-14-2015, 01:00 PM
What I saw, and it was the same as against eastern Oregon, when the big three were in the offense was stale, couldn't defend and fell behind early. Things improved as soon as one of the three went out.

ProjectMKUltra5
11-14-2015, 01:30 PM
also, props on your prescience, MK. it didn't get enough attention the first time.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/001/046/524/tumblr_mm8uqoLmWn1rdqggno1_400_original.gif?137850 9875

TheGonzagaFactor
11-16-2015, 06:26 AM
From what I can see, the only benefit of the 3 big lineup (and, I assume, its purpose) is having two bigs to rebound Wiltjer's 3s. That's it. The lineup has been a complete disaster in every possible way except for that it gives Kyle confidence from the perimeter early... which could happen anyway with 5 bigs, 4 bigs, 3 bigs, 2 bigs, 1 big, or zero bigs.

So far 3 bigs has been a huge fail (as most familiar with basketball were sure it would be). I'm surprised Few used it at all. If it isn't just a way to appease all 3 bigs so they can have the "pride" of "starting" then I don't know what it is.

For those saying it's not enough of a sample size: How many losses will we need to take for the sample size to be sufficient?

CDC84
11-16-2015, 07:45 AM
So far 3 bigs has been a huge fail (as most familiar with basketball were sure it would be). I'm surprised Few used it at all. If it isn't just a way to appease all 3 bigs so they can have the "pride" of "starting" then I don't know what it is.

I don't think it's a pride thing or to appease egos. Few has said publicly that he feels the big 3 are by far and away the three best players he has. He wants to play them as much as humanly possible. That's really all that it comes down to. And the fact that Few right now doesn't trust his guards/wings, and he would rather have less of them on the floor because the less of him he has on the floor, the less mistakes will be made. He hasn't been happy enough with them in practice to start giving them greater responsibilities in games. There is nothing that drives him more crazy than erratic guard play.

Coaches like Thad Matta at Ohio State will start power forwards at point guard if it means he can get his 5 best players on the floor. The idea is that you put your best guys out there and let the overall totality of their talent crush the other team. You find a way to work it out provided you have creative coaching minds and egoless players. It's not like Few is crazy in his thinking. Other successful coaches have employed such strategies at times.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next game. NAU goes 6-9 and 6-7 in the frontcourt and plays 3 small guards. That could present some problems for the big three defensively. But they should be able to beat them regardless.

BMAN
11-16-2015, 08:05 AM
Tommy Lloyd said that they have to find playing time for the big three. He said last year Sabonis only averaged 21 minutes a game and that was not fair for him He also said Karnowski did not get enough minutes. There are not enough minutes at the 4 and 5 to give all three the time they deserve. They have to steal at least 10 minutes a game from the 3 spot.

uZiGiZaG
11-16-2015, 08:14 AM
Those 3 playing together is not the issue .. This is so funny.


The issue is the horrible play from the back court

Perkins looks like he hasn't improved at all .. Dude was caught in multiple bad situations amainst Pitt and was for some reason not reading and distributing the pass to the right read

McCelland shouldn't be playing period. That dude brings nothing to the table.

We need a shooter, desperately. Especially to help the big 3 playing together

Gonzdb8
11-16-2015, 08:19 AM
McCelland shouldn't be playing period. That dude brings nothing to the table.

thats a little harsh don't you think. he looked solid in the exhibition game and not sure how you can make that judgement based on the Pitt game given the circumstances. you ultimately could be correct, but it feels a little early to be writing him off as bringing nothing to the table.

Reborn
11-16-2015, 08:30 AM
As I reported, Tommy Lloyd accurately previewed what we are seeing (albeit in cryptic coach-speak) during the Seattle tip-off event. I think the coaches know the team has some issues, that November will be a little rocky/uneven, but they are confident they will figure out the best combinations that will get us back to the tourney.

Comments that stuck out: Focus is on getting ready for March - it's never a given; would rather start slow and improve; wants to win every game, but sometimes you lose and it motivates you to improve. He indicated that this team will likely play faster but it is unclear how well that will work until the new combinations are tried out under game conditions. Stressed that each team each year has its own identity that needs to be worked out. KP and GBJ were tough, very steady, kept the team in rhythm, were extensions of the coaches. This year will take a few games to see who can handle what.

It's always good for me to know what the coaches are thinking. Thank you for posting this. I guess I would call this year's team "A work in Process." Apparently, Mark Few is willing to take some losses in the early part of the season. I trust his judgement. Afterall, he has proven himself as a head coach. I'm hoping the fans can be patient. After reading this thread I'm really looking forward to seeing them play tomorrow.

strikenowhere
11-16-2015, 08:31 AM
It really is tough to draw conclusions as to where things are right now based on an exhibition and a half of basketball played on a slip-'n-slide but here goes anyway :p. I had voted for the big 3 to start in poll earlier in the year and at the time it seemed to make sense as I initially had confidence in the guards, especially their 3-pt shooting; Melson & Alberts are supposed to be our marksmen (along with Wiltjer obviously). However, so far it seems that only Wiltjer is capable of making a 3 defended or not. This causes big issues obviously as opponents just collapse in. This team really needs some 3-pt shooting outside of Wiltjer.

Reborn
11-16-2015, 08:32 AM
I don't think it's a pride thing or to appease egos. Few has said publicly that he feels the big 3 are by far and away the three best players he has. He wants to play them as much as humanly possible. That's really all that it comes down to. And the fact that Few right now doesn't trust his guards/wings, and he would rather have less of them on the floor because the less of him he has on the floor, the less mistakes will be made. He hasn't been happy enough with them in practice to start giving them greater responsibilities in games. There is nothing that drives him more crazy than erratic guard play.

Coaches like Thad Matta at Ohio State will start power forwards at point guard if it means he can get his 5 best players on the floor. The idea is that you put your best guys out there and let the overall totality of their talent crush the other team. You find a way to work it out provided you have creative coaching minds and egoless players. It's not like Few is crazy in his thinking. Other successful coaches have employed such strategies at times.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next game. NAU goes 6-9 and 6-7 in the frontcourt and plays 3 small guards. That could present some problems for the big three defensively. But they should be able to beat them regardless.

Great post. This makes absolute sense to me. Thanks for your insights.

Zagtana
11-16-2015, 08:47 AM
It's always good for me to know what the coaches are thinking. Thank you for posting this. I guess I would call this year's team "A work in Process." Apparently, Mark Few is willing to take some losses in the early part of the season. I trust his judgement. Afterall, he has proven himself as a head coach. I'm hoping the fans can be patient. After reading this thread I'm really looking forward to seeing them play tomorrow.
"play tomorrow"? Your thread is dated today, Mon., Nov. 16. Is not the next game Wed, Nov. 18, or am I missing something (could be me, I'm old and confuse easy)?

soccerdud
11-16-2015, 08:48 AM
Those 3 playing together is not the issue .. This is so funny.


The issue is the horrible play from the back court

Perkins looks like he hasn't improved at all .. Dude was caught in multiple bad situations amainst Pitt and was for some reason not reading and distributing the pass to the right read

McCelland shouldn't be playing period. That dude brings nothing to the table.

We need a shooter, desperately. Especially to help the big 3 playing together

dude, did you even watch us play? i'm not sure i've ever seen a post that so completely failed to match the facts on the ground.

here are the facts:

-- the big 3 lineup was losing for 4 minutes vs Eastern Oregon. few is forced to abandon the big 3 experiment due to injury. 2-big lineup wins by 35+ over the next 34 minutes.
-- the big 3 lineup was doubled up by PITT in 6 minutes. few willingly abandons the big 3 experiment due to ??? (probably rotational realities, but hopefully awareness). 2-big lineup fights back, has and takes lead, etc.

when one of our best players came off, and we put in one of those backcourt players who has been "horrible" (your word), the whole team got WAY better. that's a fact. yes, it was in limited time, but the fact is inarguable-- even if the conclusion isn't.

we all agree, guard play needs to improve. but improved guard play will help BOTH lineups. it stands to reason that improved guard play will help a 3-guard lineup more than a 2-guard lineup. moreover at our current level of play, the 3-big lineup (with all our best players!) isn't even competitive against decent competition. that isn't the guards' fault. and it isn't likely to change.

the concepts that offenses are built on, be it in basketball, football, soccer, or any similar sport are: spacing/space, motion (both ball and players), angles, deception, and matchups. the big 3 lineup sacrifices all of the first 4 to get a "better" matchup for one player. nevermind the fact that that one player, who could be a wooden award winner, is a horrible matchup for any defender, but is basically forced to chuck 3s in this lineup. outside of witljer's 3s, have we even scored a single FG in a halfcourt set with the big 3 on the court??? (play-by-play shows only E-Mac's transition 3 as a made FG vs EOU; not sure where i can get play-by-play of Pitt without rewatching myself, for the third time).

there is evidence. game tape. watch it. see the results. then go back and think about the concepts in play.

bunch of lineup-deniers who can't get over their own wishful thinking.

sittingon50
11-16-2015, 08:59 AM
So it failed for 6 minutes in the 1st action of the year against a team that already had 5 full games under their belt & for 20 minutes half way around the world on a skating rink vs an ACC team.

Yep, I've seen enough. Trash can.

:fingergun:

strikenowhere
11-16-2015, 09:08 AM
On the plus side - if any of the big three complain about playing time, they already lost out on the chance to transfer :)

Worthington
11-16-2015, 09:22 AM
To those saying that we haven't seen enough to write off this lineup, can you give us an analysis of why this lineup is such a good idea in the first place. I see soccerdud making a lot of good points.

As I see it, the maximum upside that this lineup provides is an additional three point shooter on the perimeter (Wiltjer), albeit an elite one. But the downside is huge on defense, and you're also taking away so much of Wiltjer's strength by keeping him from posting up. Furthermore, as much as Wiltjer is clearly one of the best players in the country, he is a big minus in terms of penetrating and creating from the perimeter. A lot of our offense is created through slashing and the ball movement that comes from attacking the defense and forcing help, and we're just not getting much from the 3 big lineup. That's why the offense has looked so stagnant. To me this best player on the floor argument doesn't hold much water. If your 5 best players are centers, are you going to play them all? Positions do matter, both on offense and defense.

U Zig, I Zag
11-16-2015, 09:37 AM
All 3 need to be explosive to play all 3 at once. They are not. Shem especially. Still can't believe he got blocked several times (again!) in a game. Not a high energy, jumpy player. I think KW plays a heck of a lot of minutes and after that, you get Sabonis and Karno swapping in and out with Edwards getting minutes. I know we have the height (two 7-footers!) and that's talked about - but really, I would take 2 guys that are 6-9 and can jump out of the gym. I have been saying that for 10 years though.

All 3 just clogs things up and they are too slow collectively to be intimidating. I think we'll see that lineup at times, but I can't imagine we go with it all the time.

seacatfan
11-16-2015, 09:45 AM
Coaches like Thad Matta at Ohio State will start power forwards at point guard if it means he can get his 5 best players on the floor.


Please give an example of Matta starting a power forward at point guard.

raise the zag
11-16-2015, 09:50 AM
Floor spacing & quickness (offensively & defensively) go to the waist side with the 3-big lineup.

Our offense is predicated on efficient spacing. Notice how quickly a player loses PT in this offense when spaced incorrectly.

3 bigs cause clogging in the middle, one big forced to play out of position, and the defense to pack-it-in. All the above = poor results.

Coach Few and Lloyd continually state, "they are our 3 best players and its a disservice to limit their minutes".

Hey, I agree with the sentiment and can't argue with this fact, BUT it no way translates into our 'best lineup/team'.

Yes, we have had little evidence to ascertain a conclusion on this experiment, yet the writing is/was on the wall.

I also understand Domas and/or Karno deserve as many minutes as possible, but that matters very little if we start every game in a deficit.

It has been Wiltjer, sans one of the other two, along with some guard-work that has brought us back in all 3 games scenarios thus far.

Its not working. And I wholeheartedly believe it will never work given again, floor spacing and quickness on both ends.

bartruff1
11-16-2015, 10:19 AM
438

Zagdawg
11-16-2015, 10:41 AM
The plan is to start every game with a deficit to prove to the team that they can come back and win.......very sneeky work by Few and the staff.

uZiGiZaG
11-16-2015, 10:45 AM
dude, did you even watch us play? i'm not sure i've ever seen a post that so completely failed to match the facts on the ground.

here are the facts:

-- the big 3 lineup was losing for 4 minutes vs Eastern Oregon. few is forced to abandon the big 3 experiment due to injury. 2-big lineup wins by 35+ over the next 34 minutes.
-- the big 3 lineup was doubled up by PITT in 6 minutes. few willingly abandons the big 3 experiment due to ??? (probably rotational realities, but hopefully awareness). 2-big lineup fights back, has and takes lead, etc.

when one of our best players came off, and we put in one of those backcourt players who has been "horrible" (your word), the whole team got WAY better. that's a fact. yes, it was in limited time, but the fact is inarguable-- even if the conclusion isn't.

we all agree, guard play needs to improve. but improved guard play will help BOTH lineups. it stands to reason that improved guard play will help a 3-guard lineup more than a 2-guard lineup. moreover at our current level of play, the 3-big lineup (with all our best players!) isn't even competitive against decent competition. that isn't the guards' fault. and it isn't likely to change.

the concepts that offenses are built on, be it in basketball, football, soccer, or any similar sport are: spacing/space, motion (both ball and players), angles, deception, and matchups. the big 3 lineup sacrifices all of the first 4 to get a "better" matchup for one player. nevermind the fact that that one player, who could be a wooden award winner, is a horrible matchup for any defender, but is basically forced to chuck 3s in this lineup. outside of witljer's 3s, have we even scored a single FG in a halfcourt set with the big 3 on the court??? (play-by-play shows only E-Mac's transition 3 as a made FG vs EOU; not sure where i can get play-by-play of Pitt without rewatching myself, for the third time).

there is evidence. game tape. watch it. see the results. then go back and think about the concepts in play.

bunch of lineup-deniers who can't get over their own wishful thinking.

Thumbs up?


Yeah, that's all I got. I forgot how much of a waste of time it is here to express your opinion. People, such as yourself, know it alls, really fail to grasp the concept of a discussion.

Anyway, you are absolutely right my friend.

mgadfly
11-16-2015, 10:46 AM
How many games did we start out poorly last year in the first five to ten minutes?

What we really learned is that quick, athletic guards aren't worth much on an ice rink. We could have gone five smalls and wouldn't have gotten much production out of them under those court conditions.

I think we will continue the experiment and once there is a large enough sample size we will see that Wiltjer/Sabonis at the three is about the same as Dranginis at the three. What I saw as problems against Pitt was Karno couldn't defend his man in isolation sets. Karno was defending their five man and that isn't changing regardless of who is playing SF. Sabonis was pulled away from the rim on defense (I'm betting whether he's guarding a 3 or a 4 this season teams will employ this strategy to keep him off the glass a little more).

What I'd like to see (other than playing on a decent court) is Dranginis start and run the three bigs five minutes in after nerves have settled down. At eleven minutes bring Karno out for a rest.

BULLDOG#1
11-16-2015, 11:22 AM
Few and staff know way more about what's best for team success this year and if they think it's worthwhile to pursue the three together then I'm on board (even though it doesn't make sense to me). Few has said that the big three are his best three players - but I don't remember him saying that it was by such a wide margin that the three were 'so much better' than the rest... Seems like there's plenty of minutes for all three of them even if they don't play together.

It HAS NOT worked yet, but our sample size is very small. So if Few continues to use the three together, there are some areas that will improve (spacing, movement, understanding the role each plays) and there are some things that can't be coached better (the defense is terrible to the point of liability and there's no changing that...). If a zone is the best way to protect the defensive side of the three playing together (not an answer if you ask me - the zone will pull two of them on the wing and put them in even worse defensive position) then Few had better figure that out quick -- his lack of doing so indicates that he's not going to use a zone at all.

From the limited sample size, it just looked like the three of them were tripping over each other. The offense ran much smoother when only two played at a time. The three together had Perkins and EMac standing around way too much, and that's not a good thing. Still, it's the time for experimentation right now, and even though I think he should start Dranginis and stop the madness, I'll put my trust in Few and co. Few didn't commit Harris to the three and he was clearly more capable of playing the wing than any of these three, but maybe he has had a change strategy with this group.

I just hope he doesn't rack up too many losses while figuring out this whole issue.

Worthington
11-16-2015, 11:46 AM
Tommy Lloyd said that they have to find playing time for the big three. He said last year Sabonis only averaged 21 minutes a game and that was not fair for him He also said Karnowski did not get enough minutes. There are not enough minutes at the 4 and 5 to give all three the time they deserve. They have to steal at least 10 minutes a game from the 3 spot.

I wish there were more minutes to go around for Wiltjer, Karnowski and Sabonis, but this idea of 'fairness' from the coaching staff is kind of surprising to me. Gonzaga is about winning games, egos should be put on the back burner. If Sabonis playing 25 minutes a game is the best thing for the team, I hope that he would accept that. And if he's not happy with that then he can always come back next year and play 35 minutes when this will officially be 'his' team :)

seacatfan
11-16-2015, 12:34 PM
So, for the "still time to experiment" crowd, what about the fact that GU needs to make all of their hay in OOC? The WCC is going to suck...again...not much in the way of quality wins to be had. Zags need quality Ws early in the year, Tourney seeding will be mostly based off of that. Battle for Atlantis is coming up soon, GU needs to be ready, can't afford to be screwing around with an experiment that appears doomed to fail.

seacatfan
11-16-2015, 12:36 PM
Also, as far as "the three best players" argument, I would counter that the versions of Wiltjer, Sabonis and Karno we have seen so far when they are on the floor together AREN'T the three best players. Wiltjer is still scoring but Sabonis and Karno both appear to be pretty much neutralized when all 3 are playing at once, and Wiltjer can't post up and take advantage of mismatches inside. Instead of a win-win it seems more like a lose-lose.

ProjectMKUltra5
11-16-2015, 12:59 PM
Thumbs up?


Yeah, that's all I got. I forgot how much of a waste of time it is here to express your opinion. People, such as yourself, know it alls, really fail to grasp the concept of a discussion.

Anyway, you are absolutely right my friend.

Beautiful rebuttal to Soccerduds fact based argument

mgadfly
11-16-2015, 01:19 PM
So, for the "still time to experiment" crowd, what about the fact that GU needs to make all of their hay in OOC? The WCC is going to suck...again...not much in the way of quality wins to be had. Zags need quality Ws early in the year, Tourney seeding will be mostly based off of that. Battle for Atlantis is coming up soon, GU needs to be ready, can't afford to be screwing around with an experiment that appears doomed to fail.

I think the argument is that we'd trade November wins for March wins. What if the experiment works and in March we are clicking on all cylinders utilizing a big three lineup that creates matchup problems and uses their length to shut down opposing offenses? Would we take a 7 seed instead of a 2 seed if it meant we were better and more prepared for a run in March? (I know the assumption is that the Big Three won't work, and that it is a waste of time, but if you make the opposite assumption and believe that investing in it will ultimately result in dividends down the road, then such a decision is based on sound logic).

And one other thought (not that I'm that fond of the Big Three idea), but how many years have we invested in the three guard lineup style? Shouldn't it be performing significantly better than the Big Three lineup at this point?

seacatfan
11-16-2015, 01:32 PM
Thanks for the thoughts mgadfly. 7 seed isn't an appealing idea but yeah, if it means having a better team in March it could potentially be worth it.

soccerdud
11-16-2015, 01:40 PM
Thumbs up?


Yeah, that's all I got. I forgot how much of a waste of time it is here to express your opinion. People, such as yourself, know it alls, really fail to grasp the concept of a discussion.

Anyway, you are absolutely right my friend.

given the way you dished it @emac and the guards, i figured you could take it. i probably came a little too strong. i do that (ask 229sinto). sorry. to paraphrase the big lebwoski, "no, soccerdud, you're not wrong-- you're just an a-hole" may be entirely appropriate here.

but here's the thing:
i came with my position, stats, actual in-game examples, and the basketball principles that i believe back it up. without those things, it would have been a facile, unsupported opinion that flew in the face of all available evidence (those are annoying). my post was intended to be a challenge to get you, or people who share your opinion, to meet me with those same things.

yes, i understand that few doesn't trust the guards, that he is the head coach (and imo he's one of the best in the country; doesn't mean i agree with everything), and that we have limited data. i get that. i agree. nothing new there.

however, when anecdotal evidence from watching the game, the actual play-by-play/stats/scores, and the underlying principles of the game (as best as i understand them) all line up, i feel like i am in a great arguing position. we have 10 minutes of gametape without a single counter-example, to my knowledge. and so i bring that to bear on those with weak positions and challenge them to step up. so, please, respond with an example, stats, or an explanation of how or why we should expect this to work, and, ultimately, why playing this lineup will help us win. know that these arguments have to in some way address what we've seen on the court with the big 3 playing together. because the facts, as they stand right now, all seem to say that the big 3 is a bad lineup, both on an absolute scale and when compared to playing 3 guards/2 bigs in the exact same circumstances (against a good, big, athletic team in slippery conditions and against a heavily overmatched NAIA team in ideal conditions).

i will admit that i could be missing something. but my repeated attempts to coax someone to step up and make that counter-argument have been a complete failure so far. just dismissing (or worse, ignoring) the accumulated evidence without support does not meet that criteria.

without that support, you're just like me, a niner fan, claiming the niners are a better team than the seahawks (hey, they've only played once!), and then complaining what a waste of time it is to express my opinion, when you guys rightfully rip that post a new one.

my goal really is not to silence the opposition-- unless you guys truly have nothing meaningful to say. jury is still out, i guess. but initial returns aren't good.

GeorgiaZagFan
11-16-2015, 02:09 PM
that playing our three best players (wilt, karno, sabonis) together is our best lineup? or even a generically (as opposed to situationally) viable lineup?

that lineup lost to eastern oregon, and was doubled up on by pitt--admittedly in limited minutes in both cases (thank god).

moreover, that lineup looked even worse offensively than it did defensively. it forces wiltjer to be a one dimensional jump-shooter (the difference between him being the 6th man of the year in the SEC and a legitimate candidate for POY is everything else he does), gives neither of the other two enough room to work (because few isn't going to tell any of wiltjer, karno, sabonis, or one of the two ballhandlers on the court with them to hang out in the corner), and makes driving impossible and playing inside-out nearly so. how many good sets have we seen with this lineup? how many entry passes to a big with room to work? heck, have we seen a single halfcourt possession with this lineup end in ANYTHING other than a long-range jumpshot, turnover, or karno blocked in traffic?

it is time to end the experiment, and time for everyone involved to move past the fallacy that the best lineup/team is as simple as putting the best individual players on the court together.

I think it is silly to make a judgement on the "3 big" lineup this early in the season. I don't think the Eastern Oregon game was a test and I certainly don't think you can take ANYTHING away from the Pitt game...that was NEVER real basketball!! IF we had a viable 3 that would/could make the team better than I might agree, but at this point I don't....I would like to see what will happen when they get a little more time together in real game action. As well as they all pass the ball I think it will be just a matter of time before we see some excellent ball movement and easy buckets. And it won't be like they play the entire game with the "big 3" lineup, ...but it will not matter much if our guards can't shoot from outside or make better entry passes.

mgadfly
11-16-2015, 02:38 PM
I think it is silly to make a judgement on the "3 big" lineup this early in the season. I don't think the Eastern Oregon game was a test and I certainly don't think you can take ANYTHING away from the Pitt game...that was NEVER real basketball!! IF we had a viable 3 that would/could make the team better than I might agree, but at this point I don't....I would like to see what will happen when they get a little more time together in real game action. As well as they all pass the ball I think it will be just a matter of time before we see some excellent ball movement and easy buckets. And it won't be like they play the entire game with the "big 3" lineup, ...but it will not matter much if our guards can't shoot from outside or make better entry passes.

your point about not playing the entire game with the big three is valid. Even if we only use the Big Three for four minutes per game the other teams will have to spend valuable practice time preparing for it. That may make our traditional lineup more effective. I don't know if it is worth the effort, but I think it is too complicated to judge based on what we've seen so far.

spike_jr
11-16-2015, 05:30 PM
I think the argument is that we'd trade November wins for March wins...........Would we take a 7 seed instead of a 2 seed if it meant we were better and more prepared for a run in March?

Many years I would agree. But this year is different. November and early December wins are too valuable to GU especially if the WCC's performance to date is any indication of the strength of the league. A 2 seed this year lets you sleep in your own bed the first the weekend and play in front of the home crowd. Slip out of the protected seed, and then you are at the mercy of the committee. I do not think that is worth the risk.

Plus, there will be many opportunities in league play to "experiment" with the big 3. And again, the sample size is admittedly small, but there is evidence to support scrapping playing all 3 at the same time, but there is no evidence at all to indicate that there is a net advantage to play all three at once.

willandi
11-16-2015, 06:35 PM
"Lol who said they were smarter then Mark Few?

Edit: I'd appreciate if you could point out these ridiculous or off the wall comments, as well."

Read this thread. Seems that a lot of people think they are smarter than Few!

Reborn
11-16-2015, 06:50 PM
You are making a big thing out of nothing. The game against Pitt was only a half. We could have ended up winning by ten or fifteen. Same for the first exhibition game. Which is laughable. It was an exhibition game which is the same thing as saying it was practice. YOu want to argue but there is not enough evidence to argue. Not for you or against you. To have an intelligent argument, I would need a heck of a lot more evidence than you have. Obviously people are not buying your line of arguing, and because we are not you get upset at us. I and others HAVE replied to this thread, and have said what we feel, and you just don't accept. I'm not sure if it was you or someone else using the same argument as you are, but someone criticized others who disagreed and called us stupid names like someone would in junior high. We all say what we mean, and use our knowledge and research skills in putting together a good post. Don't criticize some people because they do actually have a lot of knowledge. And imo, I have not felt that those who do are arrogant or condescending, but just good people with a lot of basketball knowledge.

soccerdud
11-16-2015, 06:57 PM
"Lol who said they were smarter then Mark Few?

Edit: I'd appreciate if you could point out these ridiculous or off the wall comments, as well."

Read this thread. Seems that a lot of people think they are smarter than Few!

Straw man. But Few has changed tactics, abandoned experiments, etc before. E at the 3 comes to mind. Sometimes the adjustments/suggestions/evaluations were posted here before we saw them in games. Interpret that how you will.

Care for a friendly bet on this topic? If big three start fewer than 20% (roughly 6) of the team's games, I want a certificate proclaiming me "smarter than Mark Few. " What are your terms?

willandi
11-16-2015, 07:02 PM
Straw man. But Few has changed tactics, abandoned experiments, etc before. E at the 3 comes to mind. Sometimes the adjustments/suggestions/evaluations were posted here before we saw them in games. Interpret that how you will.

Care for a friendly bet on this topic? If big three start fewer than 20% (roughly 6) of the team's games, I want a certificate proclaiming me "smarter than Mark Few. " What are your terms?

For you to show me how many D 1 wins you have! Get real. As has been said. There haven't been any games, NONE. I trust that Coach Few will do what needs to be done, whether its start the 3 or start a 5 guard line up. I just want to see some games. Heck, I would settle for some practices!

soccerdud
11-16-2015, 07:17 PM
For you to show me how many D 1 wins you have! Get real. As has been said. There haven't been any games, NONE. I trust that Coach Few will do what needs to be done, whether its start the 3 or start a 5 guard line up. I just want to see some games. Heck, I would settle for some practices!

Do you have a position on the big 3 other than "in Few I trust"? Cause that's really the topic under discussion. I firmly believe the big 3 is a bad lineup. I hope/believe Few will abandon it before it costs us anything. If you disagree with either of those, a supporting argument or prediction bet will make things more interesting. But if you're just feeling like such a position is an attack on Few and we need to be reminded of his and our bonafides, then why bother? It doesn't seem useful, interesting, or relevant. Also, we know.

We are fans. Having outsider opinions on things and arguing about them on teh intrawebs is kinda what we do.

edit: and just for the record, my previous response was because i interpreted your post to be saying you were for the big 3 starting (and therefore disagreeing), and were simply using few starting them as (your only) support for that position. so i figured i'd bet on few changing his mind, as a counter...

seacatfan
11-16-2015, 07:25 PM
There haven't been any games, NONE.

So what was that in Okinawa? It wasn't a practice, and it wasn't a scrimmage. It was a REAL GAME that got cancelled at halftime due to unsafe floor conditions.

ProjectMKUltra5
11-16-2015, 07:28 PM
"Lol who said they were smarter then Mark Few?

Edit: I'd appreciate if you could point out these ridiculous or off the wall comments, as well."

Read this thread. Seems that a lot of people think they are smarter than Few!

Are you a politician, willandi?

Because if your not, I don't expect to see you talking politics in the OCC, seeing as how were not allowed to discuss or criticize anything without having an extensive backround in the subject.

MickMick
11-16-2015, 07:33 PM
Let's boil this down to simplicity.

The big lineup will task Wiltjer with defending threes. A mismatch liability against any small forward worth a Div 1 scholarship. You are asking him to do what he physically cannot do. So it all boils down to Wiltjer compensating offensively to justify his defensive positioning. Especially if we continue to see him in man defense. He will probably tear it up in the WCC and some will likely proclaim it a great success........... until a first weekend exit in post season against a team like, for example, Pitt. We will be collectively "fooled" for an entire season (not me). I don't buy it. Few is fooling everyone.

Here is the major problem with "big lineup" mindset. Wiltjer will effectively contribute on offense regardless if you put him in a position to fail on defense or not. (Talking post season here.)

Simple....really.

Maximize strengths. Mitigate weaknesses.


Few absolutely knows all of this. The sly fox is forcing opponents to waste practice time.

ProjectMKUltra5
11-16-2015, 07:34 PM
Do you have a position on the big 3 other than "in Few I trust"? Cause that's really the topic under discussion. I firmly believe the big 3 is a bad lineup. I hope/believe Few will abandon it before it costs us anything. If you disagree with either of those, a supporting argument or prediction bet will make things more interesting. But if you're just feeling like such a position is an attack on Few and we need to be reminded of his and our bonafides, then why bother? It doesn't seem useful, interesting, or relevant. Also, we know.

We are fans. Having outsider opinions on things and arguing about them on teh intrawebs is kinda what we do.

The fact that that even needs to be said is a crippling indictment of how stifling and restricting our fanbase can be about simple discussion. So, so sad.

uZiGiZaG
11-17-2015, 09:14 PM
I wish there were more minutes to go around for Wiltjer, Karnowski and Sabonis, but this idea of 'fairness' from the coaching staff is kind of surprising to me. Gonzaga is about winning games, egos should be put on the back burner. If Sabonis playing 25 minutes a game is the best thing for the team, I hope that he would accept that. And if he's not happy with that then he can always come back next year and play 35 minutes when this will officially be 'his' team :)

I would hope he made that statement about what's best for the team rather than best or fair for the player


Obviously Sabonis should get more playing time, not just bc its "fair" but bc he's our 2nd best player and way better than Karno.

Very disappointed with Karnos growth over the summer. I was hoping to see him in much better shape finally and stronger hands.

For some reason he still doesn't understand that he can't bring the ball down when he gets under the rim and for some odd reason doesn't dunk it from right under the rim still.

He loses the ball way too much with possession right under the rim, gotta get them hands stronger!

uZiGiZaG
11-17-2015, 09:18 PM
given the way you dished it @emac and the guards, i figured you could take it. i probably came a little too strong. i do that (ask 229sinto). sorry. to paraphrase the big lebwoski, "no, soccerdud, you're not wrong-- you're just an a-hole" may be entirely appropriate here.

but here's the thing:
i came with my position, stats, actual in-game examples, and the basketball principles that i believe back it up. without those things, it would have been a facile, unsupported opinion that flew in the face of all available evidence (those are annoying). my post was intended to be a challenge to get you, or people who share your opinion, to meet me with those same things.

yes, i understand that few doesn't trust the guards, that he is the head coach (and imo he's one of the best in the country; doesn't mean i agree with everything), and that we have limited data. i get that. i agree. nothing new there.

however, when anecdotal evidence from watching the game, the actual play-by-play/stats/scores, and the underlying principles of the game (as best as i understand them) all line up, i feel like i am in a great arguing position. we have 10 minutes of gametape without a single counter-example, to my knowledge. and so i bring that to bear on those with weak positions and challenge them to step up. so, please, respond with an example, stats, or an explanation of how or why we should expect this to work, and, ultimately, why playing this lineup will help us win. know that these arguments have to in some way address what we've seen on the court with the big 3 playing together. because the facts, as they stand right now, all seem to say that the big 3 is a bad lineup, both on an absolute scale and when compared to playing 3 guards/2 bigs in the exact same circumstances (against a good, big, athletic team in slippery conditions and against a heavily overmatched NAIA team in ideal conditions).

i will admit that i could be missing something. but my repeated attempts to coax someone to step up and make that counter-argument have been a complete failure so far. just dismissing (or worse, ignoring) the accumulated evidence without support does not meet that criteria.

without that support, you're just like me, a niner fan, claiming the niners are a better team than the seahawks (hey, they've only played once!), and then complaining what a waste of time it is to express my opinion, when you guys rightfully rip that post a new one.

my goal really is not to silence the opposition-- unless you guys truly have nothing meaningful to say. jury is still out, i guess. but initial returns aren't good.

Thumbs up 👍👍