Lineup/Minutes Thoughts after Red/White

[amckillip]

Looking at BU's losses last year, team was out rebounded. Seemed opposition guards didn't fear taking the ball inside....Would suggest BU needs more interior defense and rebounding from players on the floor.

If opposition teams play two interior bigs and a large guard/smaller forward, BU should respond with TB, WE and JP with AT and MK in the rotation (if MK improves enough to be given PT)...

Go big, pound the ball inside, rebound aggressively, and draw fouls. Sounds like Michigan State.....

BU did have success in the NCAA with 3 guards and 2 bigs, but remember their bigs were MS, POB and ZA....Can't compare eiyh current players.....Also, the 3 guard/2 big line up that year wasn't overly impressive in the regular season/MVC post season...

So wait... Our bigs are WORSE, so we should play them MORE?

That is the logic many are advocating. We need better play, not more minutes.

And regarding MVC regular season - that BU team won 9 of their last 10... And that was when we switched to the three guard line-up with JJ (actually went smaller).

 

[real fan]

W.Lemon will get minutes and may end up being one of the 1st players off the bench, defense is important and from what I saw he may be one of the best on the team, A.Warren had trouble scoring on him.

 

[SFP]

Not a chance, even if completely healthy, or partially injured SM plays less than 30 (nor would I want him too )

Afraid to lose that bet ;-) I believe JL will try to keep SM healthy and fresh as much as possible. I'd also like to see our point guards put constant pressure on the ball so AW, TB, DD and the likes can shoot the passing lanes for easy steals and highlight dunks.

 

[amckillip]

Afraid to lose that bet ;-) I believe JL will try to keep SM healthy and fresh as much as possible. I'd also like to see our point guards put constant pressure on the ball so AW, TB, DD and the likes can shoot the passing lanes for easy steals and highlight dunks.

Why would I be worried? It's a sure thing.

 

[AZ BU Fan]

So wait... Our bigs are WORSE, so we should play them MORE?

That is the logic many are advocating. We need better play, not more minutes.

And regarding MVC regular season - that BU team won 9 of their last 10... And that was when we switched to the three guard line-up with JJ (actually went smaller).

Don't remember saying BU's bigs are WORSE....said BU line up the last couple years was 0.500.

Following your logic, the 3pt bombing 3 or 4 guard offense JL has run the past 3 years hasn't worked and you want to keep trying the same thing? The same guards who had trouble rebounding and defending the past couple seasons?

If our guards need to, and apparently, can get better, our bigs can't? Everyone is in a positive mood with TB, WE, and now JP. Why can't they get minutes together? With more experience and practice, shouldn't TB, WE be better and JP too? We have a healthy experienced WE, a more seasoned and hopefully disciplined TB, and a prized, supposedly top, recruit who has been in the program for a year in JP.

JJ at the three with MS and POB in the line up is similar to TB, WE, and JP on the floor at the same time. No offense from JJ when he was at the 3....More offense from TB than JJ. Why go smaller with TB and WE/JP as the only bigs on the floor at a time?

We'll soon find out which way JL goes, and how successful his choice will be, in a couple more weeks. I was encouraged by JL talking about playing bigger this year in earlier media interviews. We see how sincere he was!

 

[amckillip]

Don't remember saying BU's bigs are WORSE....said BU line up the last couple years was 0.500.

Following your logic, the 3pt bombing 3 or 4 guard offense JL has run the past 3 years hasn't worked and you want to keep trying the same thing? The same guards who had trouble rebounding and defending the past couple seasons?

If our guards need to, and apparently, can get better, our bigs can't? Everyone is in a positive mood with TB, WE, and now JP. Why can't they get minutes together? With more experience and practice, shouldn't TB, WE be better and JP too? We have a healthy experienced WE, a more seasoned and hopefully disciplined TB, and a prized, supposedly top, recruit who has been in the program for a year in JP.

JJ at the three with MS and POB in the line up is similar to TB, WE, and JP on the floor at the same time. No offense from JJ when he was at the 3....More offense from TB than JJ. Why go smaller with TB and WE/JP as the only bigs on the floor at a time?

We'll soon find out which way JL goes, and how successful his choice will be, in a couple more weeks. I was encouraged by JL talking about playing bigger this year in earlier media interviews. We see how sincere he was!

JJ was 6'3", AW is 6'6." Whats wrong with the size of AW, TB, WE again?

 

[thefish7]

JJ was 6'3", AW is 6'6." Whats wrong with the size of AW, TB, WE again?

If AW is 6'6 I get to be 6'3.

It's not just size, but "style." Remember on that team we also had significant contribution from Boogie Wright, a 6'6 forward who rebounded like he was a bit taller. AW has become a strong rebounder for a guard, but he's not anywhere near the rebounder that Taylor Brown (a forward) is. If your argument is that a lineup of SM, AW, TB, WE, JP/AT wouldn't rebound better than a lineup replacing JP/AT with DD, then I can't figure out where you're coming from.

I think you could also suggest that lineup could defende in the paint better, and definitely has a great deal more size than the alternative. However, total team defense could decline in that lineup depending on how people do in their assignments. The question of team offense also is impossible to answer, considering these lineup options.

AW IS a big guard, DD isn't exactly small, but AW is on the small side for a traditional small forward. TB is also relatively small for a power forward as far as that goes. Size absolutely is a factor in evaluating players also. Sam Mansicalco or Daniel Ruffin at 6'3+ probably play at an elite program and start to look like pro prospects.

I actually have no problem with a 3-guard lineup-- it's common in the NCAA and even being used a fair amount in the NBA, and a lot of the time it's difficult to tell the difference between a SG and SF anyway. I also think that AW's height gives us extra versatility in a 3-guard alignment. I don't think it's that hard to contrast individual players in terms of their skills and competencies and to contrast lineups constructed differently. I think a SM/DD/AW/TB/WE lineup will be pretty effective, but also think a SM/AW/TB/WE/JPAT lineup could be at times. The real value comes from recognizing that and trying to deploy those options at times they give you an advantage on the floor.

 

[amckillip]

If your argument is that a lineup of SM, AW, TB, WE, JP/AT wouldn't rebound better than a lineup replacing JP/AT with DD, then I can't figure out where you're coming from.

I whole-heartedly believe that our team is better with DD starting over AT. How can you even say you don't know where I'm coming from. DD was a high major recruit who has proven himself as a solid contributor with 2 years of D-1 experience. You're telling me you want AT or JP who have ZERO productive D-1 years of expereince under there belt, over arguably the best defender in the MVC. And AW is small for a 3 in the MVC???

Last years '3's' in the MVC as of the tourney:

UNI - Kwadzo 6'3"
Drake - Frank Wiesler 6'2"
Evansville - Colt Ryan 6'5"
MSU - Jermaine Mallet - 6'3"
SIU - Justin Bocot - 6'3"
ILSU - OE -6'3"
WSU - Toure' Murray
CU - Justin Carte - 6'4"
INSU - Jordan Printy - 6'4"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? AW is the tallest 3 in the MVC, and only one team even listed their '3' as a forward.

Where do people keep saying 'we should play bigger', 'it's the way to success in the MVC', 'AW is small for a 3' etc. Sorry guys, I live in the real world where BU plays in the MVC, not the Big Ten. 6'0" 6'3" 6'6" 6'6" and 6'10" actually gives us a size advantage over several teams in the MVC and puts our best players on the court. No coach in the MVC would start TB, WE, AT/JP if they had the same roster as us. It leaves you with no depth and two of your most talented players, DD and DSE both on the bench, and buries guys like JE and WL. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[amckillip]

If AW is 6'6 I get to be 6'3.

It's not just size, but "style." Remember on that team we also had significant contribution from Boogie Wright, a 6'6 forward who rebounded like he was a bit taller.

BTW, Boogie is without a doubt shorter than AW. He is listed as 6'3"-6'4" and having stood next to them, it's definitely true. Boogie played big, but he was considerably shorter than AW.

 

[AZ BU Fan]

AMC...Will find out if your line up produces this year....The only change from last year's starters would be the addition of DD. Hopefully this will make BU much better than .500. :?

If BU plays this starting line up this year and finishes 5th again at .500, would you re-consider? ;-);-)

I see nothing wrong with deploying a big line up and seeing if opposition with their small 3's can stop BU inside and out rebound BU....

Perhaps room for both line ups at times this year? :-D

 

[amckillip]

If BU plays this starting line up this year and finishes 5th again at .500, would you re-consider? ;-);-)

No. When every single coach uses the same strategy in the MVC, theres probably something to it. The #1 team uses it, the #10 team uses it. In the MVC you simply cannot get solid enough big men to play a 3 'big' line up. You guys are also getting way to hung up on AW being called a guard. 6'6" is big enough to be considered a SF in the NBA, why is it such a problem at BU? (Average SF NBA Height is 6' 7.5"). Basketball is far more intricate than going from a 3 'guard' to a 3 'big' line-up. Why is it that if we play a 3 'guard' lineup, we're nto changing anything and destined for mediocrity (even though it is the same thing as everyone else in the conference is doing)?

 

[amckillip]

Perhaps room for both line ups at times this year? :-D

This I agree with. When DD is out for 7-8 mintues a game I'd like to see WE, JP/AT, and TB in. But starting is an ENTIRELY different matter.

 

[Beninator]

No. When every single coach uses the same strategy in the MVC, theres probably something to it. The #1 team uses it, the #10 team uses it. In the MVC you simply cannot get solid enough big men to play a 3 'big' line up. You guys are also getting way to hung up on AW being called a guard. 6'6" is big enough to be considered a SF in the NBA, why is it such a problem at BU? (Average SF NBA Height is 6' 7.5"). Basketball is far more intricate than going from a 3 'guard' to a 3 'big' line-up. Why is it that if we play a 3 'guard' lineup, we're nto changing anything and destined for mediocrity (even though it is the same thing as everyone else in the conference is doing)?

IMO the teams in the MVC utilize the same strategy as it is very difficult to land big players to MVC type schools. When they do land the bigs, they are most likely to be "projects". --again I am generalizing here--- However, I think that this year, we can be different than those MVC schools and utilize a bigger lineup! If JP is as good as I think he is, we can go with a larger starting lineup which in turn, will allow us to have multiple substitution options.

 

[Future Walk-On]

I am starting to get tired of a 3 guard lineup

 

[amckillip]

IMO the teams in the MVC utilize the same strategy as it is very difficult to land big players to MVC type schools. When they do land the bigs, they are most likely to be "projects". --again I am generalizing here--- However, I think that this year, we can be different than those MVC schools and utilize a bigger lineup! If JP is as good as I think he is, we can go with a larger starting lineup which in turn, will allow us to have multiple substitution options.

Lay out the minutes with a 3 big lineup. Who is our sub? AT? If he doesn't develop? It really doesn't make sense. We have 2 'proven' bigs, and 2 backups, if we start three we're talking about them all playing more minutes than SM, AW, DD, DSE. There is no way they could physically handle that, nor would it be good for the team. If we're relying on a freshman or a player who has never shown a basketball IQ to start, and the worse one as pretty much our sole back up for the 4 and 5 spots, we are going to be playing at a time other than 2:30, but on the wrong side of the seeding. Seriously, any coach knows with our roster that starting 3 bigs is asking to just get dumped on.

 

[mrcoachdude]

not sure where this is all going and how much it matters...I am all for SM AW TB WE and JP playing some minutes together as that would give many teams fits on matching up...but our strength is found in our guards...with the seniors we have..it gives us an advantage as well as one of the best coming off the bench (DSE) ...

SM AW DD TB and WE looks great....but I am really thinking JP will give us a nice option inside...

I guess in the end...who cares who starts...lets find some magic with a bunch of options...

 

[Beninator]

Lay out the minutes with a 3 big lineup. Who is our sub? AT? If he doesn't develop? It really doesn't make sense. We have 2 'proven' bigs, and 2 backups, if we start three we're talking about them all playing more minutes than SM, AW, DD, DSE. There is no way they could physically handle that, nor would it be good for the team. If we're relying on a freshman or a player who has never shown a basketball IQ to start, and the worse one as pretty much our sole back up for the 4 and 5 spots, we are going to be playing at a time other than 2:30, but on the wrong side of the seeding. Seriously, any coach knows with our roster that starting 3 bigs is asking to just get dumped on.

First, the thing I like about DSE and JP is that I believe that they are among the best players with a basketball IQ that we have recruited in a while. In the past, I have felt that we have recruited people who are athletes first. That being said, I think that the starting lineup that I have suggested is our best chance to win and REBOUND! The larger lineup is what I would like to see at crunch time.You are correct by stating that AT is a wildcard.......it is a starting lineup that offers a lot of different substitution patterns. A few examples below. Assuming AD is a redshirt and MK is a deep deep reserve...

Starters
SM
AW
TB
WE
JP

sub DSE for JP which gives you a traditional JL offense

SM
DSE
AW
TB
WE

sub DD for SM, JE for AW, JP for WE and we get

DD
DSE
JE
TB
JP

bring back SM for DSE, WL for TB, AW for JE, WE for JP
SM
DD
AW
WL
WE

From here, we could also use this lineup to give sticks a shot by blending AT in with an experienced lineup and yet another chance to go big.

Sub AT for WL

SM
DD
AW
AT
WE

Again just using these substitution patterns to illustrate how we can change things up with opponents and blend the experience with some youth.

 

[dogsrus]

I guess in the end...who cares who starts...lets find some magic with a bunch of options...

Sounds good....

 

[thefish7]

I whole-heartedly believe that our team is better with DD starting over AT. How can you even say you don't know where I'm coming from. DD was a high major recruit who has proven himself as a solid contributor with 2 years of D-1 experience. You're telling me you want AT or JP who have ZERO productive D-1 years of expereince under there belt, over arguably the best defender in the MVC. And AW is small for a 3 in the MVC???

Last years '3's' in the MVC as of the tourney:

UNI - Kwadzo 6'3"
Drake - Frank Wiesler 6'2"
Evansville - Colt Ryan 6'5"
MSU - Jermaine Mallet - 6'3"
SIU - Justin Bocot - 6'3"p
ILSU - OE -6'3"
WSU - Toure' Murray
CU - Justin Carte - 6'4"
INSU - Jordan Printy - 6'4"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? AW is the tallest 3 in the MVC, and only one team even listed their '3' as a forward.

Where do people keep saying 'we should play bigger', 'it's the way to success in the MVC', 'AW is small for a 3' etc. Sorry guys, I live in the real world where BU plays in the MVC, not the Big Ten. 6'0" 6'3" 6'6" 6'6" and 6'10" actually gives us a size advantage over several teams in the MVC and puts our best players on the court. No coach in the MVC would start TB, WE, AT/JP if they had the same roster as us. It leaves you with no depth and two of your most talented players, DD and DSE both on the bench, and buries guys like JE and WL. It just doesn't make sense.

Shouldn't be directed at me at all. I never once suggested that a 3 big lineup should start... I believe that SM AW DD TB WE is our best lineup. Look at my original post and all subsequent ones. In original post I gave TB 10 minutes at the 3. Point about boogie and AW is that they're the sane height but considerably different players. I believe bradley listed both guys at 6'5. The whole point of my post was that AWs size isn't the issue. His style of play is when it comes to being aforward.

 

[SFP]

Shouldn't be directed at me at all. I never once suggested that a 3 big lineup should start... I believe that SM AW DD TB WE is our best lineup. Look at my original post and all subsequent ones. In original post I gave 10 minutes at the 3. Point about boogie and AW is that they're the sane height but considerably different players. I believe bradley listed both guys at 6'5. The whole point of my post was that AWs size isn't the issue. His style of play is when it comes to being aforward.

I agree with your starters with DSE probably our 6th man in a guard oriented rotation and we really have to hope that at least JP or AT can fill in at the 5. If they can't we are in trouble. Then we can expect to see WE come in at the 4 to give TB a breather. I expect to see AW and TB play a ton on minutes. The guards will rotate nicely between DD, SM and DSE. I expect JE to give AW his breather for the most part. We will go with a 8/9 man rotation for the most part. If MK can give us minutes that will be great.