(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I don't think you have to be overly athletic to run and press either - it's more being in correct positioning and playing proper defense - feet, not hands/reaching in.

I certainly don't think VCU is overly athletic.

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

(07-07-2015 09:49 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 09:45 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 09:38 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  Still time to add another body, grad trans or JUCO, before the season.

Really? Who you have in mind?

Nobody good. Just a pulse. Another body.

Let me be clear, I don't think he will have a good year.

Just saying, we're all frustrated and pissed, but he'll be the coach.

Let it play out.

Sucks, but nothing to do but watch it.

Should be good drama at the least.

You don't attend the games, but you LOVE the drama?

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

It seems like we say this every summer and then actually do it for about 10 minutes to start the season before stopping.

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

(07-08-2015 11:08 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

It seems like we say this every summer and then actually do it for about 10 minutes to start the season before stopping.

While I agree that a faster game seems like the right strategy, Pastner has shown no ability to teach this yet. As you say, we say this, then it immediately fails and we don't try to work through it. Why should we expect something different with no basis for the expectation?

(07-08-2015 11:15 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

(07-08-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:15 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jabari. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

(07-08-2015 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:15 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jahlil Okafor. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

What I said is common sense with history to back me up. You countered that with one program as an example that hasn't been to the Sweet 16 in 6 years, and lost in the 2nd round as a #1 seed, and an example with team in one year, that flamed out in the first round as a #2 seed.

Quote:...and the year before Duke lost their first game against Mercer with Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sure he was cheering really really hard for Duke, but he was still in high school. You might want to go have a nap, you are on tilt bro.

(07-08-2015 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:15 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jahlil Okafor. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

What I said is common sense with history to back me up. You countered that with one program as an example that hasn't been to the Sweet 16 in 6 years, and lost in the 2nd round as a #1 seed, and an example with team in one year, that flamed out in the first round as a #2 seed.

Quote:...and the year before Duke lost their first game against Mercer with Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sure he was cheering really really hard for Duke, but he was still in high school. You might want to go have a nap, you are on tilt bro.

Edit--Jabari Parker. Highly touted guy begins with "J" and sound weird. My bad.

Again, it's something you don't see, so no need for us to argue back and forth about theoretical differences in team composition.

(07-08-2015 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:15 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Again, in the college game, most of the really good players are gone by the soph year, so the other great players are often comprised of frosh--as evidenced by nba drafts year after year.

Missouri (although flaming in the tourney) played very small their 30 win year, Nova is often succeeding going with 4 smalls.

Again, it's college basketball. Plus, in the AAC Memphis is heads and shoulders more talented than all but three or four teams. No teams are preseason T25 in the AAC, so this is a year in which a team (Memphis) with 2 McDAA, high level transfers, four star frosh and other returning starters should be able to put together a very nice season.

Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jahlil Okafor. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

What I said is common sense with history to back me up. You countered that with one program as an example that hasn't been to the Sweet 16 in 6 years, and lost in the 2nd round as a #1 seed, and an example with team in one year, that flamed out in the first round as a #2 seed.

Quote:...and the year before Duke lost their first game against Mercer with Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sure he was cheering really really hard for Duke, but he was still in high school. You might want to go have a nap, you are on tilt bro.

Edit--Jabari Parker.

Again, it's something you don't see, so no need for us to argue back and forth about theoretical differences in team composition.

Again, I have history on my side and you have a couple of anecdotes and little else. Villanova, Missouri and Duke were all listed in the top 10 in the country, so not only are you providing literally a 1/200 sample size, you are also providing examples that have nothing to do with us.

You are arguing that you should be able to have a great team, when the only natural power forward on the entire roster is a 6'8 freshman who weighs less than 200 pounds.

You need to step away from the keyboard.

(07-08-2015 12:15 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Overall, one program that lost in the second round as a #1 seed last year, and one team one single year that lost in the first round as a #2 seed. That is all the proof that anyone needs.

...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jahlil Okafor. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

What I said is common sense with history to back me up. You countered that with one program as an example that hasn't been to the Sweet 16 in 6 years, and lost in the 2nd round as a #1 seed, and an example with team in one year, that flamed out in the first round as a #2 seed.

Quote:...and the year before Duke lost their first game against Mercer with Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sure he was cheering really really hard for Duke, but he was still in high school. You might want to go have a nap, you are on tilt bro.

Edit--Jabari Parker.

Again, it's something you don't see, so no need for us to argue back and forth about theoretical differences in team composition.

Again, I have history on my side and you have a couple of anecdotes and little else. Villanova, Missouri and Duke were all listed in the top 10 in the country, so not only are you providing literally a 1/200 sample size, you are also providing examples that have nothing to do with us.

You are arguing that you should be able to have a great team, when the only natural power forward on the entire roster is a 6'8 freshman who weighs less than 200 pounds.

You need to step away from the keyboard.

Because Robert Dozier (6'8 190) and Shawne Williams (6'8 215) were giants on the 05-06 team.

With a 6'0 pg and his 5'7 backup. Oh and a short 6'7 (on a good day) center. Sure he was a brick shtthouse, but still short.

But whatever. This is going nowhere.

(07-08-2015 12:24 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 12:15 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  ...and the year before Duke lost their first game againsy Mercer with Jahlil Okafor. By that logic, having a #1 overall draft pick and guys 6'9, 7'0, 6'8 and 6'9 at the 4/5 is a recipe for failure.

So which one is it?

Again, it's NCAA basketball where being super tall or super big isn't the be all end all for regular season success or a nice tourney run.

What I said is common sense with history to back me up. You countered that with one program as an example that hasn't been to the Sweet 16 in 6 years, and lost in the 2nd round as a #1 seed, and an example with team in one year, that flamed out in the first round as a #2 seed.

Quote:...and the year before Duke lost their first game against Mercer with Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sure he was cheering really really hard for Duke, but he was still in high school. You might want to go have a nap, you are on tilt bro.

Edit--Jabari Parker.

Again, it's something you don't see, so no need for us to argue back and forth about theoretical differences in team composition.

Again, I have history on my side and you have a couple of anecdotes and little else. Villanova, Missouri and Duke were all listed in the top 10 in the country, so not only are you providing literally a 1/200 sample size, you are also providing examples that have nothing to do with us.

You are arguing that you should be able to have a great team, when the only natural power forward on the entire roster is a 6'8 freshman who weighs less than 200 pounds.

You need to step away from the keyboard.

Because Robert Dozier (6'8 190) and Shawne Williams (6'8 215) were giants on the 05-06 team.

With a 6'0 pg and his 5'7 backup. Oh and a short 6'7 (on a good day) center. Sure he was a brick shtthouse, but still short.

But whatever. This is going nowhere.

Both Dozier and Shawne were bigger than Lawson, we had Dorsey with Cooper backing him up at the 5, and throw in Waki Williams for good measure. Between Cooper and Waki, they each played 11 minutes per game, which is nothing to sneeze at.

That is a total of 5 bigs on the roster and 3 that could legitimately play the 4. Our only 4 is a 6'8, 195 pound freshman. You seem to think that is the same.

Yes, you are going nowhere.

(07-08-2015 10:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:12 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  This is the year to run run run.

Conceivably at least two deep at all positions except center, so use depth and athleticism to your advantage.

Except that we don't have great athleticism. Many of the players that are probably going to get minutes (Kedren, Lawson, Lawson, Woodson, Marshall) are not athletic. I would say that Shaq, Tarrant and Burrell are, and I would put Markel somewhere in the middle. I suppose Lawson will be undersized and faster than most 4's he plays against. I don't know much about Broddie and Martin, but it's hard to say how much they will contribute.

Also, I consider us to be two deep at center with a raw Marshall in the fold, but barely 1 deep at the 4, with Lawson being undersized. We do have a lot of players that can play the 3, but lately playing the 3 at Memphis has been like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

I know you haven't seen a lot of the Lawson's up close. They are athletic. Period. Perhaps not Durant level, but certainly Shawne Williams level. Markel can get up and down, even Avery can get up and down.

But you also don't have to have five freaks on the court at once to be an athletic team.

We will disagree about what is "4" worthy in college. I don't see any issues with a properly tailored offense and defense effectively utilizing thin guys 6'6'-'6'8 at the four and Shaq and 6'10 Marshall at the 5--especially with the depth.

I've seen lots of video and opinions from people I respect; and while they agree that the Lawsons are very good, they also agree that they are not overly athletic.

If you have a smallish 4, you also need a biggish 4 as a complement. I guess Shaq will fill that role when Marshall is in the game. Otherwise there isn't any other player on the roster that can. It would also be a lot to ask for a freshman to bang around against players that are older, naturally bigger, and/or have had the benefit of D1 weight training and nutrition over a period of time.

I think Austin Nichols will fill that role in all-star fashion in his third sea.......oh wait.