(07-25-2013 01:43 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:28 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:20 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:14 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:10 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Iverson is what can be called a "point forward" in HS. He'll bring the ball up the floor most times, and the offense will really flow through him. He won't guard opposing posts or wings on defense, though. Tobias Harris, for Bruce Pearl, played a lot of this role. He wasn't a PG though.

I don't see the point. A point forward is just a cute name for someone who is tall that is playing the 1, just as a point guard does. Defense has nothing to do with what a player's role is on offense either...

Point forwards don't play the 1 though. .

Umm. No. Point forwards play the 1 in a set. The "point" is referring to their role as the one in a set. They're useful when you have combo guards who can move without the ball to create offense (which we do). Iverson could play as the point when were playing 3 guards, so I have no idea what your lineup means.

I think you're getting confused by the semantics here. Suffice to say, Iverson won't be playing the actual PG spot, not because he can't handle the ball, but because he'll have trouble sticking other smaller, quicker guards on defense. Will there be times that he handles the ball? sure. Will he be our PG? No.

I'd say the bigger reason than that is Joe Jackson and Michael Dixon.

When you have 2 SR PG's you have something a freshman cannot give you.

(07-25-2013 02:13 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:43 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:28 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:20 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:14 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  I don't see the point. A point forward is just a cute name for someone who is tall that is playing the 1, just as a point guard does. Defense has nothing to do with what a player's role is on offense either...

Point forwards don't play the 1 though. .

Umm. No. Point forwards play the 1 in a set. The "point" is referring to their role as the one in a set. They're useful when you have combo guards who can move without the ball to create offense (which we do). Iverson could play as the point when were playing 3 guards, so I have no idea what your lineup means.

I think you're getting confused by the semantics here. Suffice to say, Iverson won't be playing the actual PG spot, not because he can't handle the ball, but because he'll have trouble sticking other smaller, quicker guards on defense. Will there be times that he handles the ball? sure. Will he be our PG? No.

I'd say the bigger reason than that is Joe Jackson and Michael Dixon.

When you have 2 SR PG's you have something a freshman cannot give you.

Wesley Witherspoon has better handles than Iverson. No offense to Iverson intended. For a 6'9", 200 pound 3/4 he is a very good ballhandler.

(07-25-2013 02:18 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 02:13 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:43 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:28 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:20 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Point forwards don't play the 1 though. .

Umm. No. Point forwards play the 1 in a set. The "point" is referring to their role as the one in a set. They're useful when you have combo guards who can move without the ball to create offense (which we do). Iverson could play as the point when were playing 3 guards, so I have no idea what your lineup means.

I think you're getting confused by the semantics here. Suffice to say, Iverson won't be playing the actual PG spot, not because he can't handle the ball, but because he'll have trouble sticking other smaller, quicker guards on defense. Will there be times that he handles the ball? sure. Will he be our PG? No.

I'd say the bigger reason than that is Joe Jackson and Michael Dixon.

When you have 2 SR PG's you have something a freshman cannot give you.

Wesley Witherspoon has better handles than Iverson. No offense to Iverson intended. For a 6'9", 200 pound 3/4 he is a very good ballhandler.

Intresting opinion.

I disagree.

(07-25-2013 02:07 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  You are what you can guard...

That has always been the rule...If you cant guard the majority of PGs in your league you are not a point guard...On the other side of the coin if you are being guarded by a PF you probably are not a point...Because if Iverson is being guarded by a point guard he will spend the majority of the time in the post, not setting up the offense. Now this could all go out the window and he may be quick enough to guard a point guard and too versatile to be guarded by a big, then I would consider him a 1.

You may handle the ball most of the time on offense and perform the role of PG...But you are not really a 1

You're WAY over simplifying the game. Especially today where hybrid roles are very common. You are factually incorrect in your 2nd paragraph. 1-5 are roles in a set. If you're initiating the set, you're the one.

(07-25-2013 02:28 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 02:07 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  You are what you can guard...

That has always been the rule...If you cant guard the majority of PGs in your league you are not a point guard...On the other side of the coin if you are being guarded by a PF you probably are not a point...Because if Iverson is being guarded by a point guard he will spend the majority of the time in the post, not setting up the offense. Now this could all go out the window and he may be quick enough to guard a point guard and too versatile to be guarded by a big, then I would consider him a 1.

You may handle the ball most of the time on offense and perform the role of PG...But you are not really a 1

You're WAY over simplifying the game. Especially today where hybrid roles are very common. You are factually incorrect in your 2nd paragraph. 1-5 are roles in a set. If you're initiating the set, you're the one.

I just flat out don't agree with this.

(07-25-2013 01:12 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:07 PM)tigerfansincebirth89 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 12:51 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Gentlemen, Iverson is 6'9". History has shown that he will play a bit of the 4 here. There is nothing to argue about.

The only person arguing that is Stammers arguing with himself. It's the comparisons he is making that are ridiculous.

I'd bet that the only time Iverson sees minutes of the 4 is when we're running a version of the 4 guard offense that Pastner is sure to install.

Have you not been paying attention for the last 4 years? He doesn't need to "install" one, because we've been doing it since he got here.

Adonis Thomas
Wesley Withspoon

Next is Nick King and Kuran Iverson.

This is not new.

The difference is the additions of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and a returning Shaq. We are no longer lacking quality depth with true bigs.

We are gonna see some small ball with Iverson at the 4, but we are gonna see a lot of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and Shaq tag teaming on the inside.

(07-25-2013 03:25 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  The difference is the additions of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and a returning Shaq. We are no longer lacking quality depth with true bigs.

We are gonna see some small ball with Iverson at the 4, but we are gonna see a lot of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and Shaq tag teaming on the inside.

I agree, but we had DJ, Ferro, Shaq and Black last season (arguably a comparable, if not more veteran front court) and Adonis still saw considerable time at the 4.

Seems to be Pastner's "bag".

(07-25-2013 04:27 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:25 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  The difference is the additions of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and a returning Shaq. We are no longer lacking quality depth with true bigs.

We are gonna see some small ball with Iverson at the 4, but we are gonna see a lot of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and Shaq tag teaming on the inside.

I agree, but we had DJ, Ferro, Shaq and Black last season (arguably a comparable, if not more veteran front court) and Adonis still saw considerable time at the 4.

Seems to be Pastner's "bag".

DJ and Fero weren't true bigs imo. I think Nichols, Pellom and Woodson are. Pellom has the experince and I think Nichols and Woodson have a much higher skill level than we have had in the post.

I suspect there is a huge leap in talent, skill and depth in our frontcourt from last year.

Interesting

(07-25-2013 04:33 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:27 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:25 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  The difference is the additions of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and a returning Shaq. We are no longer lacking quality depth with true bigs.

We are gonna see some small ball with Iverson at the 4, but we are gonna see a lot of Pellom, Nichols, Woodson and Shaq tag teaming on the inside.

I agree, but we had DJ, Ferro, Shaq and Black last season (arguably a comparable, if not more veteran front court) and Adonis still saw considerable time at the 4.

Seems to be Pastner's "bag".

DJ and Fero weren't true bigs imo. I think Nichols, Pellom and Woodson are. Pellom has the experince and I think Nichols and Woodson have a much higher skill level than we have had in the post.

How big was Ferro?

How big is Pellom?

What was DJ? A 3?

(07-25-2013 04:35 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:33 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:27 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:25 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

I agree, but we had DJ, Ferro, Shaq and Black last season (arguably a comparable, if not more veteran front court) and Adonis still saw considerable time at the 4.

Seems to be Pastner's "bag".

DJ and Fero weren't true bigs imo. I think Nichols, Pellom and Woodson are. Pellom has the experince and I think Nichols and Woodson have a much higher skill level than we have had in the post.

How big was Ferro?

How big is Pellom?

What was DJ? A 3?

So you disagree?

DJ obviously was not a true 4 and could not guard real bigs.

(07-25-2013 04:39 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:35 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:33 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:27 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 03:25 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

I agree, but we had DJ, Ferro, Shaq and Black last season (arguably a comparable, if not more veteran front court) and Adonis still saw considerable time at the 4.

Seems to be Pastner's "bag".

DJ and Fero weren't true bigs imo. I think Nichols, Pellom and Woodson are. Pellom has the experince and I think Nichols and Woodson have a much higher skill level than we have had in the post.

How big was Ferro?

How big is Pellom?

What was DJ? A 3?

So you disagree?

I do, but that's ok.

Interesting

(07-25-2013 08:18 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 04:19 AM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Louisville's Chane Behanan is 6'6 250....if King is 6'7 220 plus, he should be able to play PF and 2 other positions and so should Kuran.

This doesn't make any sense.

Think last year Adonis at the 4 or DJ.... and they were 6'5.5 or less ......go figure.