5 man rotation?

[Knicks411]

I really don't have much of a problem with it. Yeah, if we get in foul trouble later in the season that might be a problem, but if we played the bench more last night we may have lost.

Kentucky basically had a 6 man rotation last year. (There were somehting like 15 teams in the country that got fewer minutes from their bench than UK did last year) Ohio State played 4 guys 34 minutes or more last year in the final four game against Kansas, and Deshaun Thomas only played 29 minutes because of fouls. Kansas played 4 starters 34 minutes or more. Ohio State beat us the round before with 2 guys playing 40 minutes, and one guy playing 39.

Duke in the 2010 title game played their starters 40, 40, 37, 35, and 31 minutes.

Obviously I can go on and on. Playing few guys is not going to keep us from winning a title. Lots of teams that win the title play a short bench. We play zone; we don't often get in foul trouble. If we do, we're going to have to rely on guys who don't normally play a lot of minutes, but so be it. We're playing to win games here, not develop guys.

Now, I'm not exactly thrilled that we needed to ride our starters so hard to be Providence, but road games against less than elite competition can still be tough. I'm not worried about what playing a short rotation means for our chances in the season though.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I think the lack of development of Cooney is the biggest concern right now. I'd argue that MCW and Triche are the two most important players on the team and not having someone to spell them for just a couple minutes each half this early in the season could be dangerous come tourney time. The bigs can all be subbed for pretty easily. There are at least 5 for the 3 spots back there (giving Grant a bit more credit than others - I think JB can use him down the stretch).

 

[jdubs30]

I'm not saying that he should have the bench in for the last 4 minutes in a close game, or anything close to that. But he should have the mentality that developing players along the season is at least just as important as winning one particular game.

What does that mean? As a player you earn PT; Cooney, Grant, and Coleman haven't really earned it. They are being developed, in every practice and every game. It seems like you're still suggesting benching players who are playing well in favor of players who aren't just because we might need them for a few minutes per game in March.

 

[Knicks411]

What does that mean? As a player you earn PT; Cooney, Grant, and Coleman haven't really earned it. They are being developed, in every practice and every game. It seems like you're still suggesting benching players who are playing well in favor of players who aren't just because we might need them for a few minutes per game in March.

Yeah, which makes no sense to me.

Taking 2010; it's not like it's any guarantee that if you play Dash some minutes in the regular season he's going to be ready to contribute when AO gets hurt. The fact of the matter is, once AO went down, our realistic chances of winning the title were probably gone. Ditto Fab last year. I hate to channel Herm Edwards, but the point is to win.

 

[OttoMets]

I really don't have much of a problem with it. Yeah, if we get in foul trouble later in the season that might be a problem, but if we played the bench more last night we may have lost.

Kentucky basically had a 6 man rotation last year. (There were somehting like 15 teams in the country that got fewer minutes from their bench than UK did last year) Ohio State played 4 guys 34 minutes or more last year in the final four game against Kansas, and Deshaun Thomas only played 29 minutes because of fouls. Kansas played 4 starters 34 minutes or more. Ohio State beat us the round before with 2 guys playing 40 minutes, and one guy playing 39.

Duke in the 2010 title game played their starters 40, 40, 37, 35, and 31 minutes.

Obviously I can go on and on. Playing few guys is not going to keep us from winning a title. Lots of teams that win the title play a short bench. We play zone; we don't often get in foul trouble. If we do, we're going to have to rely on guys who don't normally play a lot of minutes, but so be it. We're playing to win games here, not develop guys.

Now, I'm not exactly thrilled that we needed to ride our starters so hard to be Providence, but road games against less than elite competition can still be tough. I'm not worried about what playing a short rotation means for our chances in the season though.

It's true that we're playing to win games right now. Not sure I agree that playing few guys won't hurt, though. Those Dukes and Kentuckys were very good teams. Syracuse is good, but does anyone, "hater" or otherwise, see Triche playing well for six consecutive games? Carter-Williams?

It could happen, but it's no sure thing. Throw in the injury, illness, or foul trouble possibility - yeah, the zone is said to protect guys, but it's not like having players in foul trouble is a once-in-a-blue-moon thing for us - and we really need that third guard.

As JDubs said, we could use a second forward off the bench, too. And I still maintain that having a center rotation of essentially only Christmas and Baye is undesirable - heck, that was our emergency rotation last season.

It's a little late to be talking about development, especially in Coleman's case. We've had two months to work on that; if it's not here now, it may not happen this season. But if this six-man group can win a national championship, it would be an incredible feat.

 

[jec1521]

What does that mean? As a player you earn PT; Cooney, Grant, and Coleman haven't really earned it. They are being developed, in every practice and every game. It seems like you're still suggesting benching players who are playing well in favor of players who aren't just because we might need them for a few minutes per game in March.

Practice is one thing. Playing in-game is another. How are the young bench players supposed to be able to contribute in-game by the end of the season when JB decides to take them out the second they make the most minor foul, and then have them ride the pine for the rest of the game. It's like anything in life, you learn more from mistakes than success.

It has been obvious to me that the past 3 seasons, we have put all of our chips on a 5-7 man rotation, and in both instances it came back to bite us in the ass.

I love JB, and he has always done this. It is one thing if we have Matt Gorman on the bench, but now we have the talent and the bodies on the bench that can contribute, if they're given a chance.

 

[Knicks411]

It's true that we're playing to win games right now. Not sure I agree that playing few guys won't hurt, though. Those Dukes and Kentuckys were very good teams. Syracuse is good, but does anyone, "hater" or otherwise, see Triche playing well for six consecutive games? Carter-Williams?

Well ok, that's fair, I think. (Though you probably could've said the same thing about Kentucky and Marquis Teague last year. Or Kansas and Tyshawn Taylor. Or probably, just about any college player who isn't Anthony Davis or Melo or someone like that. 20 year olds aren't exactly known for their consistency. But I hear you)

But I guess I'm coming at it more from a general point; teams win with short benches all the time.

It could happen, but it's no sure thing. Throw in the injury, illness, or foul trouble possibility - yeah, the zone is said to protect guys, but it's not like having players in foul trouble is a once-in-a-blue-moon thing for us - and we really need that third guard.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with having more good players, of course. That's always preferable. If there is an injury, we're probably screwed. But as you mention; it's too late for development. I would love to have 10 good players instead of six or whatever; but at this point it seems clear that we don't, and playing guys who have proven they aren't ready to contribute at a significant level in the hopes they will figure it out isn't a great idea.

As JDubs said, we could use a second forward off the bench, too. And I still maintain that having a center rotation of essentially only Christmas and Baye is undesirable - heck, that was our emergency rotation last season.

Yeah but that was freshmen Rak. He's a much better player now.

Funny, Ken Pom has player comps based on guys stats for the season. So last year, the most comparable player of the last 5 years or so to Rak was a freshmen Perry Stevenson. Who, right? But #2 was a Freshmen Baye Keita. Fast forward to t his year; the #1 comp for Rak so far is Fab from last year. Which I think is cool because A) he's got SU guys in his top 2 each of the last 2 years, and B) it shows his improvement from last year to this.

 

[OttoMets]

Well ok, that's fair, I think. (Though you probably could've said the same thing about Kentucky and Marquis Teague last year. Or Kansas and Tyshawn Taylor. Or probably, just about any college player who isn't Anthony Davis or Melo or someone like that. 20 year olds aren't exactly known for their consistency. But I hear you)

But I guess I'm coming at it more from a general point; teams win with short benches all the time.



Hey, there's nothing wrong with having more good players, of course. That's always preferable. If there is an injury, we're probably screwed. But as you mention; it's too late for development. I would love to have 10 good players instead of six or whatever; but at this point it seems clear that we don't, and playing guys who have proven they aren't ready to contribute at a significant level in the hopes they will figure it out isn't a great idea.



Yeah but that was freshmen Rak. He's a much better player now.

Funny, Ken Pom has player comps based on guys stats for the season. So last year, the most comparable player of the last 5 years or so to Rak was a freshmen Perry Stevenson. Who, right? But #2 was a Freshmen Baye Keita. Fast forward to t his year; the #1 comp for Rak so far is Fab from last year. Which I think is cool because A) he's got SU guys in his top 2 each of the last 2 years, and B) it shows his improvement from last year to this.

That is a funny coincidence.

Thrilled that Rak's ability is starting to shine through, but I'm sorry it's not happening at the four (and that our freshman big has struggled so mightily for the third consecutive year).

 

[Knicks411]

(and that our freshman big has struggled so mightily for the third consecutive year).

I wonder if this is a coincidence, something to do with how we develop big guys the first year, or just an indication of how big men can develop slowly.

Who was the last freshmen center we had that really contributed? I basically go to the 2002-2003 season; am I missing anyone? Did Rick Jackson give us the most of any freshmen 5 type player? (And not that he did much)

 

[OttoMets]

I wonder if this is a coincidence, something to do with how we develop big guys the first year, or just an indication of how big men can develop slowly.

Who was the last freshmen center we had that really contributed? I basically go to the 2002-2003 season; am I missing anyone? Did Rick Jackson give us the most of any freshmen 5 type player? (And not that he did much)

Heavy Rick Jackson (after looking through those historic Providence photos yesterday, I was reminded of just how much more girth he had in his first three years) played in every game. In 452 minutes, he gave us 3.7 and 3.0. Not terrible (in 780 minutes as a starter, Craig Forth provided 4.9 and 4.5).

Otis Hill is the best first-year contributor of the past two decades - 7.9 and 5.6 on 54% shooting. I think it's no coincidence that we've had these recent struggles. Yes, big guys develop more slowly, but we seem to have a history of this (with projects and four/five-star guys alike).

Though I'm well aware of my over-enthusiastic praise of Coleman after the Pace game, I'm still amazed: why were people talking about 15 and 10 and one-and-done for this kid? That was odd at the time and it really seems crazy now. (I said I'd do backflips if he put up Otis's freshman numbers and even that seems crazy now.)

 

[Knicks411]

I was excited because people were talking about his low post skills and how he could add that element, which we do need.

My new rule is I'm not going to get excited about any freshmen big guy. If we got Dakari I was not going to expect much from him next year.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

No one should be surprised at how the Providence game played out. If Cooney had come off the bench and hit one or two threes against the zone like a Keith Friel or a Mike Marra used to do for ND and Louisville, JB would have ridden that horse. If Baye had continued Rak's level of play when he was in, the two would've split time. It's up to the player to step up, not up to JB to exhaust his patience. If 905 victories haven't convinced people that JB puts winning ahead of everything else, then they're beyond hope of convincing.

It'll be what it'll be, come March. If Cooney leaves his shot on the practice court, and if Rak continues to assert himself while Baye can't find the basket, then we'll see 5-man basketball. Don't like it, but that's the horrorscope-VBOF