A lineup I would pay to see

[EastCoast2]

...once. This isn't what I would do as coach even in a scrimmage, but I think it would be awesome:

1) MCW
2) Southerland
3) Grant
4) Fair
5) Rak

Talk about athletes. Wow.

 

[shermstheman]

...once. This isn't what I would do as coach even in a scrimmage, but I think it would be awesome:

1) MCW
2) Southerland
3) Grant
4) Fair
5) Rak

Talk about athletes. Wow.

Don't worry, whatever line up they put out there, you will definitely pay to see it.

 

[IthacaMatt]

...once. This isn't what I would do as coach even in a scrimmage, but I think it would be awesome:

1) MCW
2) Southerland
3) Grant
4) Fair
5) Rak

Talk about athletes. Wow.

JB has played a 3 SF offense before. He did it in 2003. PG, Forth and 3 SFs - Melo, Hak and Duany. The key is that one of them has to be a decent dribbler, capable of helping bring it up court.

You have to play Grant at the 2 in the zone in that group.

 

[All4SU]

How do you figure Hak as a sf?

 

[albanycuse]

Ill pay to hang out with cali for a day.

 

[Macho Uno]

I don't think Grant is going to average more then five minutes a game this year. Might see twenty total in big east play.

 

[sufandu]

How do you figure Hak as a sf?

It's hard to classify him. Definitely not pf size, but that was his skill set. Melo was bigger and averaged more rebounds per game. I'd be fine with someone calling them both sf's.

 

[IthacaMatt]

How do you figure Hak as a sf?

Because he weighed less than Melo. He weighed about 210 pounds. And what position is he playing in the NBA?

 

[EastCoast2]

Because he weighed less than Melo. He weighed about 210 pounds. And what position is he playing in the NBA?

Not trying to flame here, but I really can't tell if this is a joke and you're taking the literal meaning of "small" in "small forward" as in a short person who plays forward. Height/weight is not what makes a position. If Durant a PF? Would 6'6 DeJuan Blair be a SG then? LeBron weighs more than most PFs but is not classified a PF.

Lastly, Hak is absolutely a PF in the NBA and he was at SU. Remember - the Suns signed him to "replace" Stat - but... maybe... that didn't work out so well.

 

[All4SU]

Because he weighed less than Melo. He weighed about 210 pounds. And what position is he playing in the NBA?

Except he had some of the best low post moves we've had.

 

[EastCoast2]

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/2794/hakim-warrick

 

[IthacaMatt]

Not trying to flame here, but I really can't tell if this is a joke and you're taking the literal meaning of "small" in "small forward" as in a short person who plays forward. Height/weight is not what makes a position. If Durant a PF? Would 6'6 DeJuan Blair be a SG then? LeBron weighs more than most PFs but is not classified a PF.

Lastly, Hak is absolutely a PF in the NBA and he was at SU. Remember - the Suns signed him to "replace" Stat - but... maybe... that didn't work out so well.

Well, yeah, size matters. If you are 6-8, 210, you are a small forward. That's not a bulky rebounder. That's a guy that relies on finesse and quickness to score. SF vs. PF mismatch. That's what we did.

 

[Rocco]

Duany was not a SF. 2G all the way.

 

[senorpalmer]

Well, yeah, size matters. If you are 6-8, 210, you are a small forward. That's not a bulky rebounder. That's a guy that relies on finesse and quickness to score. SF vs. PF mismatch. That's what we did.

Warrick was a PF in college, he might not have been a bruiser but his game was around the iron, back to the basket/post moves (as noted some of the best we ever saw at SU), and not taking his guy off the dribble or operating on the perimeter. Oh and he was one of the best rebounders we'd ever seen too.

 

[sufandu]

Warrick was a PF in college, he might not have been a bruiser but his game was around the iron, back to the basket/post moves (as noted some of the best we ever saw at SU), and not taking his guy off the dribble or operating on the perimeter. Oh and he was one of the best rebounders we'd ever seen too.

Warrick faced up, shot midrange shots and did take guys off the dribble alot more his junior and senior years than he did in 2003, and he was only a good but not great rebounder (8.5 per is nowhere near best ever). He doesn't fit the prototype of either position and is the perfect definition of a tweener. Based on the rebounding evidence, Melo would have been considered our PF in '03 since he averaged 10 per while Warrick averaged 8.5. If Warrick was our PF in '04 and '05, was Terrence Roberts our SF?

The thing that makes this argument funny is that at Syracuse it doesn't matter. Both forwards have the same defensive responsibilities in the zone and JB has players use whatever offensive skill sets they have regardless of defined position. We have a C coming in that has more midrange skills than the guy that'll play PF, but on the defensive end he'll be in the middle while on offense he may play high post while our PF plays low post.

 

[senorpalmer]

Warrick faced up, shot midrange shots and did take guys off the dribble alot more his junior and senior years than he did in 2003, and he was only a good but not great rebounder (8.5 per is nowhere near best ever). He doesn't fit the prototype of either position and is the perfect definition of a tweener. Based on the rebounding evidence, Melo would have been considered our PF in '03 since he averaged 10 per while Warrick averaged 8.5. If Warrick was our PF in '04 and '05, was Terrence Roberts our SF?

The thing that makes this argument funny is that at Syracuse it doesn't matter. Both forwards have the same defensive responsibilities in the zone and JB has players use whatever offensive skill sets they have regardless of defined position. We have a C coming in that has more midrange skills than the guy that'll play PF, but on the defensive end he'll be in the middle while on offense he may play high post while our PF plays low post.

In college, he was not the perfect definition of a tweener. He did the bulk of his work offensively around the basket, he may have had the opportunity to show off some other skills here and there but he was not doing that nearly as often. He made all of 9 3's as a senior, the only year he attempted more than a handful. I'm not following the Terrence Roberts comment, he only started 7 games in the two years he played with Warrick. They would see the floor together at times (Roberts also played some center and was the primary backup for Warrick, not that Hakim saw much pine time) but we saw Nichols and Pace get more time there over those two years. As for his rebounding abilities, we can argue good vs. great but he was only one of five guys to ever grab 1000 boards at SU. Your point about SF vs. PF being less distinguishable at SU is a fair one, but I'm merely discussing what type of player Warrick was. He may not have been a text book PF, but he fit the mold of a collegiate 4 much more than of a collegiate 3.

 

[orangefan13]

I was imo Warrick was a pf in college and Melo a sf.

I am also imo that Pf's are more headed towards a centers game, while sf's are headed more towards a guards.

 

[albanycuse]

id pay to see if cali and orangefan13 are either father and son or the same person.

 

[sufandu]

In college, he was not the perfect definition of a tweener. He did the bulk of his work offensively around the basket, he may have had the opportunity to show off some other skills here and there but he was not doing that nearly as often. He made all of 9 3's as a senior, the only year he attempted more than a handful. I'm not following the Terrence Roberts comment, he only started 7 games in the two years he played with Warrick. They would see the floor together at times (Roberts also played some center and was the primary backup for Warrick, not that Hakim saw much pine time) but we saw Nichols and Pace get more time there over those two years. As for his rebounding abilities, we can argue good vs. great but he was only one of five guys to ever grab 1000 boards at SU. Your point about SF vs. PF being less distinguishable at SU is a fair one, but I'm merely discussing what type of player Warrick was. He may not have been a text book PF, but he fit the mold of a collegiate 4 much more than of a collegiate 3.

I never said he shot a lot of threes and I don't think his lack of threes immediately makes him a PF (John Wallace and Derrick Coleman were both good three point shooters from the PF position as seniors). His most memorable plays were down low and he did have a great low post game. He also shot many more face-up 15-17 footers as a junior and senior and put the ball on the floor more while facing up. As far as rebounding numbers, I prefer to look at rebounds per game because it takes into account that many players played fewer games than Warrick, such as Billy Owens. On that list Warrick is 17th. I didn't do the research on Roberts, but thought I remembered him starting next to Warrick, so I was wrong on that one. Honestly, I don't have a problem with anyone labeling him as a college PF. What prompted me to comment was that you jumped all over the guy that called him a SF, as if it was some grand insult. As far as I'm concerned he could be labeled as either. If you asked JB to make a distinguishment he'd probably shrug his shoulders and say he was simply a forward and it doesn't matter.

 

[senorpalmer]

I never said he shot a lot of threes and I don't think his lack of threes immediately makes him a PF (John Wallace and Derrick Coleman were both good three point shooters from the PF position as seniors). His most memorable plays were down low and he did have a great low post game. He also shot many more face-up 15-17 footers as a junior and senior and put the ball on the floor more while facing up. As far as rebounding numbers, I prefer to look at rebounds per game because it takes into account that many players played fewer games than Warrick, such as Billy Owens. On that list Warrick is 17th. I didn't do the research on Roberts, but thought I remembered him starting next to Warrick, so I was wrong on that one. Honestly, I don't have a problem with anyone labeling him as a college PF. What prompted me to comment was that you jumped all over the guy that called him a SF, as if it was some grand insult. As far as I'm concerned he could be labeled as either. If you asked JB to make a distinguishment he'd probably shrug his shoulders and say he was simply a forward and it doesn't matter.

I don't think I was harsh on Matt (nor to you), hopefully you haven't taken it that way. Warrick was certainly talented enough that you could have started him next to another 4 (he and Roberts started 7 games together IIRC) and made it work.