McCullough at the 5 next year

[RF2044]

People get too hung up on positions. Our forwards have often been versatile, and not fit into perfectly conventional buckets. We've often had forwards who can play multiple positions effectively, and guys more normally viewed as conventional 3's who could also play the 4 effectively / guys who were 4's who could slide up to 5. Matchups occur on both sides of the ball.

A bigger key is whether the tandem has complimentary skill threats.

Roberson, to me, is an undersized 4 in the mold of George Lynch from UNC. They are nearly identical players--about 6-7 215 pounds, both stud rebounders, both lacking SF games that are a better "fit" for their size.

Do I think McCullough is a 5? Hell no. But he still might be the best 5 option we have next year. And while he won't [I can confidently stand behind this prediction] get it done the way Rak is doing things this year, he might be effective in different ways. A lot depends on what happens with Coleman and Bryant.

But having Chris at the 5 and an experienced Roberson at the 4 isn't a bad thing. Heck, we were winning 20+ games with the likes of Billy Celuck at center--people are worried about McCullough?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

People get too hung up on positions. Our forwards have often been versatile, and not fit into perfectly conventional buckets. We've often had forwards who can play multiple positions effectively, and guys more normally viewed as conventional 3's who could also play the 4 effectively. Matchups occur on both sides of the ball.

A bigger key is whether the tandem has complimentary skill threats.

Roberson, to me, is an undersized 4 in the mold of George Lynch from UNC. They are nearly identical players--about 6-7 215 pounds, both stud rebounders, both lacking SF games that are a better "fit" for their size.

Do I think McCullough is a 5? Hell no. But he still might be the best 5 option we have next year. And while he won't [I can confidently stand behind this prediction] get it done the way Rak is doing things this year, he might be effective in different ways. A lot depends on what happens with Coleman and Bryant.

But having Chris at the 5 and an experienced Roberson at the 4 isn't a bad thing. Heck, we were winning 20+ games with the likes of Billy Celuck at center--people are worried about McCullough?

I keep wondering if we will see a promised start given to someone at the 5 with a quick substitution that JB is known for. Start with a big lineup with G out top and then bring in Malachi or someone and move Chris to the 5.

 

[reedny]

Dude is averaging double digit rebounds per game in league and you're using this as your proof? NC's is an abnormally huge front line, and yeah he was out-muscled but he also got to alot of balls to keep posessions alive that don't show up as stats. Game before, against a sizeable Miami front line he finished w/ 14 boards.
Also, a power forward does not have to be some hulking dude with a back-to-basket game - look around the country and look at some of our recent teams - J.Grant last year, Southerland 12-13 season, CJ Fair/K.Joseph for a good part of the 11-12 season...

I agree (as Ryan points out) that forward in our system is a flexible position and TR can function in the spot. He can certainly rebound against smaller teams, which doesn't make him a power forward in the mold I'm thinking of. In fact, I think he's there mostly because the guy who's bigger and better suited for the position blew out his knee. Obviously, there was a reason why JB had CM playing the 4 before he was hurt.

One other thing -- if you think UNC is somehow an aberration, you haven't been listening to JB or reading the box scores. It's going to get worse .. b/c we have the rough part of the schedule coming up and are going to be playing a slew of big/talented teams. I just hope that the damage we suffered on the glass the other night isn't going to be a nightly affair

 

[pearl31]

Well, I like your examples... for my argument. Grant is 6-8/6-9 with a huge wingspan and blocked 8 shots the other night in the NBA (against the Knicks, I believe). Tyler has 9 blocks this year .. (18 games). By comparison, CM has 33 (up to the -St game) and Rak has 43.

CJ and James were basically SF's, both with mid-range or outside games, not back to the basket games. Neither was a low-block player ... although in our system sure they can play there situationally.

At any rate, I don't see where this is going. I agree with Ryan that forward is a flexible position for us and TR can occasionally play the spot. And I know you guys love the fact that he can rebound .. and that's great. But it doesn't make him a PF if we want to compete on the glass with the big boys. He can play the 4 in a pinch. But only because the guy who's bigger and better suited for the position blew out his knee.

And if you think UNC is somehow an aberration, you haven't been listening to JB or reading the box scores. It's going to get worse .. b/c we have the rough part of the schedule coming up and are going to be playing a slew of big/talented teams. I just hope that the damage we suffered on the glass the other night isn't going to be repeated --- but I'm afraid it will be cine we've had to down-size our entire front line because we don't have a guy big enough to play PF

Grant is not 6'9 and has no back-to-basket game whatsoever. Southerland was a perimeter player that was allergic at times to mixing it up on the glass. Neither K.Josoph or Fair were natural 4s whatsoever but both played extended minutes there. And all of those teams were very successful teams, going against some very big/rugged opposition at times. A team simply does not need a hulking beast at the 4 these days in the college game to be elite.

"Compete on the glass with the big boys"? are the 10.5 rebounds per game that TR is averaging so far in the ACC an aberration? Do you really think there are many other teams in the country that can roll out a set of power players that NC does? Kentucky... who else? You seem to be basing your stance entirely on the 3-rebound number from Monday night.

Let's try it this way - please define what an "ideal" 4 for Syracuse would consist of - what his attributes would be. For me, in JB's system, we need one of the 2 forwards (whether he be labeled as the 3, 4 or whatever) be able to:

- Rebound at a high level
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Finish strongly through contact around the basket

The other forward, then, needs to be able to:

- Be a shooter/scorer, out to the 3-pt line
- Handle the ball competently
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Provide auxiliary/complimentary backside rebounding

To me TR is CLEARLY more naturally adept at the first set of attributes than the 2nd - starting to do those things well, and will be doing them very well by next year.

 

[tbonezone]

well i've seen enuf of mccullough at the 5 this season to state unequivocally he sucks there.

 

[reedny]

Grant is not 6'9 and has no back-to-basket game whatsoever. Southerland was a perimeter player that was allergic at times to mixing it up on the glass. Neither K.Josoph or Fair were natural 4s whatsoever but both played extended minutes there. And all of those teams were very successful teams, going against some very big/rugged opposition at times. A team simply does not need a hulking beast at the 4 these days in the college game to be elite.

"Compete on the glass with the big boys"? are the 10.5 rebounds per game that TR is averaging so far in the ACC an aberration? Do you really think there are many other teams in the country that can roll out a set of power players that NC does? Kentucky... who else? You seem to be basing your stance entirely on the 3-rebound number from Monday night.

Let's try it this way - please define what an "ideal" 4 for Syracuse would consist of - what his attributes would be. For me, in JB's system, we need one of the 2 forwards (whether he be labeled as the 3, 4 or whatever) be able to:

- Rebound at a high level
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Finish strongly through contact around the basket

The other forward, then, needs to be able to:

- Be a shooter/scorer, out to the 3-pt line
- Handle the ball competently
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Provide auxiliary/complimentary backside rebounding

To me TR is CLEARLY more naturally adept at the first set of attributes than the 2nd - starting to do those things well, and will be doing them very well by next year.

I don't have time to go through all this, but no one's saying we need a hulking beast at PF. Was Hakim hulking? Hardly. Is CM hulking? He's 2" taller than Tyler and still needs bulk at the position -- that alone defeats your point that TR is our PF of the future. Ridiculous ... he's a fill-in. Obviously, JB thought CM was better-suited to play PF for us before he was hurt. This isn't rocket science ... he's bigger and taller than TR.

CM's hurt- and we have no one else. So Tyler's forced to play the 4 ... and even his excellent rebounding skill as a SF isn't enough against big front lines.

And to answer your question about the ideal 4, I'd say either CM or Rak fits the bill... If we had a 7 footer Rak would be playing PF and we'd be competitive with the bigger teams that are punishing us on the glass. I think this was the combination we had on the NC team, if that means anything.

One last thing ... I'm a big fan of TR and CM. Both are great kids .. I've been rooting for Tyler to improve and he has really stepped up. 14 points against UNC was a great effort. I just think he's undersized for the position -- a point which should be obvious if you look at where JB had him playing before CM was hurt.

 

[SoBristol]

well i've seen enuf of mccullough at the 5 this season to state unequivocally he sucks there.

And, next year, a better player for us at the 5 is ...? I have seen Coleman on defense, I have seen Chino.

It is similar to Mike G. He isn't the best point guard in the league, but he switches to play the point when Joseph goes out because he is the best we have.

 

[SoBristol]

...

One last thing ... I'm a big fan of TR and CM. Both are great kids .. I've been rooting for Tyler to improve and he has really stepped up. 14 points against UNC was a great effort. I just think he's undersized for the position -- a point which should be obvious if you look at where JB had him playing before CM was hurt.

JB playing TR at SF was an experiment. On offense, TR was lost, which is why Gbinije took over the position. TR blossomed playing PF. Yes, he is shorter than an ideal PF, but this is where his skills fit.

 

[reedny]

JB playing TR at SF was an experiment. On offense, TR was lost, which is why Gbinije took over the position. TR blossomed playing PF. Yes, he is shorter than an ideal PF, but this is where his skills fit.

The experiment's going on now ... with CM out and no one else to play the 4. The fact that Roberson was lost on offense as a small forward doesn't mean he's our PF for the future. And you mentioned his "skills", but he has only one skill for the 4 .. he can rebound well for a SF. As far as finishing through contact or over size at the rim .. haven't seen it yet from him. Not a shot-blocker either. Has no post game (that's not always necessary but nice for a 4). And at 210 gets easily pushed out of the lane and dominated by bigger players.

This is all why JB had him playing the 3 and CM the 4 before Chris blew out his knee. I agree that the present experiment is the best we can do, and depending on what happens with TB/DC2 next year, CM might have to play the 5. But I don't think we're going anywhere with that kind of lineup.

I do agree that we've have had 6-8 forwards play the 4 before ... but the ones who were successful were more like Jerami and Hakim and DC. Which reminds me .. when we won the NC we had a 7 footer in the middle, a 6-8/6-9 player who was long and could rebound and finish at the rim/block shots.. and a pretty nice small forward.

But hey ... if you think TR's an ideal 4 ... don't know what else to say except UNC + 15 on the glass.

 

[Eagles20]

Grant is not 6'9 and has no back-to-basket game whatsoever. Southerland was a perimeter player that was allergic at times to mixing it up on the glass. Neither K.Josoph or Fair were natural 4s whatsoever but both played extended minutes there. And all of those teams were very successful teams, going against some very big/rugged opposition at times. A team simply does not need a hulking beast at the 4 these days in the college game to be elite.

"Compete on the glass with the big boys"? are the 10.5 rebounds per game that TR is averaging so far in the ACC an aberration? Do you really think there are many other teams in the country that can roll out a set of power players that NC does? Kentucky... who else? You seem to be basing your stance entirely on the 3-rebound number from Monday night.

Let's try it this way - please define what an "ideal" 4 for Syracuse would consist of - what his attributes would be. For me, in JB's system, we need one of the 2 forwards (whether he be labeled as the 3, 4 or whatever) be able to:

- Rebound at a high level
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Finish strongly through contact around the basket

The other forward, then, needs to be able to:

- Be a shooter/scorer, out to the 3-pt line
- Handle the ball competently
- Be mobile enough to quickly get out on shooters and then recover back into the lane
- Provide auxiliary/complimentary backside rebounding

To me TR is CLEARLY more naturally adept at the first set of attributes than the 2nd - starting to do those things well, and will be doing them very well by next year.

I couldn't agree with you more about the attributes part of that.

 

[Eagles20]

The experiment's going on now ... with CM out and no one else to play the 4. The fact that Roberson was lost on offense as a small forward doesn't mean he's our PF for the future. And you mentioned his "skills", but he has only one skill for the 4 .. he can rebound well for a SF. As far as finishing over size at the rim .. nope. Not a shot-blocker either. Has no post game (that's not always necessary but nice for a 4). And at 210 gets easily pushed out of the lane and dominated by bigger players.

Oh and I forgot -- JB had him playing the 3 and CM the 4 before Chris blew out his knee. The present experiment is the best we can do. And we have had 6-8 forwards play the 4 before ... but they were more like Jerami and Hakim. Which reminds me .. when we won the NC we had a 7 footer in the middle, a 6-8/6-9 player who was long and could rebound and finish at the rim/block shots.. and a pretty nice small forward.

But hey ... if you think TR's an ideal 4 ... don't know what else to say.

He's going to play the wing in the zone so it doesn't matter there if he is labeled a pf or sf. It's not like we play man where he has to defend the other teams PF.

It's offensively where he doesn't have the skill set to be a small forward. I don't think chris has the ability right now to be a small forward in Syracuse's offense either. This is why I think the only way they can be on the court together is if chris plays the center with mike G at the small forward next year. I don't beleive if you start coleman at center, chris at the 3 and TR at the 4 you will have the spacing on offensive to be effective. Now both TR and Chris have a whole offseason to improve skills and get better at some of the attributes pointed out above about what is expected at syracuse out of a small forward

 

[reedny]

He's going to play the wing in the zone so it doesn't matter there if he is labeled a pf or sf. It's not like we play man where he has to defend the other teams PF.

It's offensively where he doesn't have the skill set to be a small forward. I don't think chris has the ability right now to be a small forward in Syracuse's offense either. This is why I think the only way they can be on the court together is if chris plays the center with mike G at the small forward next year. I don't beleive if you start coleman at center, chris at the 3 and TR at the 4 you will have the spacing on offensive to be effective. Now both TR and Chris have a whole offseason to improve skills and get better at some of the attributes pointed out above about what is expected at syracuse out of a small forward

But usually one of the wings pinches in and fights for rebounds or blocks shots on defense. On offense, the PF can muscle in for put-backs, use low post moves or tip-ins through/over contact. I know Tyler's our only option right now, but I don't see him doing any of these things more effectively than CM.. because Tyler's not really an inside player.

You point out that he has no outside game ... so on offense he plays a CJF-type mid-rage game. Well, that's not because he's Derrick Coleman, it's because he has to, because he does not have enough size or strength to play like a coleman or warrick and score through contact or over size inside. So, whereas TR is playing the 4 now out of necessity, the prototypical PF in JB's system is a long player that can block shots and finish at the rim, like DC, Hakim .. or CM. That kind of skill set (AND SIZE) gives us that second rebounder/scorer inside, which you have to have to compete in the top 20 (IMO). The NC team had the combination I'm talking about. And obviously, JB had Roberson playing the 3 because of his size (before Chris went down). So .. again, TR may be in the best spot for him personally (no shot and better-than-average rebounder for a SF) but for the TEAM to be successful, it's not ideal - clearly.

 

[Eagles20]

But usually one of the wings pinches in and fights for rebounds or blocks shots on defense. On offense, the PF can muscle in for put-backs, use low post moves or tip-ins through/over contact. I know Tyler's our only option right now, but I don't see him doing any of these things more effectively than CM.

You point out that he has no outside game ... so on offense he plays a CJF-type mid-rage game. He has to, because he does not have enough size or strength to play like a coleman or warrick and score through contact or over size inside. So, whereas TR is playing the 4 now out of necessity, the prototypical PF in JB's system is a long player that can block shots and finish at the rim, like DC, Hakim .. or CM. That kind of skill set (AND SIZE) gives us that second rebounder/scorer inside, which you have to have to compete in the top 20 (IMO). The NC team had the combination I'm talking about. And obviously, JB had Roberson playing the 3 because of his size (before Chris went down). So .. again, TR may be in the best spot for him personally (no shot and better-than-average rebounder for a SF) but for the TEAM to be successful, it's not ideal - clearly.

No both wings have to be able to do that. It all matters where the ball is and where the shot comes from. Both wings have to be able to challenge out to the 3pt line and also weak side rebound against sometimes two offensive players. It's never predetermined who will have to pinch in and fight for rebounds. I think TR pysically was more ready to compete this year than chris. TR definitely doesn't get pushed around as much as chris was.

I don't think 3 players who are all only comfortbale catching around 15 feet or in can offer the type of spacing to really have a fluid free flowing offense. Last year CJ was able to catch on the wing, break down his defender and drive to the hoop. I remember him doing it very well against Duke. I'm not sure right now if TR or Chris's game has shown that. This is what the offseason is for though, to develop your skills and improve. I hope they both do.

 

[reedny]

No both wings have to be able to do that. It all matters where the ball is and where the shot comes from. Both wings have to be able to challenge out to the 3pt line and also weak side rebound against sometimes two offensive players. It's never predetermined who will have to pinch in and fight for rebounds. I think TR pysically was more ready to compete this year than chris. TR definitely doesn't get pushed around as much as chris was.

I don't think 3 players who are all only comfortbale catching around 15 feet or in can offer the type of spacing to really have a fluid free flowing offense. Last year CJ was able to catch on the wing, break down his defender and drive to the hoop. I remember him doing it very well against Duke. I'm not sure right now if TR or Chris's game has shown that. This is what the offseason is for though, to develop your skills and improve. I hope they both do.

I don't agree, Eagles, because what you're missing is that on defense and offense you need a secondary big-period. If you (and Pearl) think TR's the answer at the 4 in all situations (especially against top-tier ACC teams), it's a free country. JB obviously doesn't agree, since he had CM at the position and Tyler at the 3.

Once again, it doesn't matter whether TYLER'S game is limited because of his shot. That doesn't make him big enough, IMO, to play PF against big teams. He's just not a Hakim Warrick/Derrick Coleman kind of player, whereas CM, in time, has that kind of size and skill .. and that's why he's the future at PF for us IF he comes back.

Tyler's playing well, if undersized, and we have no choice but to use him at PF right now. But UNC massacred us on the glass ... and I don't think that's the last time it's going to happen.

 

[SoBristol]

The experiment's going on now ... with CM out and no one else to play the 4. The fact that Roberson was lost on offense as a small forward doesn't mean he's our PF for the future. And you mentioned his "skills", but he has only one skill for the 4 .. he can rebound well for a SF. As far as finishing through contact or over size at the rim .. haven't seen it yet from him. Not a shot-blocker either. Has no post game (that's not always necessary but nice for a 4). And at 210 gets easily pushed out of the lane and dominated by bigger players.

This is all why JB had him playing the 3 and CM the 4 before Chris blew out his knee. I agree that the present experiment is the best we can do, and depending on what happens with TB/DC2 next year, CM might have to play the 5. But I don't think we're going anywhere with that kind of lineup.

I do agree that we've have had 6-8 forwards play the 4 before ... but the ones who were successful were more like Jerami and Hakim and DC. Which reminds me .. when we won the NC we had a 7 footer in the middle, a 6-8/6-9 player who was long and could rebound and finish at the rim/block shots.. and a pretty nice small forward.

But hey ... if you think TR's an ideal 4 ... don't know what else to say except UNC + 15 on the glass.

I didn't say Tyler's size was ideal -- 6ft 9 in would be ideal. How many of our starters have ideal size? Tyler is effective at the 4 and will be better next year when he adds some more muscle.
It is unlikely he will develop the perimeter skills to play SF next year, but it is a moot point. Gbinije is simply better at SF.

 

[reedny]

I didn't say Tyler's size was ideal -- 6ft 9 in would be ideal. How many of our starters have ideal size? Tyler is effective at the 4 and will be better next year when he adds some more muscle.
It is unlikely he will develop the perimeter skills to play SF next year, but it is a moot point. Gbinije is simply better at SF.

Again, you're thinking about where to fit Tyler's skills on the court. I'm thinking about what has made SU a top 2o team, or even better a FF team, in the past. And to play at that level, we've had a second big. DC was that big in 87, next to Seikely. Warrick was that big in 03. And CM .. if he stays around long enough, could have that kind of talent (he already has the physical gifts). Tyler's a great young player, getting better. His shot may not arrive. And he may be able to help against smaller teams at PF. But that might not be necessary if we have bigs that can play the position -- which we probably will. CM may very well return to showcase/develop his game. If so, he'll be in the same spot again - PF. He's tall enough to play the 5, although not ideal there (just as TR is not ideal at the 4. But next year Diagne comes in ... likely to back up CM at PF. Tyler will probably be ahead of him -- two years already in the system and starting his third year. So he might play... against smaller teams, to spell CM, etc.. He can also play the 3.

This all gets back to the same point -- great SU teams have had a second big, and they've all been of similar mold, long, good rebounders, guys that can jump/finish over size or through contact and block shots. This all takes pressure off the center to be everywhere around the paint. Tyler's not in that mold. But I'm glad you guys are so taken with his rebounding that you think he's Warrick-like in his game (I don't see it).

 

[pearl31]

I don't agree, Eagles, because what you're missing is that on defense and offense you need a secondary big-period. If you (and Pearl) think TR's the answer at the 4, it's a free country. JB obviously doesn't agree, since he had CM at the position and Tyler at the 3.

Once again, it doesn't matter whether TYLER'S game is limited because of his shot. That doesn't make him big enough, IMO, to play PF. He's just not a Hakim Warrick/Derrick Coleman kind of player, whereas CM, in time, has that kind of size and skill .. and that's why he's the future at PF for us IF he comes back.

Tyler's playing well, if undersized, and we have no choice but to use him at PF right now. But UNC massacred us on the glass ... and I don't think that's the last time it's going to happen.

you keep using DC and Hak as your examples - that's 2 teams (the greatest 2 teams) in the past 20 years- of course those are the ideal 4s for Syracuse. With the personnel at JB's disposal next year, though, CM will have to play either the 5 or 4 and TR will have to play either the 4 or 3. I'm just saying that our most effective lineup, at least offensively, could very well be CM at the 5, TR at the 4 and then either G or Malachi at the 3. Smallish, yes, but it would likely be a very potent team on O.

 

[reedny]

you keep using DC and Hak as your examples - that's 2 teams (the greatest 2 teams) in the past 20 years- of course those are the ideal 4s for Syracuse. With the personnel at JB's disposal next year, though, CM will have to play either the 5 or 4 and TR will have to play either the 4 or 3. I'm just saying that our most effective lineup, at least offensively, could very well be CM at the 5, TR at the 4 and then either G or Malachi at the 3. Smallish, yes, but it would likely be a very potent team on O.

Small ball is another story. Like I said, Brey played 5 guards against Duke the other night. So sure .. anything can happen. Maybe JB wants Tyler in there (at the 4) to run. Who knows.

But there's no use pretending that Roberson's god's gift at PF just because we're needy, having lost our 6'10 guy to injury. It doesn't work that way .. if we want to be a really good team (next year). This year's not going to happen. But while we're arguing, Tyler's getting better and hopefully he'll be a force (wherever they put him) next year. I think it's back to the 3, like he started this year.

 

[pearl31]

Again, you're thinking about where to fit Tyler's skills on the court. I'm thinking about what has made SU a top 2o team, or even better a FF team, in the past. And to play at that level, we've had a second big. DC was that big in 87, next to Seikely. Warrick was that big in 03. And CM .. if he stays around long enough, could have that kind of talent (he already has the physical gifts). Tyler's a great young player, getting better. His shot may not arrive. And he may be able to help against smaller teams at PF. But that might not be necessary if we have bigs that can play the position -- which we probably will. CM may very well return to showcase/develop his game. If so, he'll be in the same spot again - PF. He's tall enough to play the 5, although not ideal there (just as TR is not ideal at the 4. But next year Diagne comes in ... likely to back up CM at PF. Tyler will probably be ahead of him -- two years already in the system and starting his third year. So he might play... against smaller teams, to spell CM, etc.. He can also play the 3.

This all gets back to the same point -- great SU teams have had a second big, and they've all been of similar mold, long, good rebounders, guys that can jump/finish over size or through contact and block shots. This all takes pressure off the center to be everywhere around the paint. Tyler's not in that mold. But I'm glad you guys are so taken with his rebounding that you think he's Warrick-like in his game (I don't see it).

So 2011-12 (pre Fab flunk) wasn't a great team?
The NCAA tourney run in '13 with Dirty at the 4 wasn't a great team?
Last year (pre nosedive - think v. Villanova and Duke) wasn't a great (or at least very, very good) team?
Why do you keep saying we have to have a 2nd big? You must mean on the offensive end - on the defensive end the 2-3 does not require a 6'10 guy on one of the wings to be effective.

 

[pearl31]

I think it's back to the 3, like he started this year.

But JB has already acknowledged that wasn't the right place for him. And he's really taken off since moving to the 4. And he figures to keep taking off further. And he'll need to be on the floor as much as possible next year. And so the "4" is very likely where he'll need to play. And we'll very likely be one of the better teams in the country. :noidea:

 

[reedny]

So 2011-12 (pre Fab flunk) wasn't a great team?
Last year (pre nosedive - think v. Villanova and Duke) wasn't a great (or at least very, very good) team?
Why do you keep saying we have to have a 2nd big? You must mean on the offensive end - on the defensive end the 2-3 does not require a 6'10 guy on one of the wings to be effective.

Last year's team had a great start, but tanked late because it was a doughnut team... all jumpshooters and no inside offense. Rak wasn't scoring, Keita couldn't catch the ball, etc.. So not a good example.

 

[pearl31]

Last year's team had a great start, but tanked late because it was a doughnut team... all jumpshooters and no inside offense. Rak wasn't scoring, Keita couldn't catch the ball, etc.. So not a good example.

I'm talking about early year, up through the first Duke game - that was a very, very good team - without a 2nd big in the lineup.

 

[pearl31]

And no, a 2nd big late in the year would not have salvaged last year's team. A couple of shooters would have, though.

 

[reedny]

But JB has already acknowledged that wasn't the right place for him. And he's really taken off since moving to the 4. And he figures to keep taking off further. And he'll need to be on the floor as much as possible next year. And so the "4" is very likely where he'll need to play. And we'll very likely be one of the better teams in the country. :noidea:

But when you say "where does he fit" ... that's a question about what to do with a 6-7/210 wing guy that can't shoot, but can rebound. Hell, in a pinch I'd use him at the 4 too. And we're in a pinch.

Next year, with CM back, and Diagne coming in ... I think our center situation will determine where CM plays. With TB and DC2 producing there, this is our best scenario. If TB doesn't report, and DC2 has trouble, yes I think CM would have to move over and then you'd have the undersized PF problem -- most likely not rearing it's ugly head until late January/February and into the tournament as we face bigger teams (pretty much like this season).

 

[reedny]

I'm talking about early year, up through the first Duke game - that was a very, very good team - without a 2nd big in the lineup.

Andy they tanked and lost. No second big .. and no inside scoring balance to space the floor and take pressure off the shooters. Teams packed it in .. and with one bad shooting night, we're done. And that's exactly what happened.