McCullough at the 5 next year

[pearl31]

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).

You think that has been the problem this season??? TR at the 4???

 

[reedny]

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

See post above .

 

[pearl31]

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.

so by your logic those Watkins/Roberts teams should have been absolute world beaters - 2nd big!

 

[pearl31]

See post above .

And I think you're completely wrong about that.

 

[reedny]

You think that has been the problem this season??? TR at the 4???

It's one problem that's emerging, yes. As I said, we were -15 on the glass the other night. That's a grand canyon size problem. There are others:

- no bench;
-until recently, only one outside shooter (G's recent play has taken some heat off TC, but a PG that could shoot would help);
- inexperience at the point;
- until recently, inexperience at the 3;
- no depth in the middle, prone to fouls.

That's just a few.

 

[reedny]

And I think you're completely wrong about that.

Then I don't think you know what you're talking about. And I think you need to go back and listen to the analysts talk about last year's year-end slide.

 

[reedny]

so by your logic those Watkins/Roberts teams should have been absolute world beaters - 2nd big!

Well that's actually a good point. I can't think of too many 'twin tower' type teams that haven't done pretty well. But that was one. I'll come back on tomorrow and take a look ... but I think I remember what the problems were there.

 

[pearl31]

Well that's actually a good point. I can't think of too many 'twin tower' type teams that haven't done pretty well. But that was one. I'll come back on tomorrow and take a look ... but I think I remember what the problems were there.

So a college team must have a twin towers to be championship caliber?

 

[reedny]

So a college team must have a twin towers to be championship caliber?

Pretty much. It's a trait that I've noticed in our great teams, at least. And many others. There are a few exceptions .. remember back in the day we lost to an Illinois team (kendal gill was on that team). And all the guys were like 6-6 to 6-7... tremendously athletic. They beat us, then lost. But a team like that is (IMO) unlikely to go all the way.

 

[pearl31]

Pretty much. It's a trait that I've noticed in our great teams, at least. And many others. There are a few exceptions .. remember back in the day we lost to an Illinois team (kendal gill was on that team). And all the guys were like 6-6 to 6-7... tremendously athletic. They beat us, then lost. But a team like that is (IMO) unlikely to go all the way.

kind of the the ucon team that won it all last year with Deandre Daniels playing most of the games in the tourney at the 4 or 5...

 

[Eagles20]

Then I don't think you know what you're talking about. And I think you need to go back and listen to the analysts talk about last year's year-end slide.

I personally have no idea what you have been talking about. I disagree with so many things that you have said that ultimately I will just agree to disagree with you. I don't feel like even making a post to contradict your opinions.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Exactly the point.

Yeah, but he's the aberration, not the norm. Against Jikiri (however you spell that name) and the other 240 pound kid on Miami, Tyler had 14 boards. He can play the role, but UNC has more bigs than really anyone in the league this year. And bigger bigs at that. I think you're undervaluing him.

 

[reedny]

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.

Nova's a small team .. it's not unusual for them to run 4 guards. And the 11/12 team could have been great with a 7 footer anchoring the middle, albeit with a smallish forward, Kris Joseph, playing next to him (a nice scorer but certainly not a glass-cleaner at about 3 boards per game in NCAA play). However, we had Rak coming in to help for rebounding (along with CJ Fair and Southerland). That team was loaded with scorers (Dion Waiters, Triche, Joseph, James, etc.), so for a time in the NCAA's they could compete, shooting 48% from the floor and almost 39% from 3. They made up for Fab's absence with Rak's minutes jumping up from 11 to 21 mpg and Keita coming in. But sure enough, once a big/deep team (OSU) came a calling with guys like Sullinger (6-9, 260).. we were done (on a bad call, but that's life). Keita had 10 rebounds in that game but without Feb (enough bigs/beef inside), our forwards were overmatched on the boards (CJ had 4 rbs, Joseph had 2), and we wound up -15 on the glass. Sound familiar?

 

[reedny]

I personally have no idea what you have been talking about. I disagree with so many things that you have said that ultimately I will just agree to disagree with you. I don't feel like even making a post to contradict your opinions.

Thank you.

 

[reedny]

kind of the the ucon team that won it all last year with Deandre Daniels playing most of the games in the tourney at the 4 or 5...

Yep and Daniels was 6'9 and they had Olander at 6'10, Brimah off the bench at 7 feet and Nolan off the bench at 6'10. See a pattern emerging here? Size isn't everything, in every game, but it's essential to build on to compete with the top teams in the conference and deeper into the tournament.

 

[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.

I can agree with this mostly. I like that team to play against smaller faster lineups.