Positionless Basketbaii?

[Cappy3]

Everyone yammers on about the importance of positionless ball, and getting centers who can stretch the floor. But what dowe have in the national championship game? Two teams whose best players are old fashioned low post guys. Neither Reed nor Mara are likely to even think about launching threes, but they are the two most dominant and important players in the game. College ball isn’t the NBA. a talented big guy in the low post is still a major advantage in college, even if he never wanders outside 15 feet. Let’s hope we can return to that style of ball.

 

[tptcuse]

Everyone yammers on about the importance of positionless ball, and getting centers who can stretch the floor. But what dowe have in the national championship game? Two teams whose best players are old fashioned low post guys. Neither Reed nor Mara are likely to even think about launching threes, but they are the two most dominant and important players in the game. College ball isn’t the NBA. a talented big guy in the low post is still a major advantage in college, even if he never wanders outside 15 feet. Let’s hope we can return to that style of ball.

I feel like that’s one place GMac would be similar to those coaches. He seems to value size. We’ll see starting on Tuesday.

 

[pearl31]

only on waikiki beach

 

[PeteCalvin]

I told my son the other day that in the 80’s and 90’s, college ball was still about having that dominant big man in the middle, but not necessarily an immobile 7-0 monster. Then the game shifted to small ball, having a big that traditional bigs couldn’t guard. Someone who could handle the ball and shoot threes. Only a few teams (Purdue, as an example) stuck with the bulky, power centers. Jay Wright came along and played his 4-guard offense around one very versatile but undersized big, which I think was the precursor to the UConn offenses under Murray, but Hurley brought back the size inside. He had players who were physical and had the ability to score with their backs to the basket. Sonogo and Clingan were more like the centers from the 90’s and early 2000’s, but they were solid passers. Now it’s like everything has come full circle again where coaches want a monster, but athletic, 7-footer in the middle, and a 6-11 PF who can rebound and shoot threes. It’s like the Twin Tower days of the 80’s all over again, but now these guys have better mobility, better passing and some can even shoot.

 

[Brooky03]

This is why I put very little stock in the ‘modern offense’ stuff during coach evaluations here. “Look at how they swing the ball around and everybody can shoot! It’s so glorious!” Is it?

 

[Knicks411]

I feel like that’s one place GMac would be similar to those coaches. He seems to value size. We’ll see starting on Tuesday.

Does he? Seems like I've been seeing this thing where every positive trait gets attributed to Gerry now. I get it, we're in the honeymoon period, but still. (he's also apparently one of the few coaches that likes players who play hard and really want to win.)

I have no idea, and you're right, we'll see starting Tuesday, but Siena was 275th in the country in average height last year, and even just isolating it to the MAAC schools, Siena was 7th out of 13th teams in the conf in average height.

As to the main point, I think you've seen a shift the last couple of years especially, as players are staying in school longer, where height has become a little bit more of a factor. Everything else being equal, more size is always going to be better than less size.

 

[tptcuse]

Does he? Seems like I've been seeing this thing where every positive trait gets attributed to Gerry now. I get it, we're in the honeymoon period, but still. (he's also apparently one of the few coaches that likes players who play hard and really want to win.)

I have no idea, and you're right, we'll see starting Tuesday, but Siena was 275th in the country in average height last year, and even just isolating it to the MAAC schools, Siena was 7th out of 13th teams in the conf in average height.

As to the main point, I think you've seen a shift the last couple of years especially, as players are staying in school longer, where height has become a little bit more of a factor. Everything else being equal, more size is always going to be better than less size.

I am definitely not one of those people. (You can check my posting history.) I believe Gerry referenced positional size and others have said his offense uses the big men in more traditional roles.

 

[Knicks411]

I am definitely not one of those people. (You can check my posting history.) I believe Gerry referenced positional size and others have said his offense uses the big men in more traditional roles.

I definitely can't keep track of everyone, so maybe i just picked the wrong post to make this point on. If so, carry on!

 

[General20]

Everyone yammers on about the importance of positionless ball, and getting centers who can stretch the floor. But what dowe have in the national championship game? Two teams whose best players are old fashioned low post guys. Neither Reed nor Mara are likely to even think about launching threes, but they are the two most dominant and important players in the game. College ball isn’t the NBA. a talented big guy in the low post is still a major advantage in college, even if he never wanders outside 15 feet. Let’s hope we can return to that style of ball.

I dont think anyone anywhere ever is against landing one of the best big men in the country. There just aren't many of them to go around. The real question is what do you do if you cant have both size and skill? Do you choose size or skill?

 

[dasher]

Does he? Seems like I've been seeing this thing where every positive trait gets attributed to Gerry now. I get it, we're in the honeymoon period, but still. (he's also apparently one of the few coaches that likes players who play hard and really want to win.)

I have no idea, and you're right, we'll see starting Tuesday, but Siena was 275th in the country in average height last year, and even just isolating it to the MAAC schools, Siena was 7th out of 13th teams in the conf in average height.

As to the main point, I think you've seen a shift the last couple of years especially, as players are staying in school longer, where height has become a little bit more of a factor. Everything else being equal, more size is always going to be better than less size.

He says he wants big. Now, I think it is unfair to base a critique of him for having average height for his league at Siena this year. It's not like he had a ton of time to put his mark on the program. If he were there say, five years, okay. And I believe one of his bigger guys was hurt this year. II will take him at his word until I see evidence that he isn't as keen on bigger players as he said he was.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Everyone yammers on about the importance of positionless ball, and getting centers who can stretch the floor. But what dowe have in the national championship game? Two teams whose best players are old fashioned low post guys. Neither Reed nor Mara are likely to even think about launching threes, but they are the two most dominant and important players in the game. College ball isn’t the NBA. a talented big guy in the low post is still a major advantage in college, even if he never wanders outside 15 feet. Let’s hope we can return to that style of ball.

I agree. I think it's almost always been this way. You have to have the ability to score down low, and to defend down low.

It's like football. You have to have a running game, and you have to be able to stop the run.

Both games, hoops and football, are more open than years before.

But if you want to win championships, you have to be able to beat people up inside, because jump shots don't fall forever. And you have to stop the other guy from doing it to you

 

[IthacaMatt]

I told my son the other day that in the 80’s and 90’s, college ball was still about having that dominant big man in the middle, but not necessarily an immobile 7-0 monster. Then the game shifted to small ball, having a big that traditional bigs couldn’t guard. Someone who could handle the ball and shoot threes. Only a few teams (Purdue, as an example) stuck with the bulky, power centers. Jay Wright came along and played his 4-guard offense around one very versatile but undersized big, which I think was the precursor to the UConn offenses under Murray, but Hurley brought back the size inside. He had players who were physical and had the ability to score with their backs to the basket. Sonogo and Clingan were more like the centers from the 90’s and early 2000’s, but they were solid passers. Now it’s like everything has come full circle again where coaches want a monster, but athletic, 7-footer in the middle, and a 6-11 PF who can rebound and shoot threes. It’s like the Twin Tower days of the 80’s all over again, but now these guys have better mobility, better passing and some can even shoot.

Teams have been doing this for a while.
Gonzaga under Mark Few always had 2 or 3 skilled big men - but BIG men.

UNC has always had a lot of beef underneath. Florida State is another one in the ACC.
Matt Painter at Purdue has had big men focused teams for the whole time he's been there.

Kansas under Bill Self has always had 2 or 3 really skilled big men. How many have they put in the NBA?

You go back and look at most Final Fours, even in the last 10-15 years, and most of them have at least 2 or 3 legitimate big men, at least one of whom is an offensive low-post scorer, and all of whom can defend and guard the rim.

 

[sufandu]

It's about team versatility. You need some guys that can shoot from deep, but not everyone needs to shoot from deep. You need guys that can break down a defense off the dribble, but you don't want the whole offense to be that.

Having low post scorers stabilizes an offense when shooters are off, and sometimes shooters are off. It also collapses a defense so that shooters have more room to shoot.

 

[SU91]

I think positionless basketball was a cope when we couldn’t recruit or put together a balanced roster.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

He says he wants big.

So did she.

 

[sufandu]

I think positionless basketball was a cope when we couldn’t recruit or put together a balanced roster.

I think there are teams that have good success with it, but the best teams will find ways to exploit it by havimg someone dominate by being physically different than the positionless team has available. It's like the way the NFL has gone away from te running game, so defenses adjusted. Then Philadelphia exploited thise defenses two years ago by running all over them. It's a cat and mouse game.

 

[SU91]

I think there are teams that have good success with it, but the best teams will find ways to exploit it by havimg someone dominate by being physically different than the positionless team has available. It's like the way the NFL has gone away from te running game, so defenses adjusted. Then Philadelphia exploited thise defenses two years ago by running all over them. It's a cat and mouse game.

I agree. I just think in our case, many were coping with the positionless basketball stuff when in reality, what we had was good playerless basketball.

 

[cusefan88]

It's more versatility. You need guys that can you do multiple things. Michigan is obviously a top example but Lendeborg can do a bit of everything at 6-9 230+ and Mara is a great passer for his size with excellent hands.

If you don't have versatile players you can adapt to your opponents.

 

[rocklloyd]

My kingdom for a legit big man who loves to catch ball in low post, not bring the ball back down to his waist level to gather himself, but then dunk the heck out of the ball. No finesses layups, just violent dunks.

 

[Niastri]

Does he? Seems like I've been seeing this thing where every positive trait gets attributed to Gerry now. I get it, we're in the honeymoon period, but still. (he's also apparently one of the few coaches that likes players who play hard and really want to win.)

I have no idea, and you're right, we'll see starting Tuesday, but Siena was 275th in the country in average height last year, and even just isolating it to the MAAC schools, Siena was 7th out of 13th teams in the conf in average height.

As to the main point, I think you've seen a shift the last couple of years especially, as players are staying in school longer, where height has become a little bit more of a factor. Everything else being equal, more size is always going to be better than less size.

I think you might be citing incorrect information. Lets delve in for a moment.

Considering Siena started a 6'11 center, and then went 6'7, 6'7, and 6'5 across their PF/WF/WG starting positions, I think you are putting too much height consideration into their undersized bench.

Mulvey, Doty, Coyle, Chandler, Goodrick were all ACC sized guys in their rotation. Only Folefac (who weighs 245lb) and Shoats could be considered short for their position.

Once Chandler and Goodrick were out (both starters to start the season), GMAC went with an iron man squad of Mulvey, Folefac, Coyle, Doty and Shoats. If you base your ideas about size on height and weight, that lineup was bigger than anything Red put out all last season.

We didn't even have two guys who weighed 245lb on the entire roster, much less in the starting lineup.

 

[MikeSU02]

it’s because everyone is running ball screens up top to get into whatever offensive concept they run.

So what teams want are guys on defense that can switch or at least be versatile on defense. You’re probably looking at your wings being more interchangeable than anything. If you have a big that can guard 1-5, more power to ya. But that’s basically a unicorn.

On offense, you’d want a big that can roll or pop or handle the 4 on 3 but that’s a lot to ask, even in the NBA.

You want guys that can defend a wide range on D and can dribble, pass and shoot on O.

But the name of the game now is efficient, not positionless, basketball.

If we land a talented and skilled big, I’m sure GMac will feature him. But there aren’t that many of them.

You can’t apply a strategy that can only be pulled off by a handful of teams each year.

If we get Neon Bordeaux, get him twenty shots a game. Just tough to find him.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think you might be citing incorrect information. Lets delve in for a moment.

Considering Siena started a 6'11 center, and then went 6'7, 6'7, and 6'5 across their PF/WF/WG starting positions, I think you are putting too much height consideration into their undersized bench.

Mulvey, Doty, Coyle, Chandler, Goodrick were all ACC sized guys in their rotation. Only Folefac (who weighs 245lb) and Shoats could be considered short for their position.

Once Chandler and Goodrick were out (both starters to start the season), GMAC went with an iron man squad of Mulvey, Folefac, Coyle, Doty and Shoats. If you base your ideas about size on height and weight, that lineup was bigger than anything Red put out all last season.

We didn't even have two guys who weighed 245lb on the entire roster, much less in the starting lineup.

Not to be harsh because I’m sure the kid’s legs were cooked in that final game with no subs, but Mulvey struggled mightily.

I don’t want an undersized center and I don’t want the tallest center. I want a big and tall center that can move well and play both low post offense and rim defense well. It should be the requirement.

Folefac looked really strong but unfortunately he looked like a below the rim player who would struggle against more size. Reminded me of Dajuan Coleman especially post knee issues.

 

[Niastri]

Not to be harsh because I’m sure the kid’s legs were cooked in that final game with no subs, but Mulvey struggled mightily.

I don’t want an undersized center and I don’t want the tallest center. I want a big and tall center that can move well and play both low post offense and rim defense well. It should be the requirement.

Folefac looked really strong but unfortunately he looked like a below the rim player who would struggle against more size. Reminded me of Dajuan Coleman especially post knee issues.

Boozer made a lot of quality bigs "struggle" this season. However, I would point out that Mulvey was the backup for Siena until Goodrick suffered a season ending injury, and Mulvey still only averaged 18 minutes for the season. Mulvey really only became an Iron Man after Chandler (6'6 grad transfer SF/PF) was declared ineligible a week before the conference tournament. Along with Goodrick being injured, there wasn't anybody else. They really needed his size to help offset the dominant Duke big men.

But Mulvey seems to define GMAC's big man preference. Tall, Heavy, sets good picks, rebound, move the ball, finish if you are alone at the basket.

Kid wasn't great, but if you can't recruit a bunch of top100 big men, get yourself three Riley Mulvey type players and let your smaller guys do your scoring.

Plus, Mulvey didn't work out for Iowa, but he played three seasons in the Big Ten before going to Siena.

 

[Knicks411]

I think you might be citing incorrect information. Lets delve in for a moment.

Considering Siena started a 6'11 center, and then went 6'7, 6'7, and 6'5 across their PF/WF/WG starting positions, I think you are putting too much height consideration into their undersized bench.

Mulvey, Doty, Coyle, Chandler, Goodrick were all ACC sized guys in their rotation. Only Folefac (who weighs 245lb) and Shoats could be considered short for their position.

Once Chandler and Goodrick were out (both starters to start the season), GMAC went with an iron man squad of Mulvey, Folefac, Coyle, Doty and Shoats. If you base your ideas about size on height and weight, that lineup was bigger than anything Red put out all last season.

We didn't even have two guys who weighed 245lb on the entire roster, much less in the starting lineup.

I pulled the info from Ken pom; it's the height of each player weighted by how many minutes they played.

I don't want to put too much into that stat, I was really just using it as a jumping off point for my other point about people just attributing every positive skill to Gerry. Which it turns out, maybe i picked the wrong poster to make the point on!