|
Post by thebsukid on Aug 8, 2015 16:52:37 GMT -6
I likely will be pointed to as being to confident but thats fine.
I will say that the 2015 edition of the Cardinals has the most talent and is the deepest we have been in ages. We literally can play two starting fives which Coach did in the Bahamas...and won both by about 20!! This team is at least 10 deep. This team has 3 Indiana All Stars and 1 Kentucky All Star....I don't think another BSU team has had this number of All Stars ever!!
We should be able to run the shoes off most teams in the MAC...and we will probably play a lot of man defense.
If we can avoid the injury bug which has already struck with Teague this team can finally play post season for the first time in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 8, 2015 20:01:24 GMT -6
Id agree we are going in the right direction but yea your to optimistic at this point..(We knew you would be) and Moses did not make the KY all star team.. I will withhold any other comments till January but I hope to be able to agree with you
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Aug 9, 2015 5:34:25 GMT -6
If Coach Whit doesn't show major improvement this season I would think his seat on the bench might be a bit WARM at the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Aug 9, 2015 15:16:14 GMT -6
I believe you are referring to Kentucky All Stars vs. Indiana but Trey did play on Kentucky All Star team vs. Ohio
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 10, 2015 6:00:22 GMT -6
You will see the " we go 10 deep this year!" theme repeated on pretty much every message board, of every college basketball team, every off season.
But you almost never see a team that is actually playing 10 deep by January. Apparently it just doesn't work too well.
The "10 deep" posts are just a reflection of the fans' unfamiliarity with the new roster, their over-optimism around some players, and their inability to remember what ends up happening every year.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 10, 2015 8:57:59 GMT -6
I am fine with a glass half full outlook.
Sherman is right, it rarely works out anybody is 10 deep. Kentucky with 10 high school AA players and a very aggressive defense might have played 10 deep. We are far more likely to be about 7 deep with starting quality players. That is not so bad!
Any new player has to a question mark. Weber is about the closest thing we can possibly have to a new player who is going to be starter quality player. Wells has to be considered a good bet, but we haven't really seen him play. So, choose 7 from Wells, House, Sellers, Weber, Tyler, Davis, maybe Smith, maybe Teague. Calhoun is close.
That gives us more than the recent past in terms of MAC quality starters. With the way Turner played, we lost only one starter quality player and gain back Tyler, Wells, and Weber. That's all a significant plus. We all want to be optimistic and list Teague to come in without a drop off in talent (seems definitely true), but injury, lost practice time, and inexperience cut against that being a reality early on.
Until proven otherwise, we are still thin in front line big men. If Calhoun plays well and Moses develops we are probably OK there. Smith, Kiapway have to prove themselves in the back court, too, but I expect us to be relatively vulnerable up front, and only if we are lucky AND one more guard reserve can step up and play as an effective reserves are we really in great shape.
Still, even if we are a "disappointed" a bit in the development of players, we stand to be way ahead of last year on depth and talent.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 10, 2015 8:58:13 GMT -6
At this early point, I think the core of our team is the trio of Weber/Sellers/Tyler. If Weber can truely play the 4 spot, then they call all play together and create some real problems for a defense. Furthermore, these three are effectively backed up by House and Davis. Thus I believe the middle of our lineup is of potential MAC champion quality.
The problems come on either end of the lineup - point and center. Among a group of players, we might have the pieces and parts with which we could construct a Frankenstein-style high-quality MAC big man. But unless Herman can provide some contacts to attempt that procedure, we are lacking. We can win some games against the more-balanced MAC teams that have an inside presence. We can occasionally beat those teams when our shots are falling, but we will struggle to win against them consistently. Also, I'm not looking forward to the prospect of a non-scoring point guard. That's a HUGE relief to defenses as they gameplan to deal with Weber/Sellers/Tyler. Add Persons to the mix next year, and I think we will really have something.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 10, 2015 9:05:23 GMT -6
In the MAC, playing most teams, a small ball approach is pretty likely to be competitive. The big guys on other teams won't hurt us that much. When we play really good teams, we will need that breakthrough by a big man.
I believe our PG players can score. Inside. With drives and cuts to the basket. In the lane the test will be whether somebody can play zone or help off our big guys and clog things up and still guard Sellers, Weber and Tyler. If not, our shooters have a good chance to keep the lane open for House, Davis and Smith.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Aug 10, 2015 10:13:35 GMT -6
The kid is back which at least ensures some chatter on the bb board!! Ha.
I agree with most that we won't play 10 deep...I simply said we were deep and COULD play 10 deep...I do however believe our rotation will include at least 8 and possibly 9 barring injury.
Davis, Tyler, Sellers, Weber, Wells, House, Calhoun, Kipaway, Teague and don't count out Moses...who is not going to play in this group?? Even Smith may play some at the point. We will regularly play at least 8 and possibly 9...count it!
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 10, 2015 10:54:55 GMT -6
Even Smith may play some at the point. Smith better be able to play significant minutes at point. Davis wore down at the end of last season. He was the best defender and when Turner was ineffective at PG, wasn't a good passer, couldn't penetrate, and couldn't really defend anyone, Davis had an awfully big load. It is possible we might have Tyler or Kiapway defend a PG to spell Davis that effort, and possible Tyler plays with the ball in his hands some. But, we have too many good shooters who benefit from playing to get open without the ball, and if we only have Davis as a primary ball handler it might mean we would not have a player who is a passer in the game. I can see sharing ball handling quite a bit, but Smith and Davis are the best candidates for a primary ball handler
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Aug 10, 2015 21:07:32 GMT -6
To me, "being 10 deep" is different than "playing 10 players."
No doubt, we have more depth this year, and without more information, they might appear to be closely grouped in terms of talent. I think the PT question comes down to 2 questions:
1. Will a few players separate themselves as clearly warranting significant PT, maybe 30+ minutes? I agree with the General that Tyler and Sellers are legit candidates to do so. I'll hold off on anointing Weber as one of those for the moment.
2. How does Whit want to play? If this team can run, it's going to create more need for breathers, even if some players do separate themselves from the pack.
I can foresee a situation where we have 5-6 players who get 25-27 minutes of PT a game, and another four who might get 10+, depending on situational needs, foul trouble, injuries, match-ups, etc. One game a bench player might get 20 minutes; the next he might get 5.
My hope isn't that "10 deep" means Whit will play 10 players equal minutes each game, but that when he needs to go to the bench for ballhandling, or outside shooting, or rebounding, or defense, or whatever, he can do so with confidence that the players he brings can get the job done. That hasn't been the case for a while.
I hope we've recruited kids with good heads on their shoulders because, if not, the coach's biggest challenge this season could be managing egos as playing time shifts around with the new additions. Hopefully, winning can soothe any hurt feelings.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 11, 2015 9:16:44 GMT -6
Looking over last years stats, it surprised me to see that Calhoun led the team in scoring 5 out of the last 8 games. By that point, our loss streak was in double figures and I was not following too intensely. I remembered the 30 point outburst at Toledo, but not the other games.
And even though House and Calhoun are both listed at 6-6, I think Calhoun's reach is significantly higher, which makes him much more physically viable as a post scorer. With this in mind, plus the fact that we did not add an obvious post scoring presence (which is a disasterous recruiting failure) I think it's reasonable to regard Calhoun as our primary inside scoring threat this season.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 11, 2015 9:55:01 GMT -6
And even though House and Calhoun are both listed at 6-6, I think Calhoun's reach is significantly higher, which makes him much more physically viable as a post scorer. With this in mind, plus the fact that we did not add an obvious post scoring presence (which is a disasterous recruiting failure) I think it's reasonable to regard Calhoun as our primary inside scoring threat this season. I don't think coach necessarily wants or needs a post up scorer. Where we are 4 out and 1 in, if we have outside shooting, that means we can have a smaller guy get shots inside without being rooted near the basket. Whitford last year consistently used Calhoun outside and mid range to open the lane up for House inside. I think he liked recruiting Wells more for his rim protection than inside offense, and because he might be able to shoot the open shot outside. When Wells goes inside it looks like he can move across the lane and shoot a little hook shot. It's OK we do not have a "post" scorer in the traditional way, as long as we can create room and prevent double teams inside which would prevent movement in the lane with the ball. House is a good inside scorer, gets his shots in the lane, rarely shoots outside, all despite being slightly smaller. Calhoun is not the inside guy, despite shirt size.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 11, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -6
....plus the fact that we did not add an obvious post scoring presence (which is a disasterous recruiting failure) I think it's reasonable to regard Calhoun as our primary inside scoring threat this season. Not necessarily a recruiting failure, mostly for the reasons above. First, Moses may ultimately have the size to get close to the basket and shoot after posting up, but according to all reports has a good mid range game and I am not sure hoping for a dominant inside post up presence is something we could expect at mid major level. Besides, he is influenced by Arizona coach Sean Miller who is also characterized as playing without a "post offense." Doug Gottlieb criticizes his style here. Criticism of Arizona"Miller's offensive style is straight out of the 80s and 90s with classic motion that either isolates the post, uses high-low action or opens the lane so centers can back-screen passers in order to create driving angles, post-ups and mismatches. Arizona is meat and potatoes. Occasionally they'll run a play for an alley-oop or a 3-point shot, but motion offense, man-to-man defense and 'we are tougher and better than you' is the name of the game." Personally I like the way that sounds. And it makes the signing of quick players and players with versatility like Moses and Teague look like a really good idea! The issue of whether they really pay off as freshmen is a separate one. We were not going to find an instant standout post player. Those kids very rarely are mid major prospects. We have a good chance of having talent that can play against better teams, and play Whitfords game plan. We are not as athletic as Arizona. With the 7 foot Wells playing back near the rim, in the pack line defense, the weakness we may have is not enough length and quickness to get out and contest a shot. But we should be relatively quick and could do quite well with our current cast of big players, and we are not playing in the Pac10.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Aug 11, 2015 10:27:42 GMT -6
I agree with LMills...my point was that we will play about 9-10 players regularly....I would say you are right on with 2-3 of that group getting perhaps 10 minutes a game...I never intended to suggest all with equal minutes.
Now, I am going out on a limb or ledge and will suggest the starting 5 the first game barring injury:
PG Davis 2 Tyler 3 Sellers 4 Calhoun 5 Wells
|
|