Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Why Not This Starting Five?
Page: 1 of 1
mail
FearLeon
11/25/2024 9:19 PM
We need to end the charade.

Start Clayton at the 3.

Clayton is never going to commit to scoring inside the 3 point line. We’ve watched this for four years now.

Why keep this charade going?

The first seven games have been a disaster. We are TINY.

Here is my starting five to at least get more height on the floor.

1-PAV
2-AJB
3-Clayton
4-Captain Chaos
5-Vic
______

This also forces Boals to take the training wheels off Evans as a bench big and have him rotate with Vic and Clayton.

What do we have to lose?
mail
GraffZ06
11/25/2024 9:52 PM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
We need to end the charade.

Start Clayton at the 3.

Clayton is never going to commit to scoring inside the 3 point line. We’ve watched this for four years now.

Why keep this charade going?

The first seven games have been a disaster. We are TINY.

Here is my starting five to at least get more height on the floor.

1-PAV
2-AJB
3-Clayton
4-Captain Chaos
5-Vic
______

This also forces Boals to take the training wheels off Evans as a bench big and have him rotate with Vic and Clayton.

What do we have to lose?
I said in another thread I like the idea of Hadaway, Clayton and Searls all together. Problem is, while they are our better defenders, none of them could guard a MAC SF. They'll get blown by and reach/foul as much as our guards and wings do now!
mail
person
SBH
11/25/2024 10:22 PM
Captain Chaos has mostly been Mr. Mild this season. Zero development vs. 2023.
mail
person
OUcat
11/25/2024 11:23 PM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
We need to end the charade.

Start Clayton at the 3.

Clayton is never going to commit to scoring inside the 3 point line. We’ve watched this for four years now.

Why keep this charade going?

The first seven games have been a disaster. We are TINY.

Here is my starting five to at least get more height on the floor.

1-PAV
2-AJB
3-Clayton
4-Captain Chaos
5-Vic
______

This also forces Boals to take the training wheels off Evans as a bench big and have him rotate with Vic and Clayton.

What do we have to lose?
I said in another thread I like the idea of Hadaway, Clayton and Searls all together. Problem is, while they are our better defenders, none of them could guard a MAC SF. They'll get blown by and reach/foul as much as our guards and wings do now!
That's what a zone defense is for ... particularly when you play big and/or unathletic guys.
mail
GraffZ06
11/26/2024 12:59 AM
And we've already seen some zone, uncharacteristically, from Boals.

Of course we immediately gave up 3s.

And it's harder to rebound from a zone for a team already terrible at rebounding.

Then again we never tried zone and going big at the same time.
mail
person
rollbobbies
11/26/2024 3:11 PM
I posted this reply on this subject in another thread as well, but I do think trying this lineup would be worthwhile. Wouldn't even have to be to start a game, but maybe play it against another team's bench to possibly ease the burden on Clayton or Hadaway on the defensive end guarding wings.

Problem is, I don't ever see Boals really leaning into this lineup enough. It could be seen as abandoning his philosophy and all of the guards he's recruited to play the small-ball style we're used to. It would severely limit the guards playing time.

If Reef is out longer term, maybe there's a slightly higher chance, but we still have a number of guards expecting to get significant playing time, while playing a certain way. Going big would change all of that.
Showing Messages: 1 - 6 of 6
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)