New Roles

oldfan · #1 10-13-2008, 08:26 AM

To add speculation where none currently exists. The presumption is that Searcy will be the back up to Huelsman while maybe playing part-time if at all at Power forward. The other presumption is that if Little for some reason fails to make the grade as starter then Wright would move to power forward.

As I recall Searcy when recruited thought of himself as more of a power forward than a center. He was thrust into the role of center because UD lacks the bodies for that position. Of course until Kavanaugh arrives the Flyers still do not have a legitimate back to the basket center backup for Huelsman. But, if Searcy who has added bulk since last year is improved enough what is to keep him from starting as the power forward.

The weakness is that BG ideally plays a ten man rotation and would probably need a back up center. Benson might fill this bill as adequately as Searcy did last year but probably not as well as Searcy would this year. The question is if Searcy proves he is a better power forward than Little does BG keep Searcy as aback up center or play his best five as starters?

San Diego Flyer · #2 10-13-2008, 10:35 AM

I think the concept of always needing a "center" or 5 on the floor is blurred these days. Just as we see two forwards and three guards often on motion-oriented teams, we also see three forwards and two guards. Especially if the guards are ace rebounders like Marcus.

I could see Searcy, Little, Wright on the floor while Huelsman gets a break. We are leaning toward a motion offense where the parts are fluid so the old 3,4,5's are blurred.

Also last year we had 7 guys ave 20 minutes or more in A10 (Wright would have been 8).
With Perry as the 9th at 10 minutes, calling BG's rotation a 10 man rotation is a stretch.
I think BG will try to get some young guys some experience, but we won't see more than
8 by crunch time in the League season getting 20+ minutes. Who will that be? I have no idea but the practices and ooc performances will go a long way toward sorting it out.

A covy of players will be getting between 5/8 minutes.

lilrudy4787 · #3 10-13-2008, 11:15 AM

In BG's system, he rotates 10 or so men every game, and usually substitutes often (which i HATE) but this calls for players to be able to play multiple positions and guard many different types of players (which is why we are a good defensive team).

This will cause Searcy who will back up Huelsman first, to play PF if we go big. Also, it will cause MJ or CW to play PF if we go small. Its just basketball...Its better to have your players to play multiple positions because you never know who might foul out (or get injured...)

As for the frosh, only PW will see signifigant minutes in BG's system...which highly covets experience and seniority (F-U Binnie) and people who know the system. I dont like this, but its the way it is.

Dirty Sanchez · #4 10-13-2008, 11:53 AM

I think Searcy is one of the players that I'm most interested in seeing his development over the Summer. There were times he came into games last year that he showed a true ability to change the game. I think we are really going to need him to step up a little this year and allow Benson some time to mature into the college game.

oldfan · #5 10-13-2008, 12:14 PM

You are correct that BG likes to use 10 players but the multiple position part of the equation is less clear. If Dayton used multiple position players a seven or eight man rotation would be more likely. It seems that BG uses multiple position players more from necessity than from desire.

Last year, Wright went down, this would lead one to believe that MJ would rotate to SF from the guard spot instead the move was to Sandoval and his backup Perry. MJ was the best rebounder and driver of the three guards and therefore most suitable to the switch. MJ stayed at the 2 guard spot. Not having an adequate backup for London Warren BG by necessity used BRob as both a shooting guard and point guard. That is there was a three guard rotation at the two guard spots but this did not include Perry or Sandoval who were both natural guards forced to play Forward. You may argue that with Perry or Sandoval in the lineup that BG played a three guard offense. But defensively these guards were playing against the opposing team's short forward not MJ. And even on offense BG did not vary his offensive scheme much no matter who was playing.

BG to a large extent asks his players to fit his system, and to the extent we expect more sucess that in the past, it is because the current players fit better into his system than past players. Each position in the BG system has a distinct role and the more time spent training the player to fit the needs of the position the more likely he will be able to play his position without error and almost by instinct. When the player is forced to change positon it can disrupt the flow as the player adapts to his new role.

By having a sub who is trained exactly for the role of the player he is replacing the system does not breakdown. The only gain or loss would be the athletic skill of each player.

While it is indeed nice to have players who are capable of playing more than one position. Once training begins the players will be assigned their positions which should not change unless injuries or some other issue dictates it or the player just can not cut it at the position he is assigned.

After writing all this, BG could probably be persuaded to switch a player to another position if his skill level is so much greater than any sub that the drop off from using the assigned sub for that position would be too much. IE the use of BRob last year and perhaps the use of CW this year.

NCkevi · #6 10-13-2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by lilrudy4787

As for the frosh, only PW will see signifigant minutes in BG's system...which highly covets experience and seniority (F-U Binnie) and people who know the system. I dont like this, but its the way it is.

I think if you're good enough, you'll play -- BG has had four recruiting classes and eight players (BR, NP, CA, JB, CL, MJ, KH, CW) who as freshman and/or sophs started at some point and averaged 18+ minutes a game

Medford · #7 10-13-2008, 12:54 PM

Regarding MJ vs Sandavol at the SF slot... I'm guessing that the thinking was MJ is quicker, and better able to stay in front of the opposing SG on defense, while Andres had a little more muscle and probably able to bang w/ the opposing SF better than MJ.

Now w/ that said, I'm guessing all players, on all teams are trained to play multiple spots in their respective offense. You've got to know what the players around you are doing if you want to best perform your task. Its one thing to know that you have to a certain spot on the floor to set a screen, its much better to know that you're going there so that another player can cut off your screen, so that way when the opposing defense forces the man making the cut to go a little off route, the man setting the screen can automatically adjust to what he sees and free up the cutter.

MJ & Andres were both pretty similar in the capabilities playing basketball. MJ is a quicker, jumps higher, finishes around the rim better, and showed at the end of the season he was a better shooter. However at the mid-point when Wright went down, Sandavol & Marcus we're pretty interchangable, why move MJ from his more comfortable 2 spot when the guy taking the 3 has a similar skill set (though a bit weaker at each skill)

UD & BG portend to run a motion offense (though one that sits around motionless far too often). By nature, the motion is suppose to get everyone equally involved by created open shots off of cuts to the basket. I imagine the 2 & the 3 spot play a similar role, on opposite sides of the court in BG's motion offense.

Regarding Searcy, I liked what I saw out of him last season once healthy. He still needed another 15-20 pounds of pure muscle to battle in the post. I wouldn't be oppossed to him getting the starting nod at the 4, with Little coming off the bench. I like the energy that Little brings off the bench, but I'm not quit sure Searcy is ready to bang w/ the big boys. BG will likely be running multiple combination of players all season long. They should have the flexability to go w/ a very tall lineup, or a small quicker lineup. Hueslman, Searcy/Benson, Wright, Johnson & London/lowery would work well defensively against many teams, while a lineup of Little, Wright, Johnson, Perry/Williams & London/Lowery could create a bunch of offensive mismatches vs most opponents.

UDBrian · #8 10-13-2008, 01:58 PM

I really like Sandoval at the '3' spot. He didn't have a great handle but it was good enough to beat most '3's on the dribble.

I have been high on Searcy, he has the physical tools to be a tremendous player. He is also a guy who hates to lose which to me is important.

I like having Charles come off the bench. It gives you someone with experience and game changing ability if things haven't started well.

San Diego Flyer · #9 10-13-2008, 03:28 PM

I'm a bit puzzled at the 10 man rotation thingy. There has been a significant dropoff of minutes played the last two years from players #8 and #9 respectively. Here are some of those names in the last four years---Cordeiro, Perry, Stafford, Adedeji, Cripe. Their minutes are substantially lower than the first 8/9 & those rarely come in crunch time.

I do agree that BG, especially in ooc, likes to throw some players a bone who probably practiced hard deserved some floor time. But to brand them as part of a rotation when it counts would be a stretch. One possible exception would be the 14-17 year when BG was desparate for some talent to step up so he played everyone.

I would be surprised if Gregory doesn't morph into his norm and play his upperclassmen + Lowery big minutes with much more dispersed contributions from the newbies. That puts 7 players over 20/30 minutes plus crunch time, and 3/4 others in the 7 to 10 minute range.

daytonflyers · #10 10-13-2008, 04:32 PM

as to the discussion of not needing a true center on the court at all times--this is definitely the trend in college hoops. last year, we had charles play center quite often--i actually think charles and wright as our 2 "bigs" will be one the best lineups we have, since there seems to be so many guards that are contending for PT.

we have warren, lowery, johnson, perry, and williams all seemingly viable options at the guard spots. if these are 5 of our best, say, 8 players (huelsman, wright and little being the others), we will need to find a way to have 3 guards on the floor at one time. this means having little play some 5, and wright play some 4.

in my opinion, unless searcy shows serious improvement we should not hesitate to go with these 8, even if it means going small. (not to mention, against our schedule, we wouldnt be that small)

Gazoo · #11 10-14-2008, 09:15 AM

I'd bet Searcy still has his "puppy dog" feet this year, bigger than he can handle. That's ok, I wouldn't call him a failure if he only plays 10 MPG this year.

I like my best players going 5 minutes followed by a 1 minute rest. If you're not in the starting lineup your job is to hold on tight until the starters are back. BG tends to play guys 5 minutes then rest them 3-5 minutes. That's too long IMO. I don't care so much that the backup didn't get into the flow of the game, get MJ & CW back on the floor dang it. (Of course this is all dependent on how many fouls are called to slow the game, TV timeouts, etc.)

Atlantic 10 · #12 10-14-2008, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

I'd bet Searcy still has his "puppy dog" feet this year, bigger than he can handle. That's ok, I wouldn't call him a failure if he only plays 10 MPG this year.

I like my best players going 5 minutes followed by a 1 minute rest. If you're not in the starting lineup your job is to hold on tight until the starters are back. BG tends to play guys 5 minutes then rest them 3-5 minutes. That's too long IMO. I don't care so much that the backup didn't get into the flow of the game, get MJ & CW back on the floor dang it. (Of course this is all dependent on how many fouls are called to slow the game, TV timeouts, etc.)

That is why he is the coach, he knows the players better than we ever will

San Diego Flyer · #13 10-14-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Atlantic 10

That is why he is the coach, he knows the players better than we ever will

Can't argue with that, but I agree with Gazoo. Most coaches would like to keep their studs on the floor as often as possible as long as they are not gassed. In my book Wright and THEE Johnson are 35 minute guys.

Sometime I would like to hear from Brian what his substitution philosophy really is. I do believe he has a specific mission with his substitution patterns, but he has never shared it with the public in anything I have read.

oldfan · #14 10-14-2008, 05:44 PM

During the season the substitution patterns of BG have provoked as much or more controversy as anything discussed on this board. If we knew what his basic philosophy on substitutions was it might not reduce the controversies that arise from his substitutions but it might give us a better understanding of why.

When BG is being pummeled by critics on this board, it would be easier for his defenders to argue his case if they knew his rationale for substitutions in general even if not for any particular substitution rather than speculating based upon their own gut feelings (if I were coach).

UDBrian · #15 10-14-2008, 05:55 PM

That would be a great question for someone to ask at the coach's show

San Diego Flyer · #16 10-14-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by oldfan

During the season the substitution patterns of BG have provoked as much or more controversy as anything discussed on this board. If we knew what his basic philosophy on substitutions was it might not reduce the controversies that arise from his substitutions but it might give us a better understanding of why.

When BG is being pummeled by critics on this board, it would be easier for his defenders to argue his case if they knew his rationale for substitutions in general even if not for any particular substitution rather than speculating based upon their own gut feelings (if I were coach).

That's where I'm coming from. I don't deny it's his job and he has the insight, but it still makes me squirm when it's happening because the logic escapes me. Just share a little of it with us.

Gazoo · #17 10-15-2008, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Atlantic 10

That is why he is the coach, he knows the players better than we ever will

That is one possibility, no doubt. Notice I said to get "MJ and CW" back on the court, but did not mention KH--on purpose. I think the horses down low need more rest. So in that sense, it's the players.

But the counter argument is this: why do so many opposing coaches find a way to keep their best players on the floor? Not everyone, and of course you can find exceptions. But I just happen to side with the coaches who put their 5 best on the court.

SDF: there is one answer I always come back to. It's possible that when BG recruits guys he says "look at my track record. If you come to UD you're almost guaranteed to get minutes. I don't sit people." The only way he can make that claim is if he's going 9 deep. It could very well be a recruiting strategy that helps him get a marginal player here or there. The kid says "if I go to UD I know I'll get my chance, if I go to ABC University I might never see the court."

San Diego Flyer · #18 10-15-2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

SDF: there is one answer I always come back to. It's possible that when BG recruits guys he says "look at my track record. If you come to UD you're almost guaranteed to get minutes. I don't sit people." The only way he can make that claim is if he's going 9 deep. It could very well be a recruiting strategy that helps him get a marginal player here or there. The kid says "if I go to UD I know I'll get my chance, if I go to ABC University I might never see the court."

Not only do I believe this 100%, I have also posted the same speculation before. I'll go so far as to say BG tells the parents the same thing. But maybe more like, "Son, there are minutes available at UD NOW for you to prove you belong on the floor and are ready for more. Your improvement will dictate whether the increased minutes are justified."

There are a 100 ways to say it but basically--no red shirt + Frosh minutes are there to be had.

Atlantic 10 · #19 10-15-2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

That is one possibility, no doubt. Notice I said to get "MJ and CW" back on the court, but did not mention KH--on purpose. I think the horses down low need more rest. So in that sense, it's the players.

But the counter argument is this: why do so many opposing coaches find a way to keep their best players on the floor? Not everyone, and of course you can find exceptions. But I just happen to side with the coaches who put their 5 best on the court.

SDF: there is one answer I always come back to. It's possible that when BG recruits guys he says "look at my track record. If you come to UD you're almost guaranteed to get minutes. I don't sit people." The only way he can make that claim is if he's going 9 deep. It could very well be a recruiting strategy that helps him get a marginal player here or there. The kid says "if I go to UD I know I'll get my chance, if I go to ABC University I might never see the court."

I agree I want my best players on the floor at crunch time, BG is going to have the players this year to match certain teams which he never had

Flyer'95 · #20 10-15-2008, 12:17 PM

I feel like I've read or seen BG talk about his substitution patterns before. To him it's all about the maximum amount of effort and focus for the time you're on the court. Specifically focusing on defensive effort. He doesn't believe in kids playing for long periods of time because they get winded, tired, or lose focus on defense after about 5-7 minutes. I don't really buy it, but i feel like i read that or saw him say that in an interview once.

Atlantic 10 · #21 10-15-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Flyer'95

I feel like I've read or seen BG talk about his substitution patterns before. To him it's all about the maximum amount of effort and focus for the time you're on the court. Specifically focusing on defensive effort. He doesn't believe in kids playing for long periods of time because they get winded, tired, or lose focus on defense after about 5-7 minutes. I don't really buy it, but i feel like i read that or saw him say that in an interview once.

If we play 90 ft this year ,you will see subs more by going 10 or deeper

Flyer'95 · #22 10-15-2008, 12:57 PM

I could definitely see his philosophy holding water if we pressured the ball more full-court or trapped on D, or even showed some three quarter pressure. Most the time though, the other team is allowed to bring the ball up the court with very little real pressure. It's not like we're watching a nolan richardson/john thompson type team.

I agree that we have some of the athletes to try that this year, i just don't know if BG will. He's very conservative when it comes to defense. His teams are usually good defensively, but we don't get a ton of steals. It's usually just the work of solid team fundamentals and not gambling. Pressing is almost the opposite of that. It leaves too much to chance for a guy like BG. I'd love to see it though, at least for a few minutes at a time throughout the game.

San Diego Flyer · #23 10-15-2008, 05:01 PM

I also think Brian doesn't have the make-up for an all-court game. He just can't stomach the inevitable mistakes with such a game, even if in the final analysis the good out weighs the bad. Maybe this year will be a breakthrough year in that regard.

Here's a thought---Gregory as head coach and Paul "130 points/game" Westhead as his assistant.

Flyer 86 · #24 10-15-2008, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Atlantic 10

If we play 90 ft this year ,you will see subs more by going 10 or deeper

totally agreed. we'll have to.

i think we'll see the 90 foot game about 1/2 the season, and in spots.

my 2 cents

UDBrian · #25 10-15-2008, 07:26 PM

I agree with Flyer86, use it when you have the best lineup for it on the floor. As an example I think we could go with London, Rob, Marcus, Chris and Devin for some pressure and possibly produce some turnovers for points. That is a pretty quick lineup and there are others, but that came to mind first. If the other team goes small you could have Chris playing center for a few minutes. If you could get six points a game off turnovers that would be huge, not to mention there would be dunks off some of those.