True Team

[Sea Bass]

How big of a factor in the togetherness of a team is the fact that Archie pretty much used his entire bench all season?

Most teams pare down the rotation as the season goes on. Archie did the opposite with this team.

Just wondering what others think because most of the teams the Flyers played in the NCAA tourney used their bench very little.

[CE80]

Don't ask me for a reference, but I thought Archie had planned on eventually getting down to a 7/8 man rotation. Not sure what changed his mind. It may be that he had more quality or even quality (parity?) than originally thought or that he realized he needed to give guys some PT to keep them connected.

But to answer your original question, I think our bench played big dividends. Maybe not in OSU or Syracuse games but definitely vs. Stanford. I think playing everyone really fed into the true team. Archie's big plus was that he changed things game by game, depending upon how things played out.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Sea Bass How big of a factor in the togetherness of a team is the fact that Archie pretty much used his entire bench all season? Most teams pare down the rotation as the season goes on. Archie did the opposite with this team. Just wondering what others think because most of the teams the Flyers played in the NCAA tourney used their bench very little.

I like that fact that Archie was able to keep fresh players on the floor at all times. I think this is something that really helped us. Let's face it, we were not as talented as some of the teams we faced, so being able to keep fresh players on the floor helped us keep from making mistakes that players make as they get worn down.

With that said, I think that the amount that we "wore the opponent down with waves of players" is a little bit exaggerated. There is a reason that so many teams will play only 6-7 players as the season wears on. Those players are conditioned and use to playing 35mpg. Now, I am not saying that we didn't wear some teams down, I just think the affect of us playing 11 guys on the opponent is exaggerated.

[Sea Bass]

the question was not really about the contributions of the bench. The question is does using the bench contribute to more togetherness on the team as a whole?

[Smitty10]

Okay, let's look at the 11 players that he used frequently:

MK, DMO, DP, JS, KP all starters. No question there.

VS the 6th man who would normally be a starter and brings a different element
to the game. No question there.

SS - The backup PG, always have to use them when you have them, no question there.

DS and JR - Kavs needed spelled no matter what, and with the foul trouble Kavs and these two got into it was really a nobrainer that they are used a lot.

That leaves KP2 and KD. One being a very athletic defensive specialist and the other being a great inside scorer when the other bigs were getting the ball stuffed down their throats, well, circumstances dictated it.

KP2 was the only really unexpected one to be relied upon as much as he was.

[UDEE79]

I think depth was a big help when it comes to fouls. If a Flyer got in foul trouble there was very little drop off if he had to sit (with Kavs sometimes being the exception). Also if there was a big giving us trouble we could use our massive amounts of available fouls to handle him i.e. their big: the Wehrmacht our bigs: the Red Army. That's how we got rid of the Stanford crybaby #44,

[pmcmullen]

Originally Posted by Sea Bass the question was not really about the contributions of the bench. The question is does using the bench contribute to more togetherness on the team as a whole?

In a near-perfect world, all the guys work hard in practice, and they *should* all develop their strengths and weaknesses. Some guys score, some guys dribble, some guys crash the glass, some guys swat shots. I absolutely would think having a deep bench where everyone feels involved would help team chemistry.

I'd see this as being more true on a team like ours that is loaded with mostly 2-3 star recruits. A team with hot shots like Kentucky might disagree...

All D1 kids dream of the NBA, but the fact is that few from the mid-tier make it. Once they realize that, I would think they would want to focus on winning games. I think our kids did, and it worked. Our depth and bench points were a consistent problem for opponents.

[San Diego Flyer]

I think playing the whole bench definitely leads to team continuity, excitement on the bench, and for sure breeds togetherness. A bench that knows it is going to at least get 4-6 minutes stays engaged and is cheering when they sit. Our bench enthusiasm in apparent. It means Gavs is watching intently what Kavs man is doing on offense and defense. Looking for tendencies. And that goes for the whole bench. Leads to better interaction on and off the court.

Many NCAA teams had short rotations and their bench was comatose and disinterested. Now maybe teams like UConn, Florida, and Kentucky can get away with that. But a program like Dayton is selling minutes to it's recruits, and there would be a double whammy to not allow them to average mid-single digits in floor time. Not only would they
not be engaged in the game at hand, they would have a tendency to be turned off at not having a chance to show their game. Makes for a dispirited relationship overall on the team.

Archie is demonstrating to his Frosh and recruits that I will play you early like I told you and your parents. And there is another point. The kids whole family heard the Coach's commitment in the living room. And every time he doesn't even get in the game, the anxiety for all amps up, and the team togetherness takes a hit.

[anthonycharles]

Originally Posted by Sea Bass the question was not really about the contributions of the bench. The question is does using the bench contribute to more togetherness on the team as a whole?

I've seen Archie reference this in interviews, I know he did in that CBS interview with Bryant Gumbel (joke). He mentioned the fact that all of the guys know they have an opportunity to contribute has lead to great chemistry on and off the court.

I share in that opinion, but you also need quality team leaders to steer the ship and push their peers in the right direction. UD hasn't had a leader like DMO in a very long time.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by anthonycharles I share in that opinion, but you also need quality team leaders to steer the ship and push their peers in the right direction. UD hasn't had a leader like DMO in a very long time.

You just touched on something that kind of bothers me. Did DMO just become this great leader this season or was it always in him but he had to wait his turn? In other words, is leadership in college ball based on a pecking order or hierarchy that doesn't allow a DMO to use his leadership skills because you have a Josh Benson and Kevin Dillard ahead of him? Doesn't seem right that a great leader is there but cannot lead because leaders of less quality are ahead in the pecking order based on their years in college basketball.

[T-Bone 84]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 You just touched on something that kind of bothers me. Did DMO just become this great leader this season or was it always in him but he had to wait his turn? In other words, is leadership in college ball based on a pecking order or hierarchy that doesn't allow a DMO to use his leadership skills because you have a Josh Benson and Kevin Dillard ahead of him? Doesn't seem right that a great leader is there but cannot lead because leaders of less quality are ahead in the pecking order based on their years in college basketball.

I think it's situational, Smitty. When the upperclassmen are willing to defer to an underclassman who obviously "has it", they'll take the back seat and allow the "bell cow" to take the lead. When the upperclassmen have egos, then the underclassman has a choice:
1) Check his ego at the door, and lead by example in the background; or
2) Try to lead in the foreground and risk fractiousness, cliques, and other situations that tear a team apart.

To DMO's credit, he took Door #1, and while last year's squad didn't set the world on fire, at least they didn't totally implode.

[FlyingArrow]

Originally Posted by T-Bone 84 I think it's situational, Smitty. When the upperclassmen are willing to defer to an underclassman who obviously "has it", they'll take the back seat and allow the "bell cow" to take the lead. When the upperclassmen have egos, then the underclassman has a choice: 1) Check his ego at the door, and lead by example in the background; or 2) Try to lead in the foreground and risk fractiousness, cliques, and other situations that tear a team apart. To DMO's credit, he took Door #1, and while last year's squad didn't set the world on fire, at least they didn't totally implode.

I'm not sure what type of leadership you mean, but DMO was a far, far better player this year. +11% on 3-pointers (while averaging 1.2 more 3PA per game). +13% on free throws. From 0.9 to 1.6 A/TO ratio. Rebound average actually dropped this year, though.

I have no idea whether he was a leader in the locker room last year, but he wasn't playing like a typical leader last year.

[T-Bone 84]

Originally Posted by FlyingArrow I'm not sure what type of leadership you mean, but DMO was a far, far better player this year. +11% on 3-pointers (while averaging 1.2 more 3PA per game). +13% on free throws. From 0.9 to 1.6 A/TO ratio. Rebound average actually dropped this year, though. I have no idea whether he was a leader in the locker room last year, but he wasn't playing like a typical leader last year.

Actually, Arrow, to a degree I'm going way back to when BG left and DMO tried to convince Ralph Hill to stay, even though half that graduating class had already bailed on BG and wasn't coming back. To try to convince someone to stay the course in a situation like that? That takes leadership.

[anthonycharles]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 You just touched on something that kind of bothers me. Did DMO just become this great leader this season or was it always in him but he had to wait his turn? In other words, is leadership in college ball based on a pecking order or hierarchy that doesn't allow a DMO to use his leadership skills because you have a Josh Benson and Kevin Dillard ahead of him? Doesn't seem right that a great leader is there but cannot lead because leaders of less quality are ahead in the pecking order based on their years in college basketball.

I think like in most cases, DMO had to wait his turn. I don't exactly remember, but I'm assuming Benson and Dillard were the captains their Sr. year? It's difficult for underclassmen or even Jr's to take leadership and control of the team when you have prominent seniors on the team like Benson and Dillard. I'm one that believes you are born with leadership qualities, either you have them or you don't. DMO has them, but if he would've tried to lead the team last year, as a Jr., you risk really disrupting team chemistry knowing Dillard and Benson were the captains and senior leaders. And as Flying Arrow pointed out, it definitely helps that DMO's game drastically improved between his Jr. and Sr. years.

I live in a NBA town, so I follow the NBA closely as I'm a Nuggets fan. Carmelo Anthony is a great example of someone who should be a leader, because of his play, but isn't. He goes out there and scores his points and is a great scorer, but he needs to be paired up with a true leader, like he was with Chauncey Billups a few years back for his team to succeed. And with the NBA, even when you have a great leader, like a Lebron or Jordan back in the day, it took them quite a few years to be allowed to become a leader. They didn't walk in their rookie year and say, "this is my team". Had they done that, they would've had real problems with the veterans on the team, causing chemistry issues.

And looking to next year for the Flyers, replacing DMO and Vee's stats are one thing, but the hardest thing to replace imo is DMO's leadership. At this point in time, Sibert will be the only Sr., so we'll find out what type of leader he'll be. They'll need someone to fill that void to keep everyone on the same page and remain unselfish, thinking of the team's interests above the individual. The coaches can only do so much, they need some assistance from their veteran players.