Quote:
Originally Posted by BGMaverick9
I guess so, but you're just looking for the player to do what they're in there to do until it's time to work someone else in.
Haywood, go protect the middle and crash the boards. Set screens and flash to the rim. Not working...?
Ian, go protect the middle and crash the boards. Show some weapons on offense, bring energy, set screens and flash to rim. Not working...?
Williams, go be a wildcard in the middle and crash the boards. Stay out of foul trouble, bring energy and flash to the rim.
|
Yeah - sometimes you have to play a position by committee out of necessity, and there's some value to being able to play matchups. But I'm really just not a huge fan of that approach. For one thing, I think it's hard to develop on-court chemistry when you're not sure what to expect at one position at crucial moments.
Like - last year, starting really with that Utah game, when we really figured out what our closing 5 would be when we went on that defensive run. That same lineup fueled so many comebacks. It's hard to build that kind of rapport without reps and developed chemistry. And even if we know the closing center, I think the second unit would perform better if it came in consistently with the same center.
I do think Coach will get that hammered out in time. I think he'll have to. I'd much rather see the team have a defined 1-2 punch at the position.
It's definitely nice to have all those tools available, and I know the team isn't going to expect a lot out of the position this year, but it would still be nicer if all the tools weren't spread out over so many bodies.