Nova beat the number 2 ranked Kansas with a 6-5 big. CBS sports commented on it.
Give me stud, athletic switchables over mediocre bigs any day.
In buzz I trust.
Quote from: beer baby on November 30, 2013, 08:39:55 PM
Nova beat the number 2 ranked Kansas with a 6-5 big. CBS sports commented on it.
Give me stud, athletic switchables over mediocre bigs any day.
In buzz I trust.
Good luck with that, it's one game. Teams without quality bigs don't make final fours to often. It's one game early in the season.
Yeah, Joel Embiid sure would have looked nice in blue and gold--even if he is well over 6' 5".
Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 30, 2013, 08:47:42 PM
Good luck with that, it's one game. Teams without quality bigs don't make final fours to often. It's one game early in the season.
you're not responding to his comment that you're better off with talented switchables rather than average bigs. stating that having quality bigs helps get to the final four is obvious, but if you can't get quality bigs perhaps you're better off with quality switchables rather than average bigs. nova is a good example of this in more than one game (minus the current iowa game) :-)
i don't think anyone is saying you don't take a big like embiid.
What you do is recruit the best bigs but, failing to land them, you recruit what some might call "mediocre" bigs as long as you honestly believe they have potential.
Like, I don't know, maybe a Davante Gardner type and/or a Chris Otule type.
And you don't recruit those "mediocrities" instead of excellent switchables but in addition to excellent switchables.
And, if possible, you also bring in one outstanding PG prospect every single year.
"Taking" Embiid is one thing...... Getting Embiid is completely different.
Quote from: beer baby on November 30, 2013, 08:39:55 PM
Nova beat the number 2 ranked Kansas with a 6-5 big. CBS sports commented on it.
Give me stud, athletic switchables over mediocre bigs any day.
In buzz I trust.
Anecdotal FallacyUsing personal experience or
an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Now if Kansas had beaten Villanova and CBS commented on how amazing it was that Kansas was able to win with a quality big going up against a a 6-5 athletic switchable, then maybe....
Quote from: LittleMurs on November 30, 2013, 11:15:15 PM
Anecdotal Fallacy
Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Now if Kansas had beaten Villanova and CBS commented on how amazing it was that Kansas was able to win with a quality big going up against a a 6-5 athletic switchable, then maybe....
Murs, beer baby is simply citing one instance out of many occurrences. I don't think this is an isolated example. High ranked switchables are better for the program than average bigs. It's that simple. We should embrace this.
Yep, we need more bigs like Otule, who has worked hard and in his 6th year is averaging about 7 and 3. He has overcome a lot and hopefully he will be able to transition to the pros in Bulgaria.
We could do worse. We could recruit more Mbaos.
All said with all due respect for all concerned.
MU will get to find out how an endless supply of 6'7 guys works next year. Vitally important to get as much early work in as possible with the new players. Pierce, Shayok, Harris (if he comes), Cohen are all going to have to play both ends of the floor quickly.
Quote from: moomoo on December 01, 2013, 07:55:17 AM
Murs, beer baby is simply citing one instance out of many occurrences. I don't think this is an isolated example. High ranked switchables are better for the program than average bigs. It's that simple. We should embrace this.
The problem with that is that high ranked switchables want to make the NBA, and they think that their chances of getting there are improved -if not dependent on- playing on the perimeter. So, during recruiting, if they think that they will be played "out of position" in the paint just because they'll be the only guy 220 lbs. or more on the roster, they'll go elsewhere.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 01, 2013, 09:08:44 AM
The problem with that is that high ranked switchables want to make the NBA, and they think that their chances of getting there are improved -if not dependent on- playing on the perimeter. So, during recruiting, if they think that they will be played "out of position" in the paint just because they'll be the only guy 220 lbs. or more on the roster, they'll go elsewhere.
I see your point, but look what "playing out of position" has done for Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, and Wesley Matthews. You could easily make an argument that a switchable who plays bigger than expected will actually increase his chances of playing pro ball.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 30, 2013, 09:35:46 PM
you're not responding to his comment that you're better off with talented switchables rather than average bigs. stating that having quality bigs helps get to the final four is obvious, but if you can't get quality bigs perhaps you're better off with quality switchables rather than average bigs. nova is a good example of this in more than one game (minus the current iowa game) :-)
i don't think anyone is saying you don't take a big like embiid.
Lot more talented wings that stud bigs. You still need mediocre ranked bigs like Otule or Gardner to compete at the highest level. Villanova had a nice run but they'll struggle if their biggest guy is 6'5. That's why landing a mediocre big like Paige was huge. The really good teams have someone to protect the rim.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 30, 2013, 08:47:42 PM
Good luck with that, it's one game. Teams without quality bigs don't make final fours to often. It's one game early in the season.
+1000
Villanova does have the 6"11 Daniel Ocefu on their team...he was in foul trouble yes but he still grabbed four key offensive rebounds