Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2023 NCAA MARCH MADNESS GAMES THREAD

ZandiBuff said:
Why do AZ, UCLA, U$C, Ore keep beating us with 3-4 guys who are 6'9" + ? Tubelis, ballo, Bona, Etienne, Dante, Ware, Bittle - none of these have guard level skills.

Why can't we run 2 legit bigs AND more actual guards? We can lose some wings. I know Tad loves them, but FFS it isn't working.
Click to expand...
Because they're more athletic at every position.

Your better question would be why CU has owned Stanford despite them having so many NBA bigs while CU has pretty much only put its PGs (Alec, Spencer, Derrick, Kin) in the NBA along with a few forwards (Dre, Bey, Jabari).
 
Formerly_Medford said:
Weird argument to be making when Oregon isn't in the tournament, UA just lost, and one of the reasons they lost is because they were overly reliant on those bigs, and neither can shoot from 3.
Click to expand...
ORE is a 1 seed in the NIT (higher than us). UA lost because one of their most dominant bigs only had 1 usable hand. AND was a 2 seed. U$C is a 10 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed.

I don't expect bigs to shoot 3s, that's not what they're there for. Do you want LL shooting 3s?
 
ZandiBuff said:
ORE is a 1 seed in the NIT (higher than us). UA lost because one of their most dominant bigs only had 1 usable hand. AND was a 2 seed. U$C is a 10 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed.

I don't expect bigs to shoot 3s, that's not what they're there for. Do you want LL shooting 3s?
Click to expand...
We'd be a lot better if he was a capable three point shooter. Yes, you want everyone to be able to space the floor in the year 2023.

Dominant paint bigs only gonna get you so far in modern basketball
 
Buffnik said:
Because they're more athletic at every position.

Your better question would be why CU has owned Stanford despite them having so many NBA bigs while CU has pretty much only put its PGs (Alec, Spencer, Derrick, Kin) in the NBA along with a few forwards (Dre, Bey, Jabari).
Click to expand...
I can't honestly say why. When was the last time Furd had 2-3 legit bigs? Maybe it's because we had enough vs them?
 
Buffnik said:
Because they're more athletic at every position.

Your better question would be why CU has owned Stanford despite them having so many NBA bigs while CU has pretty much only put its PGs (Alec, Spencer, Derrick, Kin) in the NBA along with a few forwards (Dre, Bey, Jabari).
Click to expand...
Don't you dare forget GK
 
Formerly_Medford said:
We'd be a lot better if he was a capable three point shooter. Yes, you want everyone to be able to space the floor in the year 2023.

Dominant paint bigs only gonna get you so far in modern basketball
Click to expand...
So, more guards but not more bigs, because we need 6 wings. Got it.
 
ZandiBuff said:
ORE is a 1 seed in the NIT (higher than us). UA lost because one of their most dominant bigs only had 1 usable hand. AND was a 2 seed. U$C is a 10 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed.

I don't expect bigs to shoot 3s, that's not what they're there for. Do you want LL shooting 3s?
Click to expand...
Another thing...UCLA, Oregon, and USCs bigs were literally ALL 5* recruits
 
ZandiBuff said:
ORE is a 1 seed in the NIT (higher than us). UA lost because one of their most dominant bigs only had 1 usable hand. AND was a 2 seed. U$C is a 10 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed.

I don't expect bigs to shoot 3s, that's not what they're there for. Do you want LL shooting 3s?
Click to expand...
Do you remember what CU did to Georgetown in the Dance a few years ago when they had a traditional big who couldn't play on the perimeter?

I'm not at all opposed to having some size. I love the rim protection and 2nd chance opportunities. But to compare it to the NBA, you're much better off if your team is built like Golden State instead of Minnesota as your roster philosophy.
 
ZandiBuff said:
So, more guards but not more bigs, because we need 6 wings. Got it.
Click to expand...
4 legit bigs is all you want to carry on a roster AT MOST! I'd top that at Two centers! Two guys who can be PGs, A combo guard, and a bunch of Small forwards/shooting guards who can switch to PF or SG if need be.
 
Buffnik said:
Do you remember what CU did to Georgetown in the Dance a few years ago when they had a traditional big who couldn't play on the perimeter?

I'm not at all opposed to having some size. I love the rim protection and 2nd chance opportunities. But to compare it to the NBA, you're much better off if your team is built like Golden State instead of Minnesota as your roster philosophy.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you have a Zach Edey the entire rest of your team better be able to shoot from the perimeter.
 
Buffnik said:
And you also better play zone while having wings who can get out to cover a corner 3.
Click to expand...
Yep. I remember Purdue fans bitching last year that Edey essentially was just getting in the way of Ivey because Edey would just clog the lane on every possession and leave nowhere for Ivey to drive.

Old school bigs are rarely conducive to winning these days.
 
Formerly_Medford said:
Exactly. If you have a Zach Edey the entire rest of your team better be able to shoot from the perimeter.
Click to expand...
How I would HATE to be the #1 seed, #1 ranked (at times) team in the country. God, that would be awful. Also, they have 6 players on the roster at 6'8" or bigger, including 2 at 7'2" or more.

Yes, I know there aren't a plethora of those around, but there are more than none.
 
ZandiBuff said:
Kepnang 4*
Tubelis 4*
Ballo 4*
Etienne 4*

"LITERALLY ALL"
Click to expand...
I see two Arizona guys on there...a school I didn't mention, a guy who plays for Washington and missed almost the entire season, and a back up.

Tell me you're reaching without telling me you're reaching...
 
Formerly_Medford said:
Next year we'll have 7'1", 6'11" and 6'10". Why are you complaining about this right now?
Click to expand...
Since the general consensus is that Diop is most likely a red shirt candidate. So you're counting on Hurlburt, who is NOT an interior defender / post player and LL. Again, 1 big + 1-2 players playing out of position, or a project true freshman as the only other big.

Got it.
 
Formerly_Medford said:
I see two Arizona guys on there...a school I didn't mention, a guy who plays for Washington and missed almost the entire season, and a back up.

Tell me you're reaching without telling me you're reaching...
Click to expand...
quote: Another thing...UCLA, Oregon, and USCs bigs were literally ALL 5* recruits

Eteinne plays for UCLA, and Kepnang played for ORE. The other 2 are easily the 2 most dominant bigs in the conference, so I threw them in as well.

No one ever said **** about starters / backups - I'm actually arguing that we NEED a backup. You know, so when LL gets in trouble or needs a break, we don't have 6'10", 217 lb TDS guarding 6'11", 245 lb Tubelis.
 
We should probably move the CU roster discussion to a different thread.

But the last point I want to make is that I strongly agree with the type of bigs Tad has focused on. The absolute requirement is that they can guard on the perimeter. He has learned. You can teach an Austin Dufault to guard the post, but you can't teach a Josh Scott to switch onto a guy playing 1-3 on just about any D1 team.
 
ZandiBuff said:
Since the general consensus is that Diop is most likely a red shirt candidate. So you're counting on Hurlburt, who is NOT an interior defender / post player and LL. Again, 1 big + 1-2 players playing out of position, or a project true freshman as the only other big.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Again with the Hurlburt is not an interior defender. Who's he gonna guard?
 
BuffsNYC said:
Again with the Hurlburt is not an interior defender. Who's he gonna guard?
Click to expand...
Hurlburt is absolutely an interior defender once he gets in the weight room. He's got the feet & length to front. He needs the strength to keep his guy from gaining deep post for the entry catch and he'll be more than fine. As I've said, I think he'll be a Siewert for us.
 
Buffnik said:
Hurlburt is absolutely an interior defender once he gets in the weight room. He's got the feet & length to front. He needs the strength to keep his guy from gaining deep post for the entry catch and he'll be more than fine. As I've said, I think he'll be a Siewert for us.
Click to expand...
He's more athletic than siewart. During warmups he gets up there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top