So if I have this right, JRourk is confusing Golden State with Northern Colorado. got it.
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!
Looking towards next year with Bryce Peters (broken off from recruit thread)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
If you squint, they're really similar.
The Warriors seem to be the go-to for comparisons. This is funny in its own right when advocating for need a classic center type because their best lineup is when they go very small and move 6'7 Draymond Green to the 5 (I think positions have gone to the way side anyway).
I would argue that having a lead guard and then a bevy of wings that could guard multiple positions, switch on picks, and reduce drives to the basket would work very well in the college game. Fortune and GK are still liabilities on that end but there has been improvement this season.
I am excited for next year, it will be a different team but has the potential to be very good. Love how Dom has progressed these last couple weeks and the guards we are bringing in. It's going to be a battle in practice just to earn PT.
I would argue that having a lead guard and then a bevy of wings that could guard multiple positions, switch on picks, and reduce drives to the basket would work very well in the college game. Fortune and GK are still liabilities on that end but there has been improvement this season.
I am excited for next year, it will be a different team but has the potential to be very good. Love how Dom has progressed these last couple weeks and the guards we are bringing in. It's going to be a battle in practice just to earn PT.
CU will be successful in the Pac-12 next year with two 6'9 guys underneath the basket and perhaps XJ backing them up or starting at the four. Problem here is depth and the future. XJ (assuming) and Gordon will be gone in one more year, so I think it's imperative to get an Athletic PF/C in here immediately to be groomed. Maybe Kenan Guzonjic will turn into a beast down low but I'm not counting on that. I do know if we don't get another big, Guzonjic is going to be thrown into the fire next year.
Our lineup is still going to look nice next year, but we need to find a stud in the post if we want to battle for league championships in the future.
PG - Collier, Akyazili, Peters
SG - Fortune, White
SF - King, Fletcher
PF - XJ, Guzonjic
C - Gordon, Miller
Our lineup is still going to look nice next year, but we need to find a stud in the post if we want to battle for league championships in the future.
PG - Collier, Akyazili, Peters
SG - Fortune, White
SF - King, Fletcher
PF - XJ, Guzonjic
C - Gordon, Miller
Agreed we need something to come in and move the needle as a big or once we lose Wes we'll be in some ****. Personally I think Froling wasn't that guy, and that who ever that guy is being athletic, protecting the rim and rebounding are all he needs to do - we don't need an offensive machine in the post to win.
Buffenuf
massive tool
Butler, George Mason and Northern Iowa all come to mind. Regular Dance appearances and a couple of Final Fours among those teams.
With the three ball becoming ever more important, its better to have good shooters and quick perimeter defenders than "trees". Trees are good for the motion/lay-up approach where the Rbs are mostly close in and blocks on lay up attempts are easy. With threes raining down, the ball bounces funnier as well as farther out on Rbs, where active, athletic stretch players can board just as effectively as the big boys.
Last edited:
Bigs are still important. Let's not kid ourselves or take this too far.
You need a guy on the court who will block/alter shots in the paint while giving double digit rebounds. Forcing the other team to shoot mid- and long-range 2s while controlling the defensive glass is a winning recipe.
Having 2 guys like that is a huge advantage. Especially if at least one is like Wes and can defend guards on the perimeter, thereby allowing you to switch 1-4.
You need a guy on the court who will block/alter shots in the paint while giving double digit rebounds. Forcing the other team to shoot mid- and long-range 2s while controlling the defensive glass is a winning recipe.
Having 2 guys like that is a huge advantage. Especially if at least one is like Wes and can defend guards on the perimeter, thereby allowing you to switch 1-4.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
I really like this thread - good discussion and some fair points all around.
In an Open Court with coaches, Kevin McHale had a good quote. He said something to the effect of "Tall skill beats small skill all the time; small skill beats tall stiff every time." Optimally, you have some skilled length and height, but finding 6-8 skilled players that can play in/out is hard to find. So, you find players that you can, and you work your system and team to fit your strengths. Great coaches will make every team, regardless if small or big, competitive. I think we have a good one with Coach Tad, and sure, we will likely be small next year. We will be competitive in my opinion, although "competitive" is hard to define right now.
I know everyone hates Duke...but for what it's worth, this conversation is similar to some threads I've read on Duke bball boards. Even Coach K has received criticism for not being able to recruit and develop bigs, and fans have been very concerned about the lack of big men in past years. Skilled bigs are great assets when you can get them, but while Duke may not have won championships each year, they have done fine without dominant bigs.
In an Open Court with coaches, Kevin McHale had a good quote. He said something to the effect of "Tall skill beats small skill all the time; small skill beats tall stiff every time." Optimally, you have some skilled length and height, but finding 6-8 skilled players that can play in/out is hard to find. So, you find players that you can, and you work your system and team to fit your strengths. Great coaches will make every team, regardless if small or big, competitive. I think we have a good one with Coach Tad, and sure, we will likely be small next year. We will be competitive in my opinion, although "competitive" is hard to define right now.
I know everyone hates Duke...but for what it's worth, this conversation is similar to some threads I've read on Duke bball boards. Even Coach K has received criticism for not being able to recruit and develop bigs, and fans have been very concerned about the lack of big men in past years. Skilled bigs are great assets when you can get them, but while Duke may not have won championships each year, they have done fine without dominant bigs.