starting lineups for next year

#51
#51
(oklavol @ Apr 10 said:
I think Lofton can improve enough to play point guard. At some point, he will have to, R. Smith can't go the whole game playing point guard. Who else plays point? I would much rather have Lofton then Howell playing it.

I like the idea of Bradshaw as the 6th man. He can come in and play either guard or forward depending on who is in early foul trouble. H'e a perfect 6th man, he could come for every guy in this lineup except wingate:

G- R. Smith
G- Lofton
F- Crews
F- Chism
C- Wingate
That lineup puts your 5 best players on the floor and Bradshaw comes in for anyone in early foul trouble. When R smith goes out, Lofton has to move to point. No way around it. Bradshaw then plays wing. Bradshaw can come in for either Forward.
Click to expand...

A.) That puts your five best players on the floor, but not your best "team" on the floor. This is a team game remember. With the style of basketball Pearl plays you will not see a starting lineup with Chism and Wingate both in it....it just hurts our pressing too much.

B.) In order for UTK to have its best "team" on the floor Bradshaw will be in the starting lineup. You can bank on that.
 
#52
#52
First of all, Tabb has already spent a year at a prep school. He is ready to play. He will not need a redshirt. He will be better than Howell, and most likely better than J Smith from day one. Most people on here are underrating him. And, Lofton ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT play PG this next season. Pearl is not going to play Lofton at PG this next season because it would put him in a better position for the NBA. There are two problems with that theory 1) Lofton at the PG would be nowhere near his best fit for this team (UT) and that is Pearl's first responsibility "this team" not getting him looked at by NBA scouts, and 2) if Lofton makes it in the NBA it will be as a spot up shooter on a team that runs a perfect system for him to be able to get shots off, it WILL NOT be as a PG with any ball handling/ball distributing responsibilities. You can take that to the bank.


Like someone said in a post earlier, starters will not matter. Now Pearl is going to have the depth to run his system properly. That means lots of minutes spread out. Here is the most important break down.

Minutes played (this is under assumption Passley is not around):
Smith, R. (22-24minutes)
Lofton (22-24 minutes)
Crews (22-24 minutes)
Bradshaw (20-22 minutes)
Wingate (18-20 minutes)
Chism (18-20 minutes)
Johnson (14-16 minutes) few more because he will play 1-3
J Smith (10-12 minutes)
Tabb (10-12 minutes)
Howell (6-8 minutes)

With that break down I see position minutes going like this:
R. Smith (all his minutes will be at PG)
Lofton (all his minutes will be at SG)
Tabb (any minutes he is on the floor w/o R Smith he will be PG)
Howell (will only be primary ball handler if R Smith and Tabb both out)
Bradshaw (minutes will vary from SF then SG, depending matchup/fouls)
Johnson (minutes will vary mostly SF then SG even a very little PG)
Crews (almost all mins will be at PF, SF and C depending on matchups)
Wingate (all minutes will be spend at C)
Chism (almost all minutes at C, few will be spent at PF)
J Smith (all his minutes will be spent at SG)


 
#53
#53
I just want to add, coming out of high school, both Lofton and Bradshaw were recruited to play point guard.

In 2004, Lofton was the 23rd ranked point guard, and in 2003, Bradshaw was the 24rd ranked point guard. I'm pretty sure Lofton was a point guard in high school as well. Obviously, at some point college scouts believed Lofton could play point guard.

I think Bradshaw would be a better guard then forward though he can play both. He's listed there at 6'3" in high school. Thats undersized for a forward, though he played it last year, because of the lack of height on the team. I still think UT is better going with a taller line-up, a better rebounding team

G Lofton
G Bradshaw/R. Smith
C Wingate
F Chism
F Crews

http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/viewprospect...=2&pr_key=15651

http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/viewprospect...t=2&pr_key=6064
 
#54
#54
If Passley does not get kicked off, he will get alot of playing time next year. He is a really good player.
 
#55
#55
(oklavol @ Apr 11 said:
I just want to add, coming out of high school, both Lofton and Bradshaw were recruited to play point guard.

In 2004, Lofton was the 23rd ranked point guard, and in 2003, Bradshaw was the 24rd ranked point guard. I'm pretty sure Lofton was a point guard in high school as well. Obviously, at some point college scouts believed Lofton could play point guard.

I think Bradshaw would be a better guard then forward though he can play both. He's listed there at 6'3" in high school. Thats undersized for a forward, though he played it last year, because of the lack of height on the team. I still think UT is better going with a taller line-up, a better rebounding team

G Lofton
G Bradshaw/R. Smith
C Wingate
F Chism
F Crews
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that Lofton was a point guard in high school. High school is a completely different game than the college level. Lofton will never play point guard in college, and he will never play point guard in the nba. Like someone said earlier, Lofton will be a spot up shooter at the nba level, with little ball handling responsibilities.

Why would you play a pure shooting guard at point when you have 3 other players who are more than capable of it?

 
#56
#56
(Bill Walton @ Apr 11 said:
It doesn't matter that Lofton was a point guard in high school. High school is a completely different game than the college level. Lofton will never play point guard in college, and he will never play point guard in the nba. Like someone said earlier, Lofton will be a spot up shooter at the nba level, with little ball handling responsibilities.

Why would you play a pure shooting guard at point when you have 3 other players who are more than capable of it?
Click to expand...


I guess I don't understand how you completely dismiss the evaluations of him as a player at www.rivals.com and www.scout.com when they listed him as a point guard in college. I think they probably know more then most of the people on this board about these players potential in college. They do evaluate players for a living, and coaches pay for their evaluations and film.

Second, if high school is a totally different game then the college game then why is almost next to impossible to play the college game without playing the high school game first? For the most part, its next to impossible.

Third, I agree that their are 2 potential other players to play point guard. With Smith being the premiere recruit. I was justing looking at allowing Bradshaw to play his more natural position at guard and allow Lofton to move to point. That allows for a much bigger line-up and better rebounding team I think.

I think everyone is underestimating Lofton as a player. He's not nearly as one dimensional as everyone is stating and is much more well rounded then anyone gives him credit for. Their are few players who play at his level who are that one-dimensional. Who hasn't seen Lofton lead numerous fast break points, obviously not as well as Watson but he is capable.
 
#57
#57
I just don't see any scenario in which Bradshaw doesn't start, and isn't on the floor for 25 minutes a game. I would be absolutely incredulous if CBP started 3 freshmen with Wingate and Lofton - especially with our tough pre-conference schedule. Bradshaw's experience, versatility, and ability to make plays on both ends of the floor will more than compensate for his lack of size and athletic ability (by the way, I can't believe I'm typing this. If someone told me I would be typing this around this time last year, I would have had them committed to an insane asylum.)
 
#58
#58
(DowntownVol @ Apr 11 said:
I think a big element in all of this is the fact that starting won't mean as much next year, in terms of minutes played, as this year. I think Pearl wants 8-9 guys who play 20+ minutes than 5 guys who play 30. I see the main rotation as follows:

PG R. Smith
SG C. Lofton
SF D. Bradshaw
PF D. Crews
C M. Wingate

with the primary guys off the bench (getting around 20 minutes per game) being JaJuan Smith, Chism, and Johnson. I figure Tabb may well redshirt. The remaining minutes will be picked up, primarily, by Howell and Childress. I'm still not convinced that either Passley or Harris are going to play much (assuming Passley doesn't get kicked off the team, which at this point doesn't seem like that big of a deal) Harris, however, is another big body to put in the paint.

I think we should all keep in mind that Bradshaw, prior to his wrist injury, was the most valuable player on this team - not necessarily in terms of points scored, but he was the leading rebounder for quite some time, plus assists, steals, ballhandling, etc. Assuming he recovers well from his surgery, there is no way on earth Pearl is going to keep him out of the starting lineup. But, again, it's all about balance - I'm sure Pearl would like his starting 5 to play 28-30 minutes per game, not 33-36. Now we've got the manpower to keep fresh legs on the floor and make the press that much more effective.

I'm excited.

I mean, REALLY excited.
Click to expand...
If it persists for more than 4 hours, call a doctor.
 
#59
#59
(therickbol @ Apr 11 said:
First of all, Tabb has already spent a year at a prep school. He is ready to play. He will not need a redshirt. He will be better than Howell, and most likely better than J Smith from day one. Most people on here are underrating him. And, Lofton ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT play PG this next season. Pearl is not going to play Lofton at PG this next season because it would put him in a better position for the NBA. There are two problems with that theory 1) Lofton at the PG would be nowhere near his best fit for this team (UT) and that is Pearl's first responsibility "this team" not getting him looked at by NBA scouts, and 2) if Lofton makes it in the NBA it will be as a spot up shooter on a team that runs a perfect system for him to be able to get shots off, it WILL NOT be as a PG with any ball handling/ball distributing responsibilities. You can take that to the bank.
Like someone said in a post earlier, starters will not matter. Now Pearl is going to have the depth to run his system properly. That means lots of minutes spread out. Here is the most important break down.

Minutes played (this is under assumption Passley is not around):
Smith, R. (22-24minutes)
Lofton (22-24 minutes)
Crews (22-24 minutes)
Bradshaw (20-22 minutes)
Wingate (18-20 minutes)
Chism (18-20 minutes)
Johnson (14-16 minutes) few more because he will play 1-3
J Smith (10-12 minutes)
Tabb (10-12 minutes)
Howell (6-8 minutes)

With that break down I see position minutes going like this:
R. Smith (all his minutes will be at PG)
Lofton (all his minutes will be at SG)
Tabb (any minutes he is on the floor w/o R Smith he will be PG)
Howell (will only be primary ball handler if R Smith and Tabb both out)
Bradshaw (minutes will vary from SF then SG, depending matchup/fouls)
Johnson (minutes will vary mostly SF then SG even a very little PG)
Crews (almost all mins will be at PF, SF and C depending on matchups)
Wingate (all minutes will be spend at C)
Chism (almost all minutes at C, few will be spent at PF)
J Smith (all his minutes will be spent at SG)
Click to expand...
I agree Tabb will not Redshirt!!! I think he is going to very much surprise everyone...He is ready to play Coach Pearl will work it all out....It is a good problem to have though so many athletic Players. :rock:
 
#61
#61
Pearl was on the radio this morning and said that in certain situations Lofton would indeed run the point. He also said that Dane could run the point some but worried about his defense and went on to say that as many as six guys could could see playing time at the point. As far as the starting line up he indicated that Dane may not start. I don't think it really matters about who starts in BP's system. Everybody is going to see action. J. Smith had more minutes than some starters. I just hope the coach puts an emphasis on free throws this off season!
 
#62
#62
(oklavol @ Apr 11 said:
I guess I don't understand how you completely dismiss the evaluations of him as a player at www.rivals.com and www.scout.com when they listed him as a point guard in college. I think they probably know more then most of the people on this board about these players potential in college. They do evaluate players for a living, and coaches pay for their evaluations and film.

Second, if high school is a totally different game then the college game then why is almost next to impossible to play the college game without playing the high school game first? For the most part, its next to impossible.

Third, I agree that their are 2 potential other players to play point guard. With Smith being the premiere recruit. I was justing looking at allowing Bradshaw to play his more natural position at guard and allow Lofton to move to point. That allows for a much bigger line-up and better rebounding team I think.

I think everyone is underestimating Lofton as a player. He's not nearly as one dimensional as everyone is stating and is much more well rounded then anyone gives him credit for. Their are few players who play at his level who are that one-dimensional. Who hasn't seen Lofton lead numerous fast break points, obviously not as well as Watson but he is capable.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you about if he's capable or not of playing the point. I think if we didn't have Smith, Johnson, and Tabb, Lofton would be in the point guard discussions. I think he would be capable of it. But I think in this system, it would be crazy to not have Lofton at shooting guard.

I'm sure there will be times when Lofton pushes the ball up the floor. He is certainly capable of doing that. He did it plenty this past year. It is just a better idea to have quicker, faster players running the point who can dish the ball off to Lofton for three's.

Again, if Bruce invisioned Lofton has our backup point guard for this year, he would have played some point last season instead of Jordan Howell. Also, Pearl would not have signed three point guards this off season.

Lofton is a great player. I think he could be SEC player of the year and possibly first team all-american for this upcoming year. It just won't be at point guard.
 
#63
#63
(crimedawg12 @ Apr 11 said:
Pearl was on the radio this morning and said that in certain situations Lofton would indeed run the point. He also said that Dane could run the point some but worried about his defense and went on to say that as many as six guys could could see playing time at the point. As far as the starting line up he indicated that Dane may not start. I don't think it really matters about who starts in BP's system. Everybody is going to see action. J. Smith had more minutes than some starters. I just hope the coach puts an emphasis on free throws this off season!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I feel a little vindicated now.
 
#64
#64
(mattvols @ Apr 10 said:
it think bradshaw has a starting spot locked, the only questionable one is see is in Major
Click to expand...


Definitely, there is no way that Bradshaw will lose that spot.
 
#65
#65
I'd say Lofton and Bradshaw are locked as starters(likely at 2 and 3). The next most likely, IMO, are Crews and R Smith, in that order. The C spot is open between Chism/Wingate.
 
#66
#66
like most people have said, i dont think there will be any chance of Chism and Wingate bein on the floor at the same time. And even if they are, not for long.

G- R Smith
G- C Lofton
F- Bradshaw
F- Crews
C- Wingate
 
#67
#67
(Volsguy12 @ Apr 11 said:
G- R Smith
G- C Lofton
F- Bradshaw
F- Crews
C- Wingate
Click to expand...


That seems to be the line-up everyone seems to agree upon. But that line-up will have the same problem as last's year with respect to rebounding. You basicall end up with a 6'4" guard playing Forward. Bradshaw is an ok rebounder, the problem is you need a couple of good people to compensate for Wingate lacking in this area. I think that line-up gets outrebounded again.
 
#68
#68
what about this for a big lineup? (not the starting lineup)

ramar smith
bradshaw
crews
chism
wingate

we could probably dominate the boards but we would have to scale back the tempo
 
#69
#69
(oklavol @ Apr 11 said:
That seems to be the line-up everyone seems to agree upon. But that line-up will have the same problem as last's year with respect to rebounding. You basicall end up with a 6'4" guard playing Forward. Bradshaw is an ok rebounder, the problem is you need a couple of good people to compensate for Wingate lacking in this area. I think that line-up gets outrebounded again.
Click to expand...

First of all, Crews is a great rebounder. And Wingate will improve his rebounding after an offseason of workouts. If he does not. Then I think the lineup will look exactly the same except replace Wingate with Chism. Chism is an amazing rebounder.

But, a couple of more broad outlooks on this aspect. Lots of team start 3 guards. Lots! So, stop calling Bradshaw a F in our lineups. We start 3 guards-Smith, Lofton, Bradshaw. Villanova was very successful all year playing three guards and they were smaller than the three we would be starting next season. And, secondly because of the style Pearl plays we can still be very successful getting outrebounded. Its not like rebounding will be the life or death backbreaker for the team. That seems to be the only thing you focus on in your evalutions. If we have the smaller team in then we will make up for the possssions we lose with rebounding by the possessions we gain through the press getting steals and turnovers. If the press is not working and we are not gaining possessions with the press then we can bring in the bigger lineup to control the boards and adapt our style to that particular matchup.
 
#70
#70
The person crews will be replacing in the line-up, patterson, led the team in rebounding. He was a good rebounder as well. But one person wasn't enough, UT was outrebounded in most games.

The main weaknesses UT's team had last year was rebounding, lack of depth, and defending the post. Rebounding was one of the reasons, UT lost to Alabama and Arkansas late in the season. Maybe not to you, but in my opinion, its an area of improvement.

You bring up the point about calling Bradshaw a forward instead of a guard in the line-up. If you play a team starting 2 true forwards and a center, he will be matched up against a true forward, and they will try to take advantage of that by posting against him. Bradshaw is put in the position of having to denying the ball in the low post, because once he gets the ball in that position Bradshaw is at a great disadvantage because of his height. This is a tough defensive assignment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top