Three Guard Lineup: Cons and Pros...

[armchair]

Warlick will have to reconsider the three-guard lineup if we play South Carolina again. It helped us on the offensive end--with three guards we spread the floor, got more penetration than usual and the trio scored a total of 28 points.

But it hurt us on the defensive end: We went with our smallest (but most experienced) lineup against one of the toughest front lines in the country; left us undersized and we gave up a ton of offensive rebounds that really cost us any chance of winning the game.

Next time Warlick might have to consider going to a bigger lineup: Play Nared more, with two guards. More rebounding but could lose something on offense, though Nared handles the ball and passes pretty well.

 

[mlindsay]

Warlick will have to reconsider the three-guard lineup if we play South Carolina again. It helped us on the offensive end--with three guards we spread the floor, got more penetration than usual and the trio scored a total of 28 points.

But it hurt us on the defensive end: We went with our smallest (but most experienced) lineup against one of the toughest front lines in the country; left us undersized and we gave up a ton of offensive rebounds that really cost us any chance of winning the game.

Next time Warlick might have to consider going to a bigger lineup: Play Nared more, with two guards. More rebounding but could lose something on offense, though Nared handles the ball and passes pretty well.

I totally agree and I think Massengale is the guard she should take out of the starting lineup! She has been willing to come off the bench and has played her best during so!

Starters Should Be (This is to ensure that we also don't have an issue with bodies due to fouls;

PG-Reynolds
SG-Carter
SF-Nared
PF-Graves
C-Moore

Lets face it bringing Burdick and Massengale off the bench doesn't hurt because once they get in its like they never come out. Why not allow Moore to start and get a few minutes in before subbing her for Burdick and Nared for Massengale. Doing this allows Nia to get some confidence and as you saw with Ibiam last night a couple quick baskets could end up being 12 points in the first half. We have to find a way to utilize more than a 6/7 player rotation especially when we are undersized in the post now. I still like our chances of being a final four team based on our strength of schedule and how we played last night I think the teams that are better than us are 1.) Conn 2.) ND (who we could have beat had Holly came out of the zone imo) 3.) SC (they beat us yesterday so they have the upperhand imo) I think we should still be a number 1 seed due to Maryland and Baylor really not playing anyone and especially if we get to the SEC championship game and have another impressive showing. I think Baylor loses to Texas in the Big 12 Tournament and I think Maryland loses to Rutgers in the Big 10 Tournament which would give us a number 1 seed and imo a lock for the final four with the first two games being at Thompson-Bowling Arena!

 

[volfanIND]

The X factor in this game was Welch having 14 rebounds. Rebounds are possessions gained. We lost 14 possessions just to her, and with Welch, she is going to sore if she gets an O rebound. Moving forward, if we play them again, that match up will need to be key. This game on a neutral floor in Arkansas will be a completely different atmosphere if it happens, and that will be huge! What a great game for womens basketball!

 

[armchair]

I agree with mlindsay and said this last night: You gotta play Moore more than a minute and see how she handles herself, if only to give either Graves/Burdick a bit more of a breather. She certainly has issues, didn't expect her to play much, but we were getting killed on the boards and she could perhaps have helped a bit there. Warlick doesn't have many personnel options, but going a bit bigger with Moore or Nared is something that has to be considered if we play these cats again. And it would help if Reynolds decides to block out next time, too.

 

[teacherdean]

I agree with mlindsay and said this last night: You gotta play Moore more than a minute and see how she handles herself, if only to give either Graves/Burdick a bit more of a breather. She certainly has issues, didn't expect her to play much, but we were getting killed on the boards and she could perhaps have helped a bit there. Warlick doesn't have many personnel options, but going a bit bigger with Moore or Nared is something that has to be considered if we play these cats again. And it would help if Reynolds decides to block out next time, too.

With Moore it really seems to be a trust factor, however, she needs to play against good posts to build up her confidence. Last night she would have had a tough time with the bigs but so did Graves and Burdick. I would play her the remaining games and coach her up as much as possible. We can certainly use a confident Moore on the floor.

 

[Volfan2012]

Nared got 5 rebounds in 16 minutes so yes she needed about thirty and drop the minutes of Massengale and Reynolds. To beat SC you have to stay even in rebounds or shoot around 50 percent from the field. They out rebounded UConn by three but UConn shot 56 percent so it didn't matter.

 

[Volfan2012]

I really like the six to seven man rotation. There was a lot of consistency in play last night just couldn't stop them on the boards. We figure that out we win next time we play them.

 

[Volfan2012]

Smart move by Holly not to play Moore the better option is Nared. They would have knocked Moore out of the way she will never be a factor in the post at her present weight against the better teams.

 

[Real Info]

This was only their second game (second time) playing without Izzy. Texas hurts us too in the same ways, but we played a bigger & better team closer this time around. The team will adjust to the physicality that will have to be brought consistently against bigger teams. Holly will make some adjustments and we will be fine. Our guards must help more with rebounding too. Thought we played pretty good last night. I'm starting to like this team. They do have some fight in them.

 

[madtownvol]

Every line-up presents pluses and minuses. I like the three guard line-up but it is going to create some concessions on the rebounding side. Of the front line players, Burdick, Graves, and Nared, they work as hard as they can on boxing out and getting to the glass. South Carolina was a particularly tough match-up but but being undersized in the post is a problem they will face in the SEC and NCAA. The team use a player like Carter to crash the boards but I think that has to be an occasional catch-them-off-guard move, rather than a full game strategy. The catch-22 is that if the LVs don't get the rebound, then the opponent is off on a fast break with few defenders in their way.

Burke said one relevant thing last night, that the LVs were living and dying by the three and against teams with big post players, that will likely be the equation. The LVs had chances to take control of the game if they could made a few more open threes. And I would not mind seeing Carter and Reynolds, slash and drive more. Force the opponents to make plays or fouls.

 

[volfanecs]

Every line-up presents pluses and minuses. I like the three guard line-up but it is going to create some concessions on the rebounding side. Of the front line players, Burdick, Graves, and Nared, they work as hard as they can on boxing out and getting to the glass. South Carolina was a particularly tough match-up but but being undersized in the post is a problem they will face in the SEC and NCAA. The team use a player like Carter to crash the boards but I think that has to be an occasional catch-them-off-guard move, rather than a full game strategy. The catch-22 is that if the LVs don't get the rebound, then the opponent is off on a fast break with few defenders in their way.

Burke said one relevant thing last night, that the LVs were living and dying by the three and against teams with big post players, that will likely be the equation. The LVs had chances to take control of the game if they could made a few more open threes. And I would not mind seeing Carter and Reynolds, slash and drive more. Force the opponents to make plays or fouls.

I can not believe I played pick up games against her grandfather. I am really old. lol

 

[Volfan2012]

Warlick will have to reconsider the three-guard lineup if we play South Carolina again. It helped us on the offensive end--with three guards we spread the floor, got more penetration than usual and the trio scored a total of 28 points.

But it hurt us on the defensive end: We went with our smallest (but most experienced) lineup against one of the toughest front lines in the country; left us undersized and we gave up a ton of offensive rebounds that really cost us any chance of winning the game.

Next time Warlick might have to consider going to a bigger lineup: Play Nared more, with two guards. More rebounding but could lose something on offense, though Nared handles the ball and passes pretty well.

What I see in the stats is that Nared is just as good a scorer as Reynolds and a far better rebounder. She is also an efficient passer with an assist to turnover ratio similar to Reynolds. I'm playing her 30 plus minutes with the thought that if she gets five rebounds in 16 minutes she can get 10 in 30 minutes. Then you consider that Jordan got one rebound in 33 minutes. She wouldn't be starting the next game for Pat with that stat. I like Jordan and she needs to play, but I do agree against the bigger teams Nared is the better option. We did well on the defensive boards on the offensive boards they were plus ten. If we could have eliminated five of those we might have a win today.

 

[Amb3096]

What I see in the stats is that Nared is just as good a scorer as Reynolds and a far better rebounder. She is also an efficient passer with an assist to turnover ratio similar to Reynolds. I'm playing her 30 plus minutes with the thought that if she gets five rebounds in 16 minutes she can get 10 in 30 minutes. Then you consider that Jordan got one rebound in 33 minutes. She wouldn't be starting the next game for Pat with that stat. I like Jordan and she needs to play, but I do agree against the bigger teams Nared is the better option. We did well on the defensive boards on the offensive boards they were plus ten. If we could have eliminated five of those we might have a win today.

If they do a 3 guard lineup, then I wouldn't have Ariel and Jordan on the court together. Ariel was hanging back with Sessions to deny the fast break. Nared would do a better job crashing the glass at the wing than Reynolds did...at least last night. Too much standing around while Welch zipped past her for offensive rebounds.

 

[stubbs9]

I like Reynolds a lot when she's on the floor but she was very soft last night when it came to rebounds. It will show up when they watch film. She will do better next time.

 

[FrozenLVFan]

Jordan was going back with Ariel to prevent any fast break opportunities on a lot of plays. That's why she wasn't mixing it up with Welch on one end of the court. You can't send Ariel back there on her own. If you want Carter/Nared to crash the boards, you've got to send Jordan back. You can't have it both ways.

I agree that Carter and Reynolds also need to drive and dish more. And I would have played Nared more in place of Massengale, who did not add much per minute played last night. Nared will make a couple of bad defensive decisions, but she's more versatile on offense and better on the boards. And using Moore for a few minutes at the high post would have cut down on the fatigue which showed by the end of the game.

 

[Amb3096]

Jordan was going back with Ariel to prevent any fast break opportunities on a lot of plays. That's why she wasn't mixing it up with Welch on one end of the court. You can't send Ariel back there on her own. If you want Carter/Nared to crash the boards, you've got to send Jordan back. You can't have it both ways.

This was on the offensive end for South Carolina. Carter was on Mitchell, and unless Mitchell was in the paint, then Carter wasn't hitting the boards. At least 3 replays showed Jordan just strolling along while Welch sprinted from behind her and grabbed the offensive board. Reynolds should have been boxing out either Welch or Wilson, and she missed that assignment completely.

 

[armchair]

I saw three replays on which Reynolds did not block out the SC player closest to her--Welch in two cases if not all three. She was NOT running back to prevent SC fast breaks--WHAT are you talking about? SC had the ball. This was when we were on DEFENSE. She was along the baseball or very close to the basket on all three, and simply stood and looked at the ball while Welch blew past her and grabbed rebound after rebound.

I like Reynolds and her game a lot--I like how she takes the ball to the basket (who doesn't?) and she played well in the first 10 minutes of the game, but she was not so good after that and not good in the second half. She did not block out and it cost us. She will be better next time. If you are playing a small lineup, everybody has to block out.

 

[Volfan2012]

The problem in the game was preventing offensive rebounds and putbacks when they were already on offense. This is where we lost the game. Plus ten offensive rebounds this is why we needed Nared in to help on the boards to try to prevent some of these offensive putbacks. Paint points SC 44 Tennessee 30. A lot of those were second and third chance opportunities that is what we needed to prevent and a bigger player like Nared would have helped. I would have played her over thirty minutes.

 

[FrozenLVFan]

Did either of you read what I wrote? Specifically "on one end of the court." Not all of Welch's rebounds were offensive, nor did they all result in putbacks for points. Jordan has been singled out unfairly as the scapegoat in numerous posts here. And just replacing her with Nared is not a viable option since they play different positions. Last night's game notwithstanding, Jordan has proven to be a reliable decision maker and ball handler all season.

 

[Amb3096]

Did either of you read what I wrote? Specifically "on one end of the court." Not all of Welch's rebounds were offensive, nor did they all result in putbacks for points. Jordan has been singled out unfairly as the scapegoat in numerous posts here. And just replacing her with Nared is not a viable option since they play different positions. Last night's game notwithstanding, Jordan has proven to be a reliable decision maker and ball handler all season.

I was talking about her not boxing out when SC was on offense. So what's the purpose of bringing up what was happening on the other end when no one was talking about that? No one's talking about that except for you.

Aleighsa Welch had 9 offensive rebounds. There were a couple where Burdick was trying to box her out, but she muscled past her. Then there were the three that stood out where they showed the replay (and Welch scored on all three of them) where Jordan didn't attempt to box out and Welch just went right past her. Those are the ones that people are talking about.

No one's saying that Jordan is the reason that Tennessee lost. Tennessee lost because of SC's dominance on the offensive glass. A large part of that is due to SC's superior size and strength. Given that, players had to be more diligent about boxing out. Jordan didn't do that, so she's getting called out. She was playing the wing on defense (Ariel was on Sessions, Andraya was guarding Mitchell). Nared is a natural wing and she has size, so no...suggesting that she take some of Jordan's minutes at the wing isn't all that unreasonable.

 

[meekfan]

The X factor in this game was Welch having 14 rebounds. Rebounds are possessions gained. We lost 14 possessions just to her, and with Welch, she is going to sore if she gets an O rebound. Moving forward, if we play them again, that match up will need to be key. This game on a neutral floor in Arkansas will be a completely different atmosphere if it happens, and that will be huge! What a great game for womens basketball!

Welch had a monster game and has had a great season. You need someone who can effectively box her out - a tough assignment for a small guard.

 

[djtee]

I like Reynolds a lot when she's on the floor but she was very soft last night when it came to rebounds. It will show up when they watch film. She will do better next time.

I agree watching the game Reynolds did not box out or put a body on anyone on SC. She`s has been out a few games with concussion symptoms so maybe that was the reason i`m not sure. But to me for this team to move forward and have any chance of beating the top 5 team in march Moore will need to play.

 

[mlindsay]

I agree watching the game Reynolds did not box out or put a body on anyone on SC. She`s has been out a few games with concussion symptoms so maybe that was the reason i`m not sure. But to me for this team to move forward and have any chance of beating the top 5 team in march Moore will need to play.

My point exactly! I does us no justice and only forces Burdick and Graves to wear themselves down trying to do it all when you have a 6'3"PF/C (Moore) and a 6'2" SF/Stretch 4 (Dunbar) on the bench! What harm is letting Dunbar (who can hit the open shot) a chance to spell Burdick or Graves at the 4 (in the high post) for about 10 minutes in the game and the same for Moore and when you play a bad free throw shooting team it allows them 2 to pick up fouls that Graves and Burdick would normally pick up

 

[armchair]

The coaches will need to assess whether fatigue affected the performance of our starters. I'd be surprised if it didn't. I think you gotta get Moore, Dunbar and Middleton in the game for at least 5 minutes. They certainly should be playing more in the next two games. The point is not whether or not they are "good"; you need them to give your starters a blow and hope that you don't lose ground while they're playing. And they're getting experience--which builds depth. I don't know of anybody who improves by sitting on the bench.

 

[djtee]

The coaches will need to assess whether fatigue affected the performance of our starters. I'd be surprised if it didn't. I think you gotta get Moore, Dunbar and Middleton in the game for at least 5 minutes. They certainly should be playing more in the next two games. The point is not whether or not they are "good"; you need them to give your starters a blow and hope that you don't lose ground while they're playing. And they're getting experience--which builds depth. I don't know of anybody who improves by sitting on the bench.

You make a good point fatigue could have affected the performance of our starters. And because we are a little deeper in the backcourt i`m not sure if playing Middleton more then she did against SC is a pressing need. But it`s clear Moore needs to play much more. Graves is not the answer at the 5, She can not defend at that position she`s to short at 6-2. Moore is 6-3 6-4 it`s true she needs to get bigger and stronger but she`s long and can defend in the the post. If you think about just her defensive presents will make a difference.