3 moves into the promised land!

#26

VolArmy74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
4,529
Likes
6,347
#26
I know it’s early, but they definitely don’t look like the 12th ranked team in the country right now. If they could have made all of the open layups we would have won by 20 points. I fully expect this team to look sharp by the time conference play starts!
We honestly look as good or better than the teams ranked right around us. We are playing elite defense and the offense is producing open looks, they just didn't fall today, especially in the first 25 minutes.
 
#28

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,027
Likes
19,403
#28
I missed what you’ve seen to lead you to this opinion. Maybe you’re right, but Springer hasn’t shown it on the court yet. IMHO
Springer has been able to get in the paint as a threat to score or pass more often than Vescovi, so far. I'm not sure Vescovi has attempted a shot in the paint outside of a fast break in two games. He is also still limited by his inability to go to either hand. That is especially true when he drives to the paint. He almost always goes in with his left.
 
#29

cardvolfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
3,560
Likes
3,151
#29
Springer has been able to get in the paint as a threat to score or pass more often than Vescovi, so far. I'm not sure Vescovi has attempted a shot in the paint outside of a fast break in two games. He is also still limited by his inability to go to either hand. That is especially true when he drives to the paint. He almost always goes in with his left.
THIS makes Springer a dual threat, for himself and others.
 
Likes: cncchris33
#32

Lefteye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
8,223
Likes
2,237
#32
JMO, but t here’s why you’re wrong op.
1. Springer had at least 2 turnovers that weren’t called, while he was running the 1 in the first half. He had a walk and push off that wasn’t called. He would be more TO prone than SV at this point of the season.
2. He can create just as easily at the 2 as he can the 1 which he showed a couple of times in the first half when SV was running the 1 and he was running the 2.
3. The best lineup tonight, and I think it will be most nights, was SV, Springer, KJ, Pons and Fulk. That lineup has 3 solid pgs.
4. It seems you’re hung up on SV “blowing past defenders”, but he just doesn’t have to be able to do that to be an affective pg. He gets past defenders with hesitation, changing the pace of his dribble and angles of his attack.
 
#34

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,027
Likes
19,403
#34
JMO, but t here’s why you’re wrong op.
1. Springer had at least 2 turnovers that weren’t called, while he was running the 1 in the first half. He had a walk and push off that wasn’t called. He would be more TO prone than SV at this point of the season.
2. He can create just as easily at the 2 as he can the 1 which he showed a couple of times in the first half when SV was running the 1 and he was running the 2.
3. The best lineup tonight, and I think it will be most nights, was SV, Springer, KJ, Pons and Fulk. That lineup has 3 solid pgs.
4. It seems you’re hung up on SV “blowing past defenders”, but he just doesn’t have to be able to do that to be an affective pg. He gets past defenders with hesitation, changing the pace of his dribble and angles of his attack.
If #2 is correct, then the only real difference is who brings the ball up the floor. I just think you excuse TOs from Springer and KJ, right now. They are learning. Vescovi had 3 of his own, today, and only 3 assists.

My contention is that Springer is more of a threat to score from the PG position than SV, and SV can find more open looks off the ball as a shooter because he can't create his own shot.
 
Likes: BruinVol
#35

Lefteye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
8,223
Likes
2,237
#35
If #2 is correct, then the only real difference is who brings the ball up the floor. I just think you excuse TOs from Springer and KJ, right now. They are learning. Vescovi had 3 of his own, today, and only 3 assists.

My contention is that Springer is more of a threat to score from the PG position than SV, and SV can find more open looks off the ball as a shooter because he can't create his own shot.
Regarding #2, I do think any of them could bring the ball up. But that’s barely a fraction of the responsibility. The 1 should have the best decision making because he will be touching the ball the most in the full movement of the offense and that is SV.
To your second point, as others here have pointed out, SV shows an ability to create for others as well as himself. Not doubt Springer can create for himself, but he hasn’t shown the ability to create for other as well as SV.
 
#36

cardvolfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
3,560
Likes
3,151
#36
JMO, but t here’s why you’re wrong op.
1. Springer had at least 2 turnovers that weren’t called, while he was running the 1 in the first half. He had a walk and push off that wasn’t called. He would be more TO prone than SV at this point of the season.
2. He can create just as easily at the 2 as he can the 1 which he showed a couple of times in the first half when SV was running the 1 and he was running the 2.
3. The best lineup tonight, and I think it will be most nights, was SV, Springer, KJ, Pons and Fulk. That lineup has 3 solid pgs.
4. It seems you’re hung up on SV “blowing past defenders”, but he just doesn’t have to be able to do that to be an affective pg. He gets past defenders with hesitation, changing the pace of his dribble and angles of his attack.
Blowing past defenders has huge advantages for a point guard and his teammates. Often times creates easy buckets that the half court offense doesn't as readily generate.
 
Likes: BruinVol
#40

Lefteye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
8,223
Likes
2,237
#40
That’s a good point but it’s only game 2 for Springer
Exactly. Come March SVs best roll might be spotting up for the 3. I think he contributes more than you to the offense, but the O has looked horrible so I understand you wanting JS to take over there already too. But as stupid and cliche as it sounds, we gotta trust the system right now, especially being 2-0 against a couple of better than decent teams with next to zero offense. But the offense has been bad mostly for missed shots, and that wouldn’t have been different with the freshman at the point.
 
Last edited:
#42

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,027
Likes
19,403
#42
Regarding #2, I do think any of them could bring the ball up. But that’s barely a fraction of the responsibility. The 1 should have the best decision making because he will be touching the ball the most in the full movement of the offense and that is SV.
To your second point, as others here have pointed out, SV shows an ability to create for others as well as himself. Not doubt Springer can create for himself, but he hasn’t shown the ability to create for other as well as SV.
Springer hasn't had much of a shot at it, though, has he? He's played maybe 5 full minutes at the point? SV, to this point, this season, hasn't created a thing for himself. I'm not even certain he has attempted a 2-pt shot outside of a fast break. He just always looks to pass the ball which reduces his effectiveness, I feel. He is good at creating for others, but is he better at that than he is shooting from a set position? I'm not so sure. The idea of Springer playing point is as much about what is best for Vescovi as it is which guy can be more effective at the point. Springer is a true threat to score from the point, and has shown flashes of vision that could lead to the idea that he can setup his teammates, while it also allows SV to roam the 3 point line and find open spots to set up for a kick out. He then can also drive and become a secondary PG.

JMO.
 
Likes: The Dog
#46

Lefteye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
8,223
Likes
2,237
#46
Springer hasn't had much of a shot at it, though, has he? He's played maybe 5 full minutes at the point? SV, to this point, this season, hasn't created a thing for himself. I'm not even certain he has attempted a 2-pt shot outside of a fast break. He just always looks to pass the ball which reduces his effectiveness, I feel. He is good at creating for others, but is he better at that than he is shooting from a set position? I'm not so sure. The idea of Springer playing point is as much about what is best for Vescovi as it is which guy can be more effective at the point. Springer is a true threat to score from the point, and has shown flashes of vision that could lead to the idea that he can setup his teammates, while it also allows SV to roam the 3 point line and find open spots to set up for a kick out. He then can also drive and become a secondary PG.

JMO.
SV has had at least a couple of 2 pt buckets(thinking 3), he had one today where he drove past his defender and pulled up before their post could help. But Barnes isn’t interested in a pg that looks for his shot first. Imo He wants a facilitator that doesn’t force action that could turn the ball over. UTs defense is too freaking good to help teams by turning the ball over. And even though SV did that quite a bit last year, he’s the best protector of the ball, on a consistent basis, and still facilitate the offense while creating for others as well as himself.
 
#47

PulaskiVolFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
6,345
Likes
6,243
#47
Springer hasn't had much of a shot at it, though, has he? He's played maybe 5 full minutes at the point? SV, to this point, this season, hasn't created a thing for himself. I'm not even certain he has attempted a 2-pt shot outside of a fast break. He just always looks to pass the ball which reduces his effectiveness, I feel. He is good at creating for others, but is he better at that than he is shooting from a set position? I'm not so sure. The idea of Springer playing point is as much about what is best for Vescovi as it is which guy can be more effective at the point. Springer is a true threat to score from the point, and has shown flashes of vision that could lead to the idea that he can setup his teammates, while it also allows SV to roam the 3 point line and find open spots to set up for a kick out. He then can also drive and become a secondary PG.

JMO.
I think the 1st 3 come tournament time are going to be JJJ/Springer/Keon with Vescovi and Bailey coming off the bench.
 
#48

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,027
Likes
19,403
#48
SV has had at least a couple of 2 pt buckets(thinking 3), he had one today where he drove past his defender and pulled up before their post could help. But Barnes isn’t interested in a pg that looks for his shot first. Imo He wants a facilitator that doesn’t force action that could turn the ball over. UTs defense is too freaking good to help teams by turning the ball over. And even though SV did that quite a bit last year, he’s the best protector of the ball, on a consistent basis, and still facilitate the offense while creating for others as well as himself.
I guess that last sentence is where we disagree. Outside of turnovers, the next biggest issue with SV last year was his inability to create his own shot, especially as teams got film on him and learned how to guard him.

I looked it up. He's attempted 3 2-pt FGs, and made 1. And I'd agree that Barnes wants his PG to be a distributor, first and foremost, but I'd almost bet dollars to donuts he'd prefer his PG have the ability and willingness to both distribute and score, depending on what the moment called for. For example, in a close, late-game, last possession situation with little time on the clock, do you trust SV to rush down the court against pressure and get a makeable shot off in the paint vs trying to force it to someone who isn't open? I'm not sure I do. Not yet.

And as you said, SV is very prone to forcing the action. It was his biggest issue, last year. Not sure either of us have seen enough to comfortably say he's effectively grown out of that tendency, yet.
 
#49

Lefteye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
8,223
Likes
2,237
#49
I guess that last sentence is where we disagree. Outside of turnovers, the next biggest issue with SV last year was his inability to create his own shot, especially as teams got film on him and learned how to guard him.

I looked it up. He's attempted 3 2-pt FGs, and made 1. And I'd agree that Barnes wants his PG to be a distributor, first and foremost, but I'd almost bet dollars to donuts he'd prefer his PG have the ability and willingness to both distribute and score, depending on what the moment called for. For example, in a close, late-game, last possession situation with little time on the clock, do you trust SV to rush down the court against pressure and get a makeable shot off in the paint vs trying to force it to someone who isn't open? I'm not sure I do. Not yet.

And as you said, SV is very prone to forcing the action. It was his biggest issue, last year. Not sure either of us have seen enough to comfortably say he's effectively grown out of that tendency, yet.
I agree that situationally Springer could be a better choice.
 
#50

walkenvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
5,850
Likes
6,079
#50
You guys don’t give SV his fair due. His defense is better than your critiques. He plays under control much better than the freshmen at this point and clearly understands the offense way better. Keon and Springer are turn overs waiting to happen so far but also show glimpses of their potential. CRB is trying to teach them without throwing them in the deep end immediately. I don’t understand why all the second guessing of this coaching staff as they’ve earned my trust. JMO
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top