As of Tennessee's last game on March 3rd

#76

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#76
That's possible. Your PG is statistically going to have the highest percentage chance to turn the ball over. He's a freshman, too, so that likely increases those chances. I'd bet it decreases with continued PT and experience at the position. Frankly, Covid has restricted our ability to experience with lineups and so we are just rolling with what is familiar. It's possible that in a normal season with more OOC games to build up toward the conference portion, Springer would have gotten more opportunities to show what he's got at the PG position and to work out the growing pains.
It’s also possible that Vescovi looks better as well and Barnes would continue to stick with him at PG and Springer playing more off the ball where he’s really excelling
 
#77

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#77
Huh? Really? Did you misspell "shooter"? I certainly don't believe he is our best scorer.
See my next few post.
If you are saying best scorer meaning who can get their own point I am wrong.

If you was saying best scorer meaning who should lead the team in scoring I think that’s SV
 
#79

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#79
Can’t be afraid of change to achieve a ceiling. Springer has a higher ceiling at PG than SV
And a lower floor.

Right now we are playing like a Top 5 team in the country, and don’t have any real deficiency, I’m not touching a thing ATM. Lots of variables that could come into play, no guarantee that move is a good one.
 
#80

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#80
And a lower floor.

Right now we are playing like a Top 5 team in the country, and don’t have any real deficiency, I’m not touching a thing ATM. Lots of variables that could come into play, no guarantee that move is a good one.
as I posted before it was risky for Dabo to play Trevor Lawrence his freshmen year. Same risk reward thing I’m talking about here. Really much less of risk in that SV easily can go back to playing primarily pg if needed

btw I think SV becomes even more valuable shooting more kick out threes playing the 2 like we saw last night from him
 
#81

zjcvols

GROWN ASS MAN
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
65,513
Likes
16,037
#81
See my next few post.
If you are saying best scorer meaning who can get their own point I am wrong.

If you was saying best scorer meaning who should lead the team in scoring I think that’s SV
So you want to take the ball out of Santi’s hands and making him an off ball player but yet you want him having the most scoring opportunities?
 
#82

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
23,603
Likes
18,560
#82
It’s also possible that Vescovi looks better as well and Barnes would continue to stick with him at PG and Springer playing more off the ball where he’s really excelling
Yep. Won't know without trying. As Bruin said, I think that Springer's ceiling at PG is higher than SV, and that the only risk of his potentially lower floor is inexperience at the collegiate level playing the position.

I'm not advocating for an immediate change in what is working, necessarily. I'm just further championing the idea of Springer as a PG option.
 
#83

Putbacks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,565
Likes
2,284
#83
Clearly the coaches are doing a fabulous job distributing the minutes and ample opportunities for each player to make his case. Vescovi, Fulkerson, and Pons are currently comprising a very poised and productive nucleus while a lot of talent around them are gradually gaining a foothold and becoming more comfortable and productive. Still, the whole is greater than its parts.
 
#84

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#84
So you want to take the ball out of Santi’s hands and making him an off ball player but yet you want him having the most scoring opportunities?
First of all he gets very few of his pts from his initial handling of the ball as the Pg.


if he’s off the ball it’s my belief our offense gets into its sets sooner and thus more time to work inside out kick out looks where he has to be close to a 50% guy. So if that leads to 2 more shots a game that’s 3 more pts.

also I do think he needs the ball in his hands down the stretch when we have leads because he’s a great free throw shooter. So as games start to tighten up his free throws will go up.

So yea I think his over pts go up using him as I suggest
 
#85

zjcvols

GROWN ASS MAN
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
65,513
Likes
16,037
#85
First of all he gets very few of his pts from his initial handling of the ball as the Pg.


if he’s off the ball it’s my belief our offense gets into its sets sooner and thus more time to work inside out kick out looks where he has to be close to a 50% guy. So if that leads to 2 more shots a game that’s 3 more pts.

also I do think he needs the ball in his hands down the stretch when we have leads because he’s a great free throw shooter. So as games start to tighten up his free throws will go up.

So yea I think his over pts go up using him as I suggest
Well yes he might get more spot up opportunities but we run a motion offense where the wings are interchangeable anyways. So I’m not sure that him not being the “designated” PG is gonna give him that opportunities. It’s not like he is running a bunch on ball screens late in the shot clock.

And yeah he’s a great FT shooter but I’m not sure I follow your logic. So you don’t want him initiating the offense most of the time and think that’s not our best offense yet late in games where the score is closer and points are more at a premium you want to move that same player back as the lead guard and initiating the offense?
 
#87

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#87
Well yes he might get more spot up opportunities but we run a motion offense where the wings are interchangeable anyways. So I’m not sure that him not being the “designated” PG is gonna give him that opportunities. It’s not like he is running a bunch on ball screens late in the shot clock.

And yeah he’s a great FT shooter but I’m not sure I follow your logic. So you don’t want him initiating the offense most of the time and think that’s not our best offense yet late in games where the score is closer and points are more at a premium you want to move that same player back as the lead guard and initiating the offense?
yea I don’t think he does a good job is initiating the half court offense.

I think he runs the break well


And yes I want him with the ball when teams are in foul mode with a deficit
 
#89

zjcvols

GROWN ASS MAN
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
65,513
Likes
16,037
#89
People are way too caught up in who the PG is and who isn’t.

1) Barnes’ motion offense is designed so that the guards/wings are pretty interchangeable. It’s not like we are running late on ball screens for Vescovi in the shot clock and only doing that because he’s the PG.

2) Vescovi is getting spot up opportunities. He’s taken maybe 1 or 2 pull up 3’s this year? If that? He actually is getting chances he just isn’t pulling the trigger as much as he should.

3) Barnes is pretty good about getting what he wants in his offensive sets. Even if ball pressure is delaying that by a couple of seconds, I’m not sure Springer or Johnson can fit that bill especially with the shortened camp.

4) Vescovi needs to develop a better right hand that would help him deal with pressure better. But because a lack of ball screens within the offense anyway isn’t going to change the offense. Only once have we made an effort to add more ball screens and that was Bone’s junior year. So I don’t think giving Springer the keys as the “lead” guard is gonna make Barnes change that.
 
Last edited:
#90

cardvolfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
3,246
Likes
2,784
#90
Yep. Won't know without trying. As Bruin said, I think that Springer's ceiling at PG is higher than SV, and that the only risk of his potentially lower floor is inexperience at the collegiate level playing the position.

I'm not advocating for an immediate change in what is working, necessarily. I'm just further championing the idea of Springer as a PG option.
I've waffled back and forth with this first handful of games, but after seeing how intense pressure bothers Vescovi and interrupts the offensive flow so much, I think I like a couple of things from Springer at the point: 1. He ultimately is quicker AND stronger and more fluid 2. He can penetrate and score if there's an opening initially and can make the defense pay for the pressure 3. I think Vescovi is a terrific shooting guard on the kick out and that is where his most value lies.

I feel as if Barnes did not want to give the total pressure of the PG position to Springer initially because it would have been like giving the keys of a Ferrari to a sixteen-year-old. I do think the move is not imminent, but it could be coming.
 
#91

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#91
as I posted before it was risky for Dabo to play Trevor Lawrence his freshmen year. Same risk reward thing I’m talking about here. Really much less of risk in that SV easily can go back to playing primarily pg if needed

btw I think SV becomes even more valuable shooting more kick out threes playing the 2 like we saw last night from him
We saw a lot of 1 from SV last night, majority of the night he played the 1.

Also, didn’t Lawrence replace a guy in his 4th year who was coming off an injury, a guy who hadn’t been elite, and a guy who went on to Missouri and struggled there as well? Not sure that’s a fair comparison for Vescovi, if we were suggesting Springer play over an injured Lamonte Turner that might be a little more accurate of a comparison...Lawrence wasn’t replacing Justin Fields.
 
Likes: Sea Ray
#92

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#92
Yep. Won't know without trying. As Bruin said, I think that Springer's ceiling at PG is higher than SV, and that the only risk of his potentially lower floor is inexperience at the collegiate level playing the position.

I'm not advocating for an immediate change in what is working, necessarily. I'm just further championing the idea of Springer as a PG option.
I personally feel there’s more potential negatives than positives to that move at the moment...you could disrupt team chemistry, if Vescovi struggles at the 2 his minutes drop a bunch and now other guys go up, right now a strength of ours is nobody over 28mpg. There’s many other possibilities too, and again it’s not as if Vescovi is struggling, he had a couple rough moments last night but so did Springer (who’s had rough moments in other games).
 
#93

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#93
We saw a lot of 1 from SV last night, majority of the night he played the 1.

Also, didn’t Lawrence replace a guy in his 4th year who was coming off an injury, a guy who hadn’t been elite, and a guy who went on to Missouri and struggled there as well? Not sure that’s a fair comparison for Vescovi, if we were suggesting Springer play over an injured Lamonte Turner that might be a little more accurate of a comparison...Lawrence wasn’t replacing Justin Fields.
He replaced a very good college QB that had led them to the play offs final.

The injuries were at Mizzu were he was slowed due to them.


It’s a fair comparison as bryant was a very good college duel threat QB.
 
#95

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
57,134
Likes
24,556
#95
I personally feel there’s more potential negatives than positives to that move at the moment...you could disrupt team chemistry, if Vescovi struggles at the 2 his minutes drop a bunch and now other guys go up, right now a strength of ours is nobody over 28mpg. There’s many other possibilities too, and again it’s not as if Vescovi is struggling, he had a couple rough moments last night but so did Springer (who’s had rough moments in other games).
I don’t see how chemistry is going to be affected when change in playing time would virtually be the same.

you keep saying SV played mostly PG last night snd I’d say that’s a little misleading. He played mostly PG the first 10minutes of the 25 but mostly off the ball afterward. I’d say it ended up being a 15/10 type split for him in terms of Pg/2
 
Last edited:
#97
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
16,078
Likes
3,433
#97
People are way too caught up in who the PG is and who isn’t.

1) Barnes’ motion offense is designed so that the guards/wings are pretty interchangeable. It’s not like we are running late on ball screens for Vescovi in the shot clock and only doing that because he’s the PG.

2) Vescovi is getting spot up opportunities. He’s taken maybe 1 or 2 pull up 3’s this year? If that? He actually is getting chances he just isn’t pulling the trigger as much as he should.

3) Barnes is pretty good about getting what he wants in his offensive sets. Even if ball pressure is delaying that by a couple of seconds, I’m not sure Springer or Johnson can fit that ball especially with the shortened camp.

4) Vescovi needs to develop a better right hand that would help him deal with pressure better. But because a lack of ball screens within the offense anyway isn’t going to change the offense. Only once have we made an effort to add more ball screens and that was Bone’s junior year. So I don’t think giving Springer the keys as the “lead” guard is gonna make Barnes change that.
I agree with all points.

I am very curious to hear your opinion on Bailey now.
 
#98

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#98
He replaced a very good college QB that had led them to the play offs final.

The injuries were at Mizzu were he was slowed due to them.


It’s a fair comparison as bryant was a very good college duel threat QB.
I disagree that Springer has #1 overall pick ceiling like Lawrence and that Vescovi is an average to below average college basketball player on a struggling P5 team...I think you’re overselling one and underselling the other.
 
Likes: therickbol
#99

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
62,620
Likes
15,102
#99
I don’t see how chemistry is going to be affected when change in playing time would virtually be the same.

you keep saying SV played mostly PG last night snd I’d say that’s a little misleading. He played mostly PG the first 10minutes of the 25 but mostly off the ball afterward. I’d say it ended up being a 15/10 type split for him in terms of Pg/2
You never know how a change effects things, could be a trickle effect...maybe Vescovi isn’t as effective at the 2 and thus loses minutes to Johnson and Bailey?
 

zjcvols

GROWN ASS MAN
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
65,513
Likes
16,037
I agree with all points.

I am very curious to hear your opinion on Bailey now.
He’s better offensively than I thought and he’s got a nice midrange game. Very solid defensively, doesn’t make the flash plays Keon does but does well staying in front of his man and not fouling. Doesn’t do much else, not a great rebounder or passer but his spot up shooting is very good. Doesn’t drive to the hoop much. I think you saw last night when he’s playing better competition he just won’t be as good of a scorer but doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable player. I think you’ll see Springer get more into his minutes as the season progresses but he’s a really nice 20 mpg player to have.
 
Likes: Chris4Vols22

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top