Barnes:Player Development

#102
#102
Toevol said:
I disagree on both. Barnes has given Moore the reigns to this team and he simply couldn't fill that role as team leader. Moore is a player without a position, and frankly has been terrible virtually every SEC road game we have played - Something that no Senior should have said about his play. He's had zero learning curve in playing/distributing at the point.
I think Reese minutes are about right at 10. He really is a liability both defensively and offensively.
Click to expand...

I agree here. Armani has way too much freedom offensively, mostly due to a lack of other options. He is very unpredictable and makes 3 bad decisions for every good one. Again, a man without a position. He did seem to play better last year for CDT, but his issues this year have nothibg to do with being restricted or underutilized. If anything, it's just the opposite.

Reese is playing about the right amount of minutes he should be for a team with no hopes of making the tourney. Fair or not, Barnes needs to see what he has in KA and RK ahead of Reese at this point. They are playing for next season, and should be using these last several games to get game experience to the young guys if the talent margin is fairly negligible. Reese isn't exponentially better than those two guys, or Admiral either, to warrant him receiving their playing time right now. That's not really fair to Reese, but it is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#103
#103
They should do everything possible to win EACH and EVERY game. It's stupid to create lineups today hoping that it benefits you in a year. If everything is equal, then play the younger guys... but it isn't. The freshmen that are getting minutes now are getting them because they're better. Practice makes players better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#104
#104
Thunder Good-Oil said:
They should do everything possible to win EACH and EVERY game. It's stupid to create lineups today hoping that it benefits you in a year. If everything is equal, then play the younger guys... but it isn't. The freshmen that are getting minutes now are getting them because they're better. Practice makes players better.
Click to expand...

IMO if you know your team isn't an NCAA tourney team you play the young ones early on in hopes by the end of the year you are better for it.


I think it was a very poor choice not to commit playing time in the pre conference schedule to developing the 2 big guys

I can excuse not playing Phillips more so than the bigs
 
#105
#105
BruinVol said:
IMO if you know your team isn't an NCAA tourney team you play the young ones early on in hopes by the end of the year you are better for it.


I think it was a very poor choice not to commit playing time in the pre conference schedule to developing the 2 big guys

I can excuse not playing Phillips more so than the bigs
Click to expand...

I'd bet that Barnes understood that those two bigs were nowhere close to being able to contribute and their development was going to have to happen on the practice court first. Also, McGhee was getting minutes off of the bench before the tournament in New Jersey.

Why would Barnes give up on making the NCAAT at the beginning of the year? He was actually saying the opposite.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#106
#106
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I'd bet that Barnes understood that those two bigs were nowhere close to being able to contribute and their development was going to have to happen on the practice court first. Also, McGhee was getting minutes off of the bench before the tournament in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

Fair reasonable opinion

I disagree but still reasonable
 
#107
#107
Thunder Good-Oil said:
They should do everything possible to win EACH and EVERY game. It's stupid to create lineups today hoping that it benefits you in a year. If everything is equal, then play the younger guys... but it isn't. The freshmen that are getting minutes now are getting them because they're better. Practice makes players better.
Click to expand...

I will assume this was in response to me, and I will admit I wasn't very clear. By admitting that Reese isn't exponentially better than KA or RK, I was pretty much conceding that he wasn't as good as them, and certainly doesn't have the ceiling they do. I didn't mean to insinuate that the talent was equal, but was making a general statement that if the talent difference is negligible (which it is; KA and RK are not heads and shoulders better than Reese either right now), then at this point in the season, you go with the younger guys who will play bigger roles for you in the coming season. A point you seem to agree with.
 
#108
#108
BruinVol said:
Somewhere in the middle

Very average recruiting

Very below average in game coaching

Player development has been slightly above average

Very good game plans
Click to expand...

So based on the fact that we don't have a point guard or an inside presence how is it fair to judge in game coaching? Perhaps the fact that you said very good at game planning. We are what we are. Only so many ways to so mask those deficiencies.
 
#109
#109
jp1 said:
So based on the fact that we don't have a point guard or an inside presence how is it fair to judge in game coaching? Perhaps the fact that you said very good at game planning. We are what we are. Only so many ways to so mask those deficiencies.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a lot of my opinion on that subject comes from his days at Texas
 
#110
#110
BruinVol said:
Perhaps a lot of my opinion on that subject comes from his days at Texas
Click to expand...
We've used the excuse for 2 season's now that we don't have a PG. Last season our PG went Pro. this season the guy playing the postion will be first team all SEC.
If we don't have a PG, how many teams in the country do?

Hell, McCrae was playing PG for Phoenix the other night.
What's a PG in your book these days?
 
#111
#111
calban said:
We've used the excuse for 2 season's now that we don't have a PG. Last season our PG went Pro. this season the guy playing the postion will be first team all SEC.
If we don't have a PG, how many teams in the country do?

Hell, McCrae was playing PG for Phoenix the other night.
What's a PG in your book these days?
Click to expand...

I agree for sure

Pg problems are way way way overblown
 
#112
#112
BruinVol said:
I agree for sure

Pg problems are way way way overblown
Click to expand...

I disagree. Two years running now, a SG has played PG. How much better could JRich and Punter habe been if they weren't additionally tasked with getting the ball across halfcourt and facilitating the offense for 35 minutes a game? How much more effective could they be inside 5 minutes with a game on the line? How much more effective could they be in late February and March in an effort to make a run at a tourney appearance?

Of course, we will never know the answers to those questions, but using your best player to play out of position because of a lack of any other option at PG doesn't seem like an ideal scenario. I'm sure CRB would much rather have L. Turner running point and setting Punter up than Punter running point and then trying to get himself set up. That's a lot of wasted energy. Same for JRich last year.

Have we seen a lot of production out of the PG spot over the past two seasons? Sure, but it has come at the expense of playing your best player out of position, so it isn't ideal necessarily.
 
Last edited:
#113
#113
cncchris33 said:
I disagree. Two years running now, a SG has played PG. How much better could JRich and Punter habe been if they weren't additionally tasked with getting the ball across halfcourt and facilitating the offense for 35 minutes a game? How much more effective could they be inside 5 minutes with a game on the line? How much more effective could they be in late February and March in an effort to make a run at a tourney appearance?

Of course, we will never know the answers to those questions, but using your best player to play out of position because of a lack of any other option at PG doesn't seem like an ideal scenario. I'm sure CRB would much rather have L. Turner running point and setting Punter up than Punter running point and then trying to get himself set up. That's a lot of wasted energy. Same for JRich last year.
Click to expand...

I understand the thinking but I look at it 2 different ways

1) very very very few teams have what most consider as a true PG

2) would trading tylerU(a true pg) for punter make us better? IMO not even close


So if the tylerU and KevinP of the world are very very rare which I think they are you can't expect us to have both of them on the roster at the same time

Jmo
 
#114
#114
BruinVol said:
I understand the thinking but I look at it 2 different ways

1) very very very few teams have what most consider as a true PG

2) would trading tylerU(a true pg) for punter make us better? IMO not even close


So if the tylerU and KevinP of the world are very very rare which I think they are you can't expect us to have both of them on the roster at the same time

Jmo
Click to expand...

Trading Tyler Ulis for Kevin Punter is apples to oranges though (PGs to SGs in this case). The real question is would you trade L. Turner for Tyler Ulis right now and allow Kevin Punter to play his natural position of SG, and the answer is unequivocally, "YES".

Why can't they both be on the team at the same time? Punter was lightly recruited out of JUCO, but even if he weren't, what difference would it make? We have had multiple elite players on the same team before.
 
#115
#115
cncchris33 said:
Trading Tyler Ulis for Kevin Punter is apples to oranges though (PGs to SGs in this case). The real question is would you trade L. Turner for Tyler Ulis right now and allow Kevin Punter to play his natural position of SG, and the answer is unequivocally, "YES".

Why can't they both be on the team at the same time? Punter was lightly recruited out of JUCO, but even if he weren't, what difference would it make? We have had multiple elite players on the same team before.
Click to expand...

How many 5 star real true PGs are there out there in each class?

1-3 is my guess

That's the point of my thinking. We aren't going to get that guy so having a Richardson or punter is a pretty damn solid alternative IMO
 
#116
#116
BruinVol said:
having a Richardson or punter is a pretty damn solid alternative IMO
Click to expand...

So is having a solid 3* (Bobby Maze) or 4* ( CJ Watson).

The PG position doesn't begin and end at 5* players. That is a pretty narrow-minded view of things. There are solid options at the PG position outside of the top-3. It literally happens every single year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
cncchris33 said:
So is having a solid 3* (Bobby Maze) or 4* ( CJ Watson).

The PG position doesn't begin and end at 5* players. That is a pretty narrow-minded view of things. There are solid options at the PG position outside of the top-3. It literally happens every single year.
Click to expand...

Punter playing pg with a 4 star type really good 2 guard does the same thing IMO
 
#118
#118
BruinVol said:
Punter playing pg with a 4 star type really good 2 guard does the same thing IMO
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but two things stick out about that scenario; 1. Punter is still not playing his natural, best position, and 2. We don't have another 4*, really good 2G anymore than we have a PG. In fact, the best 2G we have is playing PG. Mostella can perhaps become that guy, but he isn't consistently there yet.
 
#119
#119
cncchris33 said:
Maybe so, but two things stick out about that scenario; 1. Punter is still not playing his natural, best position, and 2. We don't have another 4*, really good 2G anymore than we have a PG. In fact, the best 2G we have is playing PG. Mostella can perhaps become that guy, but he isn't consistently there yet.
Click to expand...

Yes the problem lies in the other spots IMO
 
#120
#120
calban said:
We've used the excuse for 2 season's now that we don't have a PG. Last season our PG went Pro. this season the guy playing the postion will be first team all SEC.
If we don't have a PG, how many teams in the country do?

Hell, McCrae was playing PG for Phoenix the other night.
What's a PG in your book these days?
Click to expand...

Cinmeon Bowers is a walking double double at PG then, pretty impressive development by Pearl JR. to turn a bruising 5 into starting SEC PG.
 
#121
#121
Simple as this, is Tennessee a better team if Turner is eligible from Day 1? Not sure how anyone can argue that as a no, although I'm sure they'll try.
 
#122
#122
bleedingTNorange said:
Simple as this, is Tennessee a better team if Turner is eligible from Day 1? Not sure how anyone can argue that as a no, although I'm sure they'll try.
Click to expand...

Exact same team we would be if Mostella was playing like a top 50player at the 2 IF turner is Truly a real effective PG.

Pretty sure, just like Bone, he isnt classified as a sure fire natural PG. So I guess the excuses can continue like they have the past decade because we likely won't have a "true" pg next year either
 
#123
#123
BruinVol said:
Exact same team we would be if Mostella was playing like a top 50player at the 2 IF turner is Truly a real effective PG.

Pretty sure, just like Bone, he isnt classified as a sure fire natural PG. So I guess the excuses can continue like they have the past decade because we likely won't have a "true" pg next year either
Click to expand...

Disagree completely, if Mostella was playing like a top 50 player AND we had a true PG, we would be EVEN better, not sure how that can be debated honestly. It's not a one or the other and that's what you keep trying to make it, adding Turner improves this team, regardless of what hypothetical scenario Mostella plays.
 
#124
#124
bleedingTNorange said:
Disagree completely, if Mostella was playing like a top 50 player AND we had a true PG, we would be EVEN better, not sure how that can be debated honestly. It's not a one or the other and that's what you keep trying to make it, adding Turner improves this team, regardless of what hypothetical scenario Mostella plays.
Click to expand...

Well sure tylerU, punter, and Mostella playing like his ranking would be great

Maybe if Barnes starts recruiting better that can happen
 
#125
#125
bleedingTNorange said:
Simple as this, is Tennessee a better team if Turner is eligible from Day 1? Not sure how anyone can argue that as a no, although I'm sure they'll try.
Click to expand...
Wasn't really the argument. Argument was, is Punter adequate as a PG, not how much better we'd be if he could play off the ball. Everyone agrees on that point.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top