(02-04-2022 09:23 PM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 06:35 AM)frankenheimer Wrote:  Any of you believe in using the remainder of a season to evaluate returning players? This would mean giving some bench players some more minutes to see how they do in a real game environment - and not in garbage time and not killing any redshirts. And I'm not talking double digit minutes, but maybe 5 minutes, or a couple minutes more than they've been seeing.

How would that even work? You mean pull the other 3 redshirt and waste them for 2-5 minutes?
We don't really have a bench to give more minutes.
Yasser's minutes seem to be increasing.
Weber and Charles have been getting buried,
Which has led to Nunez getting time (so sorta what you are talking about)
But I haven't seen anything that makes me wish we had had him all season but have seen
plenty to understand why he was redshirted in the first place.

"How would that even work?" Practically, you would divert minutes from your better players to bench players. A consequence could be losing more. I personally think we should NOT do this. I think you do the best you can each game and worry about next year when the current season is finished. I hate when I see it in MLB and when NBA teams tank to get better draft position and I'd hate to see it with Buc basketball. I posed the question as a more of a mental exercise than something I actually think should be done.

"You mean pull the other 3 redshirt and waste them for 2-5 minutes?" No, that is a limit; the redshirt decision's been made and, save lots of injuries to players, killing a redshirt at this point is not justified.

Two of the players I had in mind were Charles and Nunez. If Coach thinks George as a future contributor, then include him.

Yasser's already been earning more minutes, so I wasn't thinking of him. And I certainly wouldn't take minutes from him to give to a bench player. I wasn't thinking of Weber either. He's already in the rotation.

Prior to 2018, it'd been great to save a redshirt for these guys, but let's face it, we no longer live in a world where patience pays dividends. It seems we're only fattening them up for someone else's dinner table.

(02-05-2022 08:33 AM)squeak Wrote:  Prior to 2018, it'd been great to save a redshirt for these guys, but let's face it, we no longer live in a world where patience pays dividends. It seems we're only fattening them up for someone else's dinner table.

Agreed. This was a weird year so I can see the reasoning for so many redshirts, but in a more normal time, at most one should be the standard. I'd be OK with zero as normal.

(02-05-2022 10:58 AM)frankenheimer Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 08:33 AM)squeak Wrote:  Prior to 2018, it'd been great to save a redshirt for these guys, but let's face it, we no longer live in a world where patience pays dividends. It seems we're only fattening them up for someone else's dinner table.

Agreed. This was a weird year so I can see the reasoning for so many redshirts, but in a more normal time, at most one should be the standard. I'd be OK with zero as normal.

We have 7 freshmen, it was the smart move to redshirt a bunch.

and before the usual bunch chime in, yeah it would have been nice to get more transfers and Oliver tried but
hard to sell a kid with only a year or two left of his college career to join a trainwreck with all that had happened.

If the coaching staff determines after 2 1/2 months of pre season practice, a player cannot contribute meaningful minutes, they cannot afford to take away practice time from the chosen 10 man rotation. Coaches have to spend nearly all the allotted practice time to teach and improve those players.

Red shirts and walkons go thru the same drills, strength and weight training. They participate as the scout team, they practice against the starters, they work with their designated postion coach. They are given every opportunity to get playing time. Regardless of what you think, coaches work tirelessly to help a player to become a better player and a better student. To think a coach would deliberately not play a player that would improve the teams chances to win is ridiculous. Rarely does a redshirt or a walkon move into a 10 man rotation, except for extreme circumstances.

If the redshirts can't show upside or improve enough to get playing time, then by all means transfer to wherever they think they can get playing time. That's why there is a transfer portal. It's best for the player and the team.

Change to a zone. Anyone have that answer?

(02-07-2022 10:48 PM)BucDoctor Wrote:  Change to a zone. Anyone have that answer?

Well, Oliver did, so there was no need to say it again. We played it a bit in the Wofford game, and he briefly talked about it in the interview afterwards. Said it was both to "protect" guys from futher foul trouble, and to "rest" them for stretches since our bench was so thin.

Besides that................I think I saw about 11-12 or so of the other "ideas" from those posted on this forum earlier. Clearly he was wise to pay attention to the comments here. I think the key one he latched onto was to "score more points than the opponents". Brilliant suggestion.

(02-08-2022 12:10 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(02-07-2022 10:48 PM)BucDoctor Wrote:  Change to a zone. Anyone have that answer?

Well, Oliver did, so there was no need to say it again. We played it a bit in the Wofford game, and he briefly talked about it in the interview afterwards. Said it was both to "protect" guys from futher foul trouble, and to "rest" them for stretches since our bench was so thin.

Besides that................I think I saw about 11-12 or so of the other "ideas" from those posted on this forum earlier. Clearly he was wise to pay attention to the comments here. I think the key one he latched onto was to "score more points than the opponents". Brilliant suggestion.

We've played that 2-3 zone a few times this year, never with much success, therefore never for very long. However, it definitely seemed to take Furman by surprise. They appeared totally unprepared, and it helped the Bucs get out to the big lead. At halftime, their coaches figured it out, and Furman found effective ways to attack. After that became apparent early in the second half, I thought the Bucs stuck with the zone a little too long.

Now, as a fan on a fan message board, and at grave risk of offending Poster's sensibilities, I'm going to make a suggestion: Don't rely on the zone being anywhere near as effective going forward. Expect everyone to be better prepared from now on (especially Furman, should we meet them again in Asheville). As with the earlier games, be ready to revert back to man-to-man quickly if needed.

(02-08-2022 10:30 AM)Flippmb Wrote:  Now, as a fan on a fan message board, and at grave risk of offending Poster's sensibilities, I'm going to make a suggestion: Don't rely on the zone being anywhere near as effective going forward. Expect everyone to be better prepared from now on (especially Furman, should we meet them again in Asheville). As with the earlier games, be ready to revert back to man-to-man quickly if needed.

Not sure why that might offend my sensibilities in some/any way. I totally agree. The Bucs are nowhere near practiced enough in that scheme to be able to shut down teams that know the 'solution(s)'. There's a world of difference between throwing in some zone occasionally, vs. relying on it as a team's standard m.o. (I.e., being 'cuse.) And personally...........i prefer the 1-3-1 when only done occasionally. Creates quicker havoc, leads to more TOs, but of course is more vulnerable to skilled attacks. And the 1-3-1 relies more on quickness than the 2-3 does, and we're quick enough to do that. We've only used that *very* rarely this season. We don't have enough beef to be able to even try a 3-2. I *do* think there have been times when a box-and-1 would have worked, with Ty or Yasser being the 1 - but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even practiced that one time. A *very* underused D. But you have to have practiced it a fair amount to have the confidence to use it.

One thing I am pleased to be wrong about was turnovers, at least with the past few games. I figured that a reasonable goal for this group of players was in the low double digits; they've single digit turnovers the last eight games. I suppose you could argue that there's an inverse correlation between turnovers and losses. However, I think the lower turnovers have kept them close in these games.

(02-10-2022 06:45 AM)frankenheimer Wrote:  One thing I am pleased to be wrong about was turnovers, at least with the past few games. I figured that a reasonable goal for this group of players was in the low double digits; they've single digit turnovers the last eight games. I suppose you could argue that there's an inverse correlation between turnovers and losses. However, I think the lower turnovers have kept them close in these games.

agreed frank, they have been taking care of the ball, much improved from earlier in the season. The achilles heel has been the late game execution, hopefully they can improve on this like they have the turnover ratio. Especially at this point in the season

(deleted), sorry I was on the wrong thread somehow.

As you all know — Bucs have lost eight of their games by an average of 2.875 points. Solution going forward — have no idea. If they weren’t having BAD LUCK, they’d be having no luck at all.

I can't say that losing is a positive. However, since the UTC debacle, there haven't been any blowouts (either wins or losses). I realize each season is largely its own, and there's no guarantee that we'll get over the hump next season and turn many of those close Ls to Ws. I think the team has fought to the end of each game and the games have been close. There are worse places the team could be starting from.