moytoy12 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I'll agree that I would like to see Barnett's role diminished until he has a hot hand. But if the team continues to win with his being a starter, why rock the boat? Because I feel like our team could possibly be improved with a diminished role for JB. His 0-for-7 nights and average defense will come back to haunt us against Dayton, UMASS, and VCU (just to name a few). I feel like a starting lineup (or players who get the bulk of the minutes for those that do not prefer to name starters) of RL, RA, DE, MM and JJ gives us the best possible team to make a run in the A-10 and the big dance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Because the goal is to win games like Wichita St and Wisconsin instead of losing them. The goal is not just to make the dance, but to advance. Because I feel like our team could possibly be improved with a diminished role for JB. His 0-for-7 nights and average defense will come back to haunt us against Dayton, UMASS, and VCU (just to name a few). I feel like a starting lineup (or players who get the bulk of the minutes for those that do not prefer to name starters) of RL, RA, DE, MM and JJ gives us the best possible team to make a run in the A-10 and the big dance. Oh, I completely agree; however.... If the coaching staff decides to continue status quo AND the winning continues, then why rock the boat? To their credit, they were willing to make the change to start Glaze last year, so if they think it's for the best, then they'll diminish Barnett's role, as most of us think should happen. But it's sure easier being an armchair coach than leading the practices, developing the game plans, and being in first seat on the bench during the games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Oh, I completely agree; however.... If the coaching staff decides to continue status quo AND the winning continues, then why rock the boat? To their credit, they were willing to make the change to start Glaze last year, so if they think it's for the best, then they'll diminish Barnett's role, as most of us think should happen. But it's sure easier being an armchair coach than leading the practices, developing the game plans, and being in first seat on the bench during the games. Isn't the purpose of the board to discuss? Or is anything and everything the staff does beyond discussion? I said in an earlier post it's certainly easier to make changes sitting at my computer than it is from the coaches seat where your job, reputation, and real results are always on the line. However, it doesn't mean everything that happens or that the staff does is beyond discussion or is even always right. In fact sometimes having decent results prevents people from seeing what else may be possible. JB has played poorly and DE is shooting considerably worse than last year. Can possible solutions be discussed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 If I accept your position about the level of team making a difference then the next logical stance would be not to play JB against higher caliber teams? You may have a point but by doing so would you just end up making him irrelevant since someone else would be playing against the higher caliber teams and thus would also be playing against the lower caliber teams. Ultimately the end result is the same - less JB. I think JB has a place as a role player off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westy03 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think JB has a place as a role player off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game. I agree and if he gets hot then extend those minutes a bit. The fact that he played that much against Vandy and couldnt hit an outside shot to save his life had me scratching my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Isn't the purpose of the board to discuss? Or is anything and everything the staff does beyond discussion? I said in an earlier post it's certainly easier to make changes sitting at my computer than it is from the coaches seat where your job, reputation, and real results are always on the line. However, it doesn't mean everything that happens or that the staff does is beyond discussion or is even always right. In fact sometimes having decent results prevents people from seeing what else may be possible. JB has played poorly and DE is shooting considerably worse than last year. Can possible solutions be discussed? I never said that we couldn't or shouldn't have discussion, and I didn't say that either the coaching staff or the team could do no wrong. All I'm saying is that I think the results appear to be a lot better than the TONE of our discussion suggests. Anyway, continue with the sky-is-falling analysis, if you so desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I never said that we couldn't or shouldn't have discussion, and I didn't say that either the coaching staff or the team could do no wrong. All I'm saying is that I think the results appear to be a lot better than the TONE of our discussion suggests. Anyway, continue with the sky-is-falling analysis, if you so desire. It seems you are overexagerating the analysis so you'd have something to say. Where did you see the sky is falling analysis? The tone seemed to be the games are going to get tougher and more important in conference play. JB is a weak link and DE seems to be struggling compared with expectations and how do we fix that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 It seems you are overexagerating the analysis so you'd have something to say. Where did you see the sky is falling analysis? The tone seemed to be the games are going to get tougher and more important in conference play. JB is a weak link and DE seems to be struggling compared with expectations and how do we fix that. You think I'm exaggerating; I think others are exaggerating. You say potayto; I say potahto. You say tomayto; I say tomahto.... Let's call the whole thing off! I agree -- haven't I already said that? -- that Barnett is overexposed, and I also agree that Evans should keep the defense honest by utilizing his mid-range game more. That said, if things are going well, as they have been, how much tinkering should we do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 We would be undefeated since the Wichita St game whether Barnett was starting and playing 25+ minutes a game or if he was playing 5 minutes a game. We need to make plenty of changes offensively if we want to beat anyone great this season. No team should ever be content with how they're playing and say that they don't need to tinker anything. You should always be looking to improve, cut back on mistakes, and make it harder for the opponent to scout/beat you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 We would be undefeated since the Wichita St game whether Barnett was starting and playing 25+ minutes a game or if he was playing 5 minutes a game. We need to make plenty of changes offensively if we want to beat anyone great this season. No team should ever be content with how they're playing and say that they don't need to tinker anything. You should always be looking to improve, cut back on mistakes, and make it harder for the opponent to scout/beat you. I don't agree that SLU would be undefeated since the Wichita State game with changes, because such a statement presume that all the Bills played during that stretch were cupcakes. Indiana State, Valpo (there), and Vandy (there) do not meet that criterion. If the Bills are to beat anyone great this season, they need to shoot better and/or create even more opportunities with their defense. Without a dominant post player and without any lights-out shooters, then turning defense into offense is the best recipe for success. I don't know that there are "plenty" of changes that CAN be made. Of course the team should be trying to improve every facet of the game, but that doesn't mean they need to make drastic changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I don't agree that SLU would be undefeated since the Wichita State game with changes, because such a statement presume that all the Bills played during that stretch were cupcakes. Indiana State, Valpo (there), and Vandy (there) do not meet that criterion. If the Bills are to beat anyone great this season, they need to shoot better and/or create even more opportunities with their defense. Without a dominant post player and without any lights-out shooters, then turning defense into offense is the best recipe for success. I don't know that there are "plenty" of changes that CAN be made. Of course the team should be trying to improve every facet of the game, but that doesn't mean they need to make drastic changes. I think what Slu Fan was saying is that whether you played JB or somebody else we would have won those games either way. In other words, JB was not the reason we won thus some one else could have had his minutes and nothing would have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think JB has a place as a role player off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game. I never said anything differently - all I said either approach would still result in the same net - less playing time for JB then he is currently getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I never said anything differently - all I said either approach would still result in the same net - less playing time for JB then he is currently getting. Agreed. I think we are saying the same thing and in giving him less minutes RA and TL should get more time which will give DE more time at the 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I thought we would see more of AM, JJ and MM together. Sure it would be a small lineup, but I think the quickness of this lineup would create a lot of match-up problems. Plus, we played quite a bit last year of KM, JJ and MM together with a lot of success. I suspect Crews is giving Jake minutes hoping that having another outside shooting threat out there will creat space for DE to operate in the paint. We're still searching for what we lost with Cody. If Jake is not providing it, that's why I would rather see more of AM. Having AM, MM and RL (three outside shooting threats) on the floor with DE would give him more space to do his thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I thought we would see more of AM, JJ and MM together. Sure it would be a small lineup, but I think the quickness of this lineup would create a lot of match-up problems. Plus, we played quite a bit last year of KM, JJ and MM together with a lot of success. I suspect Crews is giving Jake minutes hoping that having another outside shooting threat out there will creat space for DE to operate in the paint. We're still searching for what we lost with Cody. If Jake is not providing it, that's why I would rather see more of AM. Having AM, MM and RL (three outside shooting threats) on the floor with DE would give him more space to do his thing. I agree. I wouldn't mind a few minutes a game or more of a 3 guard lineup with DE at the 4. Unless you're going to use MC though you have to be careful as you have 80 minutes at the 1-2 if you add 10 at the 3 you're averaging 30 mpg among AM, JJ, and MM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I agree. I wouldn't mind a few minutes a game or more of a 3 guard lineup with DE at the 4. Unless you're going to use MC though you have to be careful as you have 80 minutes at the 1-2 if you add 10 at the 3 you're averaging 30 mpg among AM, JJ, and MM You can have JB in there for 5-10 minutes though right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 You can have JB in there for 5-10 minutes though right? Of course. I was talking about the minutes for AM, JJ, and MM going 3 guard not counting Crawford as the statement was about seeing AM, JJ, and MM together more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
since50'sbillsfan Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 As I recall, RL got off to a slow start last year with his outside shot, but started finding his range in January. Just having that happen again this year would be a big help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.