Coach's comments about the starting lineup

So I saw in the pre-game quotes for tomorrow that coach Lavin was asked if he's going to keep using the 3 guard lineup, and I thought his response was worth sharing:

On going with the three-guard starting lineup in the future:

“I’m not sure yet, but I have to look at it long-term of how do we build the program and then for the short-term on how we get a few wins [now]. The real challenge is to strike that balance between building the program but developing our personnel by getting them enough minutes and experience so that they’ll be better not only late in the year, but next year and the year after.”

I don't really understand his philosophy here.   Basically he's saying starting D'angelo, Branch, and Greene together might get us some wins this year, but starting Dom or Amir is better for the long run.  ??
How so?   
That's got to be what he's talking about, right?   Who else "wouldn't get enough minutes or experience" if we start 3 guards?   

So I saw in the pre-game quotes for tomorrow that coach Lavin was asked if he's going to keep using the 3 guard lineup, and I thought his response was worth sharing:

On going with the three-guard starting lineup in the future:

“I’m not sure yet, but I have to look at it long-term of how do we build the program and then for the short-term on how we get a few wins [now]. The real challenge is to strike that balance between building the program but developing our personnel by getting them enough minutes and experience so that they’ll be better not only late in the year, but next year and the year after.”

I don't really understand his philosophy here.   Basically he's saying starting D'angelo, Branch, and Greene together might get us some wins this year, but starting Dom or Amir is better for the long run.  ??
How so?   
That's got to be what he's talking about, right?   Who else "wouldn't get enough minutes or experience" if we start 3 guards?

I think it's pretty self explanatory. If you start Greene over Dom or Amir you are taking one of their minutes away, which from the looks of it, Lavin thinks they need the minutes to help them develop.

Not saying I agree with him, just I think that's what he means.

I think he's talking about Obekpa

I don't really see how it's an either-or proposition.   Just because you're starting the 3 guards, doesn't mean Dom and Amir won't get enough experience to develop.


But you may be right about Obekpa, SimplyRed.  He only played 10mins against ND.   

I think he's talking about Obekpa too. 

CO only played 10 minutes vs ND after playing 30+ for several games before the ND game.  Phil Greene played 36 minutes vs ND in the first game we went with the 3 guard starting lineup. 

If that is the case, I think there is a happy medium when CO can take some of those 36 minutes from Phil.  10 is too few minutes for a defensive stopper like CO!  But based on CO's offensive deficiencies I think 30+ minutes a game does hurt us on that end of the floor. 

True. It's probably about Obekpa now that I read it again.

Wasn't obeka their for the final minutes though? I think who you put in the last minutes to win the game is as important as who starts or who gets the most minutes.

Coach is also a big believer in how you practice gets you minutes.  He likes to send messages

He's gonna start Phil because he's coming home.

As far as CO, I think he sat him against nd because we went straight up man and he wanted to cover their outside shooters.  Don't know if that's going to be the case today.  Plus it could hinge on how much time Jones gets.

So I saw in the pre-game quotes for tomorrow that coach Lavin was asked if he's going to keep using the 3 guard lineup, and I thought his response was worth sharing:

On going with the three-guard starting lineup in the future:

“I’m not sure yet, but I have to look at it long-term of how do we build the program and then for the short-term on how we get a few wins [now]. The real challenge is to strike that balance between building the program but developing our personnel by getting them enough minutes and experience so that they’ll be better not only late in the year, but next year and the year after.”

I don't really understand his philosophy here.   Basically he's saying starting D'angelo, Branch, and Greene together might get us some wins this year, but starting Dom or Amir is better for the long run.  ??
How so?   
That's got to be what he's talking about, right?   Who else "wouldn't get enough minutes or experience" if we start 3 guards?

I think you're looking at it backwards. 

How might the team win more games: with a traditional line up. Who wouldn't get enough minutes if he started two guards: Greene.

He's playing 3 guards to get Greene minutes because (after Harrison leaves) Greene is the shooting guard and in the great and powerful non offense he needs a shooting guard who can create. 37 percent from the floor and 25 percent from three won't cut it. We might lose a few more gamres this year with Greene ineptly chucking the ball but over the long term his development is worth it.

Quote from: desco80 on January 18, 2013, 09:21:09 PM

So I saw in the pre-game quotes for tomorrow that coach Lavin was asked if he's going to keep using the 3 guard lineup, and I thought his response was worth sharing:

On going with the three-guard starting lineup in the future:

“I’m not sure yet, but I have to look at it long-term of how do we build the program and then for the short-term on how we get a few wins [now]. The real challenge is to strike that balance between building the program but developing our personnel by getting them enough minutes and experience so that they’ll be better not only late in the year, but next year and the year after.”

I don't really understand his philosophy here.   Basically he's saying starting D'angelo, Branch, and Greene together might get us some wins this year, but starting Dom or Amir is better for the long run.  ??
How so?   
That's got to be what he's talking about, right?   Who else "wouldn't get enough minutes or experience" if we start 3 guards?

I think you're looking at it backwards. 

How might the team win more games: with a traditional line up. Who wouldn't get enough minutes if he started two guards: Greene.

He's playing 3 guards to get Greene minutes because (after Harrison leaves) Greene is the shooting guard and in the great and powerful non offense he needs a shooting guard who can create. 37 percent from the floor and 25 percent from three won't cut it. We might lose a few more gamres this year with Greene ineptly chucking the ball but over the long term his development is worth it.

+1

Quote from: desco80 on January 18, 2013, 09:21:09 PM

So I saw in the pre-game quotes for tomorrow that coach Lavin was asked if he's going to keep using the 3 guard lineup, and I thought his response was worth sharing:

On going with the three-guard starting lineup in the future:

“I’m not sure yet, but I have to look at it long-term of how do we build the program and then for the short-term on how we get a few wins [now]. The real challenge is to strike that balance between building the program but developing our personnel by getting them enough minutes and experience so that they’ll be better not only late in the year, but next year and the year after.”

I don't really understand his philosophy here.   Basically he's saying starting D'angelo, Branch, and Greene together might get us some wins this year, but starting Dom or Amir is better for the long run.  ??
How so?   
That's got to be what he's talking about, right?   Who else "wouldn't get enough minutes or experience" if we start 3 guards?

I think you're looking at it backwards. 

How might the team win more games: with a traditional line up. Who wouldn't get enough minutes if he started two guards: Greene.

He's playing 3 guards to get Greene minutes because (after Harrison leaves) Greene is the shooting guard and in the great and powerful non offense he needs a shooting guard who can create. 37 percent from the floor and 25 percent from three won't cut it. We might lose a few more gamres this year with Greene ineptly chucking the ball but over the long term his development is worth it.

Good take on it Fun.   I hadn't looked at it that way.