After 2 games what do you think the rotation will be

[luckyc1423]

I think its potentless to try to guess what the starting lineup will be because as mentioned it will change regularly...

But the guys I believe will get the minutes are

1) grooms
2) blair
3) newell
4) pledger
5) clark
6) neal
7) osby
8) fitz
9) arent

9 man rotation with everyone else being left out...and I believe fitz minutes will be split with arent...around 18 minutes a game fitz will get

grooms will be primary point guard will blair giving him breathers and blair will see SOME time at the 2

i believe pledge and newell will split time at the 2

3,4 are all interchangable...with clark neal and osby splitting time

fitz and arent will share time at the 5

 

[thebigabd]

PG: Sam Grooms/Carl Blair
SG: Steve Pledger/Calvin Newell
SF: Cameron Clark/Tyler Neal
PF: Romero Osby/CJ Washington
C: Andrew Fitz/Casey Arent

 

[WTSooner]

I don't think Osby will see much time at the 3, for a couple of reasons.

First, he is probably our best, or second best rebounder. Much more difficult to rebound on the defensive end if you guarding a guy on the perimeter. Second, we have more/better guard depth then we do post depth.

I think Osby will see almost all of his time at the 4/5 spots.

 

[boksooner]

PG: Sam Grooms/Carl Blair
SG: Steve Pledger/Calvin Newell
SF: Cameron Clark/Tyler Neal
PF: Romero Osby/CJ Washington
C: Andrew Fitz/Casey Arent

Compare the difference between that and the rotation for the first game (Coppin St.) last year. http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303160201

PG: Pledger/Newel
SG: Cade Davis/Pledger
SF: Cam Clark/Neal
PF: Thompson/Honore
C: Fitz/Ahmed

This year's opening rotation would destroy last year's.

 

[cowboysooner]

I agree with Big. My only caveat would be that if Neal continues to develop and play the way he has then I could see him backing up or sharing time with osby instead of CJ.

I think Lon is just mixing and matching and keeping the kids on their heels regarding who he is going to start and give minutes to. I think this is good coaching. If a kid knows that no matter what he is going to play, you usually don't get their consistent undivided attention. The kids won't like it, but if they think they are not going to play unless they are 100% in the game, they will usually play harder.

I think he will continue to "encourage" certain kids to give max effort by sitting them early in the season, but I bet by conference, Grooms, Osby, Clark, Bird and Fitz are getting the lion share of minutes. I think Blair and Newell have improved measurably, and will get minutes. I think Arent will ultimately get first minutes inside off the bench, particularly against the really tall teams. Then from there, Neal, CJ, Honore will get the other available minutes. For me, the hardest kid to project is neal. For some reason, I really like this kid's game. But, I just don't know where I would play him, or who I would play him instead of.

 

[AdaSooner]

Compare the difference between that and the rotation for the first game (Coppin St.) last year. http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303160201

PG: Pledger/Newel
SG: Cade Davis/Pledger
SF: Cam Clark/Neal
PF: Thompson/Honore
C: Fitz/Ahmed

This year's opening rotation would destroy last year's.

I totally agree. When you consider that Ahmed played in one game and contributed a grand total of 2 minutes to the entire season, it's easy to see why I have continued to point to our depth as the primary reason this team will be better.

This time last year our top three post players were Fitz, Thompson and Honore. This year it's Fitz, Osby and Arent. Add a more experienced Washington, and Neal, who could swing to the four if need be, and the comparison is a no-brainer, at least from my perspective.

Our guard depth is also better than last season, even with Cade no longer in the lineup. Point guard depth alone is a huge improvement.

As for the rotation, I think bigabd has it right.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I'll go a little off the reservation here with what I'd do as far as a starting line-up in B12 play:

PG: Grooms/Blair
CG: Blair/Pledger/Newell
SF: Clark/Pledger/Neal
HF: Osby/Neal/Washington
P: Arent/Fitzgerald/Honore

 

[BoulderSooner]

PG Grooms
SG Bird
SF Clark
PF Osby
C Fitz

these will be the guys that play the most min all season long

Newell/Blair/Neal will get the next group of min

then Arent depending on matchups ..

everyone else will fight for scraps ..

 

[thebigabd]

PG Grooms
SG Bird
SF Clark
PF Osby
C Fitz

these will be the guys that play the most min all season long

Newell/Blair/Neal will get the next group of min

then Arent depending on matchups ..

everyone else will fight for scraps ..

You bring up an interesting point here, Boulder. Arent "depending on matchups". I was just thinking that Arent might be a situational guy. For example, you dont want Fitz going Henriquez at Kansas State (7'1''), Perry Jones at Baylor (6'11''), etc. Arent will probably come in to defend and rebound against bigger teams.

 

[WTSooner]

I'll go a little off the reservation here with what I'd do as far as a starting line-up in B12 play:

PG: Grooms/Blair
CG: Blair/Pledger/Newell
SF: Clark/Pledger/Neal
HF: Osby/Neal/Washington
P: Arent/Fitzgerald/Honore

I am going to reach through my computer and choke the next person that gives a starting lineup without Pledger in it.

Inconsistent or not, poor defense at times or not, the kid is the only pure shooter we have, and he is probably our best offensive player. He HAS to be in game as much as possible to stretch the floor. Grooms, Newell, and even Cam.....those guys may look better right now, but I still don't think they'll be able to do much once we reach the more talented part of our schedule. Pledger will be able to get shots against anyone. He will start WAY more games then not.

 

[WTSooner]

PG Grooms
SG Bird
SF Clark
PF Osby
C Fitz

these will be the guys that play the most min all season long

Newell/Blair/Neal will get the next group of min

then Arent depending on matchups ..

everyone else will fight for scraps ..

Agreed, though I'd put Arent in the same group as those other three reserves. Like you alluded to, and like big said above, I think when LK mentioned we'll have multiple starting lineups, Arent was the first person he had in mind. There will be games where he probably starts in place of Fitz, or possibly even Osby.

 

[garyeb2]

You bring up an interesting point here, Boulder. Arent "depending on matchups". I was just thinking that Arent might be a situational guy. For example, you dont want Fitz going Henriquez at Kansas State (7'1''), Perry Jones at Baylor (6'11''), etc. Arent will probably come in to defend and rebound against bigger teams.

I think it would be intesting to watch Arent's minutes.In the 1st game he got about 7 and played well enough. In the 2nd he was up to about 14 and played well enough again.

I would expect him to get about the same 14/15 Friday. If he proves adequate against improved competition, my guess would be that he settle in about there game to game.

It is certainly possible that a guy coming out of Jr. College could show measureable improvement as the season goes along. If that is the case, his minutes could and should go up.

 

[AdaSooner]

Arent's size and rebounding makes him a candidate to play meaningful minutes, especially in the Big 12 where OU will face bigger opponents.

If Kruger wants to play up-tempo, you can't do that unless you can control the defensive boards to some extent. Besides, we don't really know if Casey can contribute to our offense? If he is capable of scoring a few points, while continuing his solid play on the boards, I think he could steal more of Drew's minutes.

 

[WTSooner]

Is Arent going to be much of a shot blocker, or shot alterer? I haven't seen enough of the two exhibitions to give an opinion. If that is something he brings to the table though, that will help our defense as much as anything.

Remember how much better we got on defense when Jabahri Brown became eligible? Having a guy like that allows you to take chances on the wings b/c you have a guy like that backing you up.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I am going to reach through my computer and choke the next person that gives a starting lineup without Pledger in it.

Inconsistent or not, poor defense at times or not, the kid is the only pure shooter we have, and he is probably our best offensive player. He HAS to be in game as much as possible to stretch the floor. Grooms, Newell, and even Cam.....those guys may look better right now, but I still don't think they'll be able to do much once we reach the more talented part of our schedule. Pledger will be able to get shots against anyone. He will start WAY more games then not.

My logic is that the very first foul that Arent gets or at the first television time-out, bring Fitzgerald and Pledger in together and sit either Grooms or Blair depending on play or situation. I think Pledger should log starter minutes and probably should start the second half of most games. I just like the idea of getting both Grooms and Blair in there to start things off to get both of them in the flow of the game and maybe get Cam and Osby into the game offensively early.

 

[Sooner04]

PG: Pledger/Newel
SG: Cade Davis/Pledger
SF: Cam Clark/Neal
PF: Thompson/Honore
C: Fitz/Ahmed

Oh the humanity!

 

[Tony]

Is there anyone at this point who still thinks Blair will start over Grooms?

 

[WTSooner]

Is there anyone at this point who still thinks Blair will start over Grooms?

I think it's tighter then most of us think, but Grooms probably wins out.

 

[luckyc1423]

Is there anyone at this point who still thinks Blair will start over Grooms?

I tried to tell you guys about grooms ability before the year started. My co-worker had seen him and guerrero play and I told everyone that grooms will have the better year but guerrero has more upside...so for us in terms of what we need and were we are grooms was the better get than guerrero but noone wanted to listen.

 

[Tony]

I tried to tell you guys about grooms ability before the year started. My co-worker had seen him and guerrero play and I told everyone that grooms will have the better year but guerrero has more upside...so for us in terms of what we need and were we are grooms was the better get than guerrero but noone wanted to listen.

I've been on the Grooms bandwagon from day one.