Starting 5 for exhibition game in a week

[BigTime]

There are still several practices to come, but who do you predict will get the starting nod?

Mine

Carl Blair JR
Steve Pledger
Cam Clark
Romero Osby
Andrew Fitzgerald

First off the bench - Sam Grooms

 

[WTSooner]

There will are still several practices to come but who do you predict will get the starting nod?

Mine

Carl Blair JR
Steve Pledger
Cam Clark
Romero Osby
Andrew Fitzgerald

First off the bench - Sam Grooms

You probably nailed it. Only exception MIGHT be Grooms starting in place of Blair.

 

[BigTime]

The interesting minutes questions that I have are:

- Who gets more time, Newell or Neal
- Who gets more time, Washington or Honore
- Does Arent get all the back up post minutes or does Washington or Honore steal some
- Will we see Cam at the 2 at all (with Osby or Neal sliding out to the 3)

I guess we shall see.

 

[AdaSooner]

The interesting minutes questions that I have are:

- Who gets more time, Newell or Neal
- Who gets more time, Washington or Honore
- Does Arent get all the back up post minutes or does Washington or Honore steal some
- Will we see Cam at the 2 at all (with Osby or Neal sliding out to the 3)

I guess we shall see.

First, I think your starting lineup is spot on.

_Neal will get more playing time than Newell.
_Washington over Honore.
_Arent, Washington and Honore will all see minutes, with Washington, Arent and Honore getting the most time on the floor, in that order.
_I doubt if we'll see Cam at the traditional two spot. I think he'll play more of a hybrid three-two in LK's perimeter-oriented offense.

I'll add that it may be difficult to pinpoint every position these kids are playing. One of our greatest strengths this season is that we have a versatile, somewhat interchangeable team capable of playing multiple positions.

 

[WTSooner]

The only way Neal gets more minutes than Newell is if one of these two things are true:

1. We will play Blair and Grooms together.
2. LK is content with Cam at the 2, and either Neal or Osby at the 3.

I'm inclined to think LK would prefer Newell get those minutes, but it probably depends on defense, and how the guys play in the games. The rotation at the start of the season will probably not be the same at the end of the season.

 

[AdaSooner]

Who starts or gets more minutes doesn't matter too much. I'll be more interested to see LK's rotation with the first seven or eight players.

That said, my prediction that Neal will get more minutes than Newell is based primarily on the fact that Tyler can swing to a post position, while Newell will likely only play the two this season. I think most of us agree that the combo of Blair and Grooms will get the majority, if not all, of the minutes at the point. I also think Kruger plans to take advantage of Neal's size from the perimeter, at least that's what I got from the DOK article.

By contrast, Newell is at a size disadvantage on defense at the two. For that reason, if no other, the only way he gets a lot of minutes is if he can be a spark in our offense off the bench. He'll be a back up to Pledger, and hopefully he'll be a good one. My biggest concern is that he will not be able to guard bigger twos. He'll be fine on drives, especially if he gets help defense, because he's quick enough to stay in front of most of the players he'll face. The question is, can he keep much taller twos from getting virtually uncontested shots from the perimeter? I'm just not convinced that he can.

 

[BigTime]

Who starts or gets more minutes doesn't matter too much. I'll be more interested to see LK's rotation with the first seven or eight players.

That said, my prediction that Neal will get more minutes than Newell is based primarily on the fact that Tyler can swing to a post position, while Newell will likely only play the two this season. I think most of us agree that the combo of Blair and Grooms will get the majority, if not all, of the minutes at the point. I also think Kruger plans to take advantage of Neal's size from the perimeter, at least that's what I got from the DOK article.

By contrast, Newell is at a size disadvantage on defense at the two. For that reason, if no other, the only way he gets a lot of minutes is if he can be a spark in our offense off the bench. He'll be a back up to Pledger, and hopefully he'll be a good one. My biggest concern is that he will not be able to guard bigger twos. He'll be fine on drives, especially if he gets help defense, because he's quick enough to stay in front of most of the players he'll face. The question is, can he keep much taller twos from getting virtually uncontested shots from the perimeter? I'm just not convinced that he can.

Can Neal defend at the 3? Can Osby? I'm not sure but I have my doubts.

Newell on the other hand has the potential to be a good defender (quick hands, strong frame, speed). We didn't see it much last year but maybe Kruger can get him really buying in...

 

[bocabull]

I've got Nick Thompson starting at the 5 spot. Other than that it's anybodies guess.

 

[Sooner04]

I've got Nick Thompson starting at the 5 spot. Other than that it's anybodies guess.

I look for Jimmy Tobias to get some minutes as a swingman.

 

[AdaSooner]

Can Neal defend at the 3? Can Osby? I'm not sure but I have my doubts.

Newell on the other hand has the potential to be a good defender (quick hands, strong frame, speed). We didn't see it much last year but maybe Kruger can get him really buying in...

This thread proves there are a lot more questions than answers going into the season. That's what makes pre-season discussions interesting and fun.

 

[BigTime]

This thread proves there are a lot more questions than answers going into the season. That's what makes pre-season discussions interesting and fun.

Indeed.

 

[campbest]

I've got Nick Thompson starting at the 5 spot. Other than that it's anybodies guess.

Can't believe that guy got burn at the University of Oklahoma.

 

[WTSooner]

Can't believe that guy got burn at the University of Oklahoma.

I'm probably alone on this, but I still think with decent coaching he could have been a solid contributor off the bench. Obviously he wasn't starter-quality, but he had some skills. And some size.

 

[AdaSooner]

Can't believe that guy got burn at the University of Oklahoma.

That's what happens when coaches back themselves into a corner and have to sign recruits out of desperation. It's a by-product of waiting too long on the likes of Barnes and Jones, while good players you could have signed go elsewhere. I still get sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

 

[campbest]

I'm probably alone on this, but I still think with decent coaching he could have been a solid contributor off the bench. Obviously he wasn't starter-quality, but he had some skills. And some size.

Where did he transfer to?

 

[AdaSooner]

I'm probably alone on this, but I still think with decent coaching he could have been a solid contributor off the bench. Obviously he wasn't starter-quality, but he had some skills. And some size.

You may be right. There were certainly signs that Thompson could be a decent player at the start of his career at OU.

Still, I think there may be more to his story than we know. It started with an attitude on the court that earned him more than one intentional foul call for taking an opponent out when he got beat on defense. There were also rumors that he was not living up to his team captain duties behind the scenes. If the reports of an attitude problem are true, coaching does not always serve as a fix-it.

 

[WTSooner]

You may be right. There were certainly signs that Thompson could be a decent player at the start of his career at OU.

Still, I think there may be more to his story than we know. It started with an attitude on the court that earned him more than one intentional foul call for taking an opponent out when he got beat on defense. There were also rumors that he was not living up to his team captain duties behind the scenes. If the reports of an attitude problem are true, coaching does not always serve as a fix-it.

Very true.

 

[WTSooner]

Where did he transfer to?

I'm not sure.

 

[ksSooner13]

The interesting minutes questions that I have are:

- Who gets more time, Newell or Neal
- Who gets more time, Washington or Honore
- Does Arent get all the back up post minutes or does Washington or Honore steal some
- Will we see Cam at the 2 at all (with Osby or Neal sliding out to the 3)

I guess we shall see.

I agree with your starting lineup BT, except for PG. I've bee going to alot of the practices and Grooms is getting more and more of the time with the "first team"

To answer your questions, I think both will get alot of playing time, BUT if Newell can make shots or create shots for his team, I can see him spending alot of time on the court.

I personally think CJ will get more minutes tha Puma in conference games, but Puma has been showing alot of promise, so we can only see once the season starts.

I think Arent will get alot of minutes, but it will be in equal to whatever CJ gets.

Cam has been working alot with the Ones and Twos mostly because in certain situations Kruger likes to switch his two and threes to create mismatches. So in some situations, such as a tall lineup or in certain possessions to get him matched up against shorter defenders, I can see Cam playing some 2

 

[WTSooner]

in certain situations Kruger likes to switch his two and threes to create mismatches.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Switch them how?

I ask for a couple of reasons. First, the defense probably won't care where our 2 and 3 is lined up. If they are in man, they'll stick to guarding that same player. Secondly, I've seen VERY few college offenses where the 2 and 3 aren't doing the same things. They generally start on the wings, and make various cuts from there. But there really shouldn't be a difference in what spot he does it from. Also, the college game isn't like the NBA. If Cam is playing the 3, and a small SG gets switched onto him for defense, he can't just go to the post and get easy buckets. That just doesn't happen in college.

I'm just curious what you meant, specifically, by your comment. I may be missing something.