What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The rise of positionless basketball

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I'll need to buy the Athlon preview mag to get Ken Pom's take.


It's been the trend in the NBA for several years, with teams like the Celtics doing a lot of this. I can remember teams in college hoops from way back that did this with a ton of success (Kendall Gill's Illini teams) and we've had some teams going "small ball" in recent years to take advantage of the 3 point line.

But I think we're seeing a transition to where Tad's been trying to go with his roster.
 
I normally buy Athlon so look forward to reading the article. I think all bball fans will agree that positionless ball has been the trend for awhile now. To me, ball has always sort of been a mixture of just three positions - ball handlers, scorers from wing/outside/slasher/etc, and bigs that will rebound. One player can be more than one obviously (freaks like LeBron can do all three), and the taller they are, the better. Classic positions of 1 to 5 fit my categories very conveniently and were a way to address all needs on the court.

With the advent and increased importance of the 3 point line, bigs have become less focal to offense, and there's been a need to have mobile bigs instead of big space eaters, although I think anybody would take Shaq on their team. As classic post play has diminished, bigs have become more skilled, so stretch 4's have become more popular than the bruisers like Oakley and Mason.

So, if you can get five players that are all 6-4 to 6-9 (or higher), but all do at least two of the three positions I listed, then great. There's no need to be looking for a point that is shorter, quicker, and a better ball handler if you can get serviceable ball handling from three of your players. Is it nice to have a guy run your offense - sure, but he doesn't HAVE to be a 6-0 jitterbug. Likewise, you don't need a 7 footer that wipes the glass clean if you can get similar production from two guys that provide more mobility and options on offense and defense.

Basically, find your best five guys that don't leave you vulnerable to getting beat up on the boards, pressured on the ball, and provides some attacking options on offense. You don't NEED a classic 3 or 4, or 2 or 1 or 5. Just find five that work together.

I probably said nothing novel or unique, but just my random thoughts. As our players in general get more skilled, especially our taller guys, well see more positionless ball. I feel like the 19 class has some great all around players - Reddish, Williamson, and Barrett can play many classic positions. I recall a statement by McHale in one of the Open Courts that generally went like "small skill beats bad big any day, but tall skill beats small skill all the time." We're developing a lot of tall skill, blurring the lines.
 
Over the last few years I've reversed course on it being ok to have 3 "serviceable" wing ball-handlers vs a true PG.

Unless you have a one-of-a-kind point forward, at the college level, having a 6'0''-6'4'' guard who can handle the rock and penetrate will be the difference maker in the tournament. Look at UofA underachieving the last few years with a bunch of talented wings and stretch-forwards, but the undersized PJC and combo Kadeem Allen being their crunch-time ball handlers. If you were able to combine the two, they'd be in the final four.

This is what makes me super nervous about our current commits. Getting weary of under-proven combo guards.
 
Over the last few years I've reversed course on it being ok to have 3 "serviceable" wing ball-handlers vs a true PG.

Unless you have a one-of-a-kind point forward, at the college level, having a 6'0''-6'4'' guard who can handle the rock and penetrate will be the difference maker in the tournament. Look at UofA underachieving the last few years with a bunch of talented wings and stretch-forwards, but the undersized PJC and combo Kadeem Allen being their crunch-time ball handlers. If you were able to combine the two, they'd be in the final four.

This is what makes me super nervous about our current commits. Getting weary of under-proven combo guards.

With what I've written, I'm very excited about McKinley Wright this year. He seems like a classic, true point, which is great if you can have it. It just isn't a necessity. Last year's team didn't struggle imo bc White was a bad option to be primary ball handler and run the offense through, but a myriad of other issues. If you have Ewing at center as an option to, you're a moron if you don't play him. But, whereas having a true center and point were near requirements in the past, there are many ways to go about it. Just find five that work on the court together. As an example on PGs, I know everyone hates Duke, but they won in '11 with Jon Scheyer as their PG (Nolan Smith was off ball). Scheyer is not quick or a great ball handler, but serviceable in many ways.
 
With what I've written, I'm very excited about McKinley Wright this year. He seems like a classic, true point, which is great if you can have it. It just isn't a necessity. Last year's team didn't struggle imo bc White was a bad option to be primary ball handler and run the offense through, but a myriad of other issues. If you have Ewing at center as an option to, you're a moron if you don't play him. But, whereas having a true center and point were near requirements in the past, there are many ways to go about it. Just find five that work on the court together. As an example on PGs, I know everyone hates Duke, but they won in '11 with Jon Scheyer as their PG (Nolan Smith was off ball). Scheyer is not quick or a great ball handler, but serviceable in many ways.

I count White as a one-of-a-kind point forward, or oversized PG if you will. Same with the Mayor.

It's having a roster full of Hopkins, Fletchers, Thomases (and even XJs) WITHOUT a PG like McKinley is where we have gotten into trouble over the last 3-4 years – relying on guys like Ski, Talton, Dom and Yaz instead. Not sure how their chemistry is, but MW might be the extra element that gets GK into the draft.

Man, I almost hate to admit it because he wasn't always my favorite, but I would have killed for a Tomlinson Jr to be in the '13 class.
 
Back
Top