Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kuluel Mading 6'9 PF 2021 Offered

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by ShockTalk View Post
    These teams seem to challenge what it is to be a 4 or a 5.
    I am trying to discern whether the concept of positionless basketball has gone away or it is just slow to take hold (at least on Shockernet). Doesn't seem all that long ago that the term "positionless basketball" was routinely thrown about. But not so much recently. Mostly the discussion (on Shockernet at least) focuses on trying to pidgeon hole a player at a specific position. We don;t even use the term combo guard all that much anymore. Seems like those position numbers are becoming useful mostly as identifying what spot you are on the floor in a set play diagram or a motion offense scheme. Perhaps as long as you have set plays and offensive schemes there will be by necessity postion designations. And clearly most players have skill sets that lend themselve more capable of filling certain roles. Perhaps to be totally positionless you have to go to a pure playground basketball approach which I doubt would be a good approach. Even Paul Westhead's Loyola Marynount zero defense and fast break offense had numbered positions and a scheme. What really made it different was the philosophy as much as the scheme which was pretty simple.

    https://www.breakthroughbasketball.c...k-offense.html

    That was 4 decades ago and obvioulsy it wasn't as simple to successfully implement as it it obviously did not catch on widely. Maybe because it is hard to assemble the collection of athletes needed to make such an approach work well over the long haul.

    Not really sure what my point is. I think there will always have to be designated positions. However, more and more you will see teams fill those positions with players that seemingly or clones in terms of size and athleticism and with some overlapping skill sets although most players will have a skill set that lends itself more to a specific postion in a scheme. Soem will be versatile enough and have the right size to be a combo 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 or 4/5. With really versatile players maybe able to play 3 postions. But then again those versatile players have to learn each position. The more set plays you have the more of a challenge that becomes. So maybe more of "positionless" scheme requires a less complicated scheme that, like Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount teams which was more a 40 minutes of hell philosophy but using the offense as the club and not the defense.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Dan View Post
      You gotta have 5 playmakers on the court. You can’t have a weak link. All 5 guys have to be guys that can carry the team at some point in game. We didn’t have that, we had 2, maybe 3.

      ron
      malcolm
      carl hall
      tekele
      fred

      deep bench
      that was our final 4 team. Playmakers across the board
      Sure helps to have playakers at every position but you can get away with and perhaps even need a good, unselfish role player or two willing to do the dirty work and make the playmakers playmaking easier. Evan Wessel comes to mind as that kind of guy.

      In any case, good playmakes across the board does not in and of itself gaurantee success. Basketball is still a team sport and those playmakers still have to be propertly blended (I think they call that team chemistry), motivated and focused on winning and not just getting their stats.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Dan View Post
        You gotta have 5 playmakers on the court. You can’t have a weak link. All 5 guys have to be guys that can carry the team at some point in game. We didn’t have that, we had 2, maybe 3.

        ron
        malcolm
        carl hall
        tekele
        fred

        deep bench
        that was our final 4 team. Playmakers across the board
        Tyson, Udeze, and Dex are all guys that have carried the team on multiple occasions and are returning. Ricky looks like that type of guy.

        Pretty good start.
        Livin the dream

        Comment


        • #79
          Having what is equivalnt to a redshirt year could really pay some benefits down the line especially for guys like Ricky, Monzy, Craig and even Chaunce if they hang around. Ricky, Monzy and Craig got some very valuable on-court experience. Chaunce not so much but just the experience of practicing and training at this level puts him way ahead of where he would be as a true freshman.

          Granted, every other team in country got the same benefit so I guess it comes down to which teams and players make the most of it

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by 1972Shocker View Post
            Having what is equivalnt to a redshirt year could really pay some benefits down the line especially for guys like Ricky, Monzy, Craig and even Chaunce if they hang around. Ricky, Monzy and Craig got some very valuable on-court experience. Chaunce not so much but just the experience of practicing and training at this level puts him way ahead of where he would be as a true freshman.

            Granted, every other team in country got the same benefit so I guess it comes down to which teams and players make the most of it
            I may not be interpreting your comments correctly, but I think with the new transfer rules, redshirt years are a relic of the past. At the very least, players who take a redshirt and then have a very good year following the redshirt, will be out to another team, almost all of the time, if not always.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Shockm View Post

              I may not be interpreting your comments correctly, but I think with the new transfer rules, redshirt years are a relic of the past. At the very least, players who take a redshirt and then have a very good year following the redshirt, will be out to another team, almost all of the time, if not always.
              Yeah, redshirt year may not the best comparison because you don't get any playing time and you do use a year of your 5 year clock. Maybe more like a year of very high level prep school basketball in steroids.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Shockm View Post

                Neither was Trey last year at 6'6, but they used him when they had to. At least Mading would be 6'10, and can block shots. Perhaps better, and perhaps not.
                Agreed. I think people automatically assume he needs to be a 5. He has the size of a 5 but can play the 4 or potentially stretch at the 3. That’s what makes him intriguing.

                Comment


                • #83
                  He looks more like a 2.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 1972Shocker View Post

                    I am trying to discern whether the concept of positionless basketball has gone away or it is just slow to take hold (at least on Shockernet). Doesn't seem all that long ago that the term "positionless basketball" was routinely thrown about. But not so much recently. Mostly the discussion (on Shockernet at least) focuses on trying to pidgeon hole a player at a specific position. We don;t even use the term combo guard all that much anymore. Seems like those position numbers are becoming useful mostly as identifying what spot you are on the floor in a set play diagram or a motion offense scheme. Perhaps as long as you have set plays and offensive schemes there will be by necessity postion designations. And clearly most players have skill sets that lend themselve more capable of filling certain roles. Perhaps to be totally positionless you have to go to a pure playground basketball approach which I doubt would be a good approach. Even Paul Westhead's Loyola Marynount zero defense and fast break offense had numbered positions and a scheme. What really made it different was the philosophy as much as the scheme which was pretty simple.

                    https://www.breakthroughbasketball.c...k-offense.html

                    That was 4 decades ago and obvioulsy it wasn't as simple to successfully implement as it it obviously did not catch on widely. Maybe because it is hard to assemble the collection of athletes needed to make such an approach work well over the long haul.

                    Not really sure what my point is. I think there will always have to be designated positions. However, more and more you will see teams fill those positions with players that seemingly or clones in terms of size and athleticism and with some overlapping skill sets although most players will have a skill set that lends itself more to a specific postion in a scheme. Soem will be versatile enough and have the right size to be a combo 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 or 4/5. With really versatile players maybe able to play 3 postions. But then again those versatile players have to learn each position. The more set plays you have the more of a challenge that becomes. So maybe more of "positionless" scheme requires a less complicated scheme that, like Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount teams which was more a 40 minutes of hell philosophy but using the offense as the club and not the defense.
                    I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Positionless basketball is probably only something you can do when you have the specific skill sets in enough of your players to do so. Can they all guard on the perimeter? Are they long enough to defend post players? Can they all handle the ball and create their own offense? Are all 5 good enough rebounders? Teams that can do that are ones that have an embarrassment of riches talent wise, and that’s not us. I think of the Villanova NC teams, this Baylor team, maybe even a little bit of Loyola, etc. Sure, players will still have certain strengths and weaknesses, but they can all be uniquely effective at the above listed things.

                    Unless you have some supremely talented/skilled players (or you’re really well coached like Loyola), you’re probably not able to do the positionless game.

                    That being said, UCLA just showed you can still be very successful playing an old school gritty style and win with tough defense and offensive mismatches.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      NM

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by shockersx View Post

                        Positionless basketball is probably only something you can do when you have the specific skill sets in enough of your players to do so. Can they all guard on the perimeter? Are they long enough to defend post players? Can they all handle the ball and create their own offense? Are all 5 good enough rebounders? Teams that can do that are ones that have an embarrassment of riches talent wise, and that’s not us. I think of the Villanova NC teams, this Baylor team, maybe even a little bit of Loyola, etc. Sure, players will still have certain strengths and weaknesses, but they can all be uniquely effective at the above listed things.

                        Unless you have some supremely talented/skilled players (or you’re really well coached like Loyola), you’re probably not able to do the positionless game.
                        You seem kind of definite with your opinions, and how teams play, but I'm not sure that all teams fit into your boxes, and I'm not sure that most teams have all players who can play "positionless basketball" without any regards to their individual talents. There aren't too many players who can guard a 6'11 post, if they are 6'1, and a lot of the teams you mentioned have at least a 6'1 Point Guard.

                        I watched Creighton play and their tallest player who played any minutes of consequence was 6-7 and 220. Their point guard was 6'1 so they must fit in with Villanova, North Carolina, etc? I'm not convinced. WSU must be pretty close to your definition, except for an "embarrassment of riches talent wise", I would guess. Dexter, Ricky, Trey, Tyson all fit into your definition too as players who can all guard on the perimeter. I'm not sure that Tyson can defend a post very well but he is certainly talented, and I would say that Dexter, Ricky, and Trey all can defend a post and a guard, fairly well. We may not be that far from playing more positionless basketball.

                        Now back to Kaluel Mading who this discussion began with. Using your definition, Kaluel Mading, at 6'10" appears to be as close (both athletic ability and size wise) to being able to guard a post and a smaller guard as anyone. My supposition is that most teams do not "Totally" play positionless basketball but some players are coached to utilize their strengths, and switch on defense, and bigger guards are taught to post up smaller guards, all within the offense of their particular team.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Shockm View Post

                          You seem kind of definite with your opinions, and how teams play, but I'm not sure that all teams fit into your boxes, and I'm not sure that most teams have all players who can play "positionless basketball" without any regards to their individual talents. There aren't too many players who can guard a 6'11 post, if they are 6'1, and a lot of the teams you mentioned have at least a 6'1 Point Guard.

                          I watched Creighton play and their tallest player who played any minutes of consequence was 6-7 and 220. Their point guard was 6'1 so they must fit in with Villanova, North Carolina, etc? I'm not convinced. WSU must be pretty close to your definition, except for an "embarrassment of riches talent wise", I would guess. Dexter, Ricky, Trey, Tyson all fit into your definition too as players who can all guard on the perimeter. I'm not sure that Tyson can defend a post very well but he is certainly talented, and I would say that Dexter, Ricky, and Trey all can defend a post and a guard, fairly well. We may not be that far from playing more positionless basketball.

                          Now back to Kaluel Mading who this discussion began with. Using your definition, Kaluel Mading, at 6'10" appears to be as close (both athletic ability and size wise) to being able to guard a post and a smaller guard as anyone. My supposition is that most teams do not "Totally" play positionless basketball but some players are coached to utilize their strengths, and switch on defense, and bigger guards are taught to post up smaller guards, all within the offense of their particular team.
                          Well it’s more than just whether or not you’re tall. Idk maybe I didn’t explain what I was thinking very well, but I think you have to have guys with specific skillsets to be able to go “positionless”. Its not just “oh their PG is 6’1 and the C is 6’7.” Size is part of it certainly, but it’s more about your skills. I think we have lineups we could put out there to do that kind of thing, as you mentioned. But it’s not like that’s a cornerstone of our identity yet. I also referenced UCLA — they didn’t do any “positionless” type of stuff, just an old school style and were very successful. I don’t think positionless is then be all end all, for that matter. I just think when you can do it really well like those teams I listed did, you’re much harder to beat. Also the teams I listed were teams who did it a high level, not just teams who were doing it.

                          And again, not trying to put teams in a box, whatever that means. The more versatile you are, the better your chances of winning.

                          Mading seems like a dude that is versatile enough to do a lot of those things, too. I’d be happy to have him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            When we spent a gazillion pages on EO, he was at least on our team............

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Ehimen was the greatest thread ever
                              Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
                              RIP Guy Always A Shocker
                              Downsizing Government - Part of the Cato Institute
                              Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
                              Cato Institute - A libertarian take on the issues
                              ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
                              Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
                              MVCFans Alternative, Where ALL Voices Can Be Heard - Come join the party

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by pinstripers View Post
                                When we spent a gazillion pages on EO, he was at least on our team............
                                Actually, EO was unsigned, ineligible, going to Juco, and then unsigned again for 80-90% of the thread, so not on the team either for almost all of it. However, Mading thanks you for adding to his possible new celebrity status, but he has a long way to go for EO status.
                                Last edited by Shockm; 6 days ago.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X