Every lineup with Gardner/BVP 4-5 or Groves at 5 were huge concessions on defense. Lineups with Rohde at 3 were defensive concessions, even playing iMac as much as we do is a defensive concession. Playing Taine is a defensive concession.
And it’s okay to make some of those, but not the kitchen sink approach, imo. He needs to fix/improve the offensive system/focus without compromising defensive lineups.
Instead, he’s been playing some pretty bad defensive lineups in the name of shooting/offense without focusing more on offense schematically and it’s been an awkward middle ground.
We are sort of getting into the intersection of two annoying Haneyisms. (1) Tony is bad at lineups and (2) Tony doesn’t care about offense.
But Tony is elite at coaching defense, so even if he’s doing these odd nonsensical lineups that adhere to some vague principle he has about ball security or tertiary creators or whatever, he’s still able to run a good defense. And that’s good!
But yeah, if his only goal were to max out the defense last year we would’ve played a different lineup (and maybe gotten a better outcome?)
I mean, I think a lot of this boils down to how folks feel about inserting BVP as the starter at the 5 two years ago.
Does that show that Tony does care about offense, and therefore what is Haney prattling on about?
No! Of course not. It shows he’s bad at picking lineups and reinforces that he doesn’t care about offense because it was bad for offense and we kept running it out even when poor BVP could’ve been doing Doans commercials.
He is elite at coaching defense but recently he’s decided that the system will overcome the quality of talent as long as the players execute and try hard. Which I don’t think is true when he goes to the extremes he has.
BVP wasn’t him “caring” about offense but it was an attempt to improve the offense while hanging in there with defense.
This is what I’d like us to stop doing.
Play good to great defensive lineups and lean into your elite coaching there, while dedicating more time/emphasis toward offensive practice/system/comfort. That’s a higher ceiling strat imo.
There is an immediate flaw in any debate about whether a specific combination of players will succeed or fail. In the case of Power & Saunders, their success or failure will be dependent on match-ups. Depending upon the opposition, together, they will have an advantage against some teams and will be at a disadvantage against others. I suspect that Virginia’s success will depend on the staff’s ability to respond to whom opposing coaches put on the floor. Hopefully, the '24/'25 roster will have enough versatility to allow Coach Bennett some flexibility. He really didn’t have that last year.
I’d say it slightly differently. Last year’s roster had plenty of versatility**, but the only individual who had any versatility was Reece. But now Reece is gone and have we brought in players that are more versatile? I suppose you could argue that Warley and Saunders are more versatile because they are plus defenders with at least one offensive skill. And then there’s the great hope that iMac develops a dribble drive or a moderately efficient mid range game. Hope springs eternal (not mine, but I suspect others).
** I’d argue we did a poor job of harnessing that versatility, but I’ve said enough already, haven’t I?
I wasn’t addressing the versatility of individual players, but, rather, the versatility of player combinations. I don’t think that last year’s roster had the elements to address certain situations. I’m not sure next season’s roster will be better, but a casual glance suggests to me that it is more well rounded. If nothing else, the front line has more viable combinations than last year’s did.
The versatility of lineups makes this year a more likely success. Last year, CTB was essentially left with no option other than Rhode when Harris was injured, Rhode was not ready for ACC play. Minor’s inability to defend until mid season forced BB into the lineup far more than he was able to effectively play (FL game the exception). Groves playing the 5 was not effective.
The lineup options are far greater this year, because the players are ACC caliber, better offensively and with greater upside. Kids like Cofie and Sharma may not even see the court, but will be available if needed. Last time we had this much depth was 2017.
@haney I appreciate many things you bring to the forum. Without a doubt, you are the #1 volume scorer on the forum and without your contributions it would be a much less discursive place. I benefit from that every day (many times lol) and appreciate what you do…even when I don’t agree (which is often).
Imagine you’re being TIC here, but you are the Platonic ideal of a “No, but…” poster. Don’t doff that mantle; the board is better for informed pot stirrers.
Yes but this discussion isn’t about unique matchups. I’m all for trying things situationally and sticking with in the short term if they work.
This is about utilizing something that’s been working poorly as a base strategy and whether or not we expect certain combos to be effective against most major conf opponents.
Where we disagree is in what options CTB had last season - and I’m also thinking of the season prior where he forced BVP/Gardner, for example (or the season prior to that when he played stattmann at 4).
I think often people say he didn’t have options because he decides not to use those options.
There are options and then there are viable options. I imagine that the staff has the capacity to distinguish between the two. That said, I doubt that I have that ability (but I do have my suspicions), so I tend to trust their judgement. If nothing else, that judgement has served us well in the past even if I was screaming at the TV screen while I wondered why certain players weren’t seated on the end of the bench…
I hear you man. There are different ways to fan and trusting the coach fully and watching what happens is a fine one - but in a discussion amongst basketball fans about what we could do better this is akin to, say (chess reference), arguing that Magnus Carlsen made the best move because he’s Magnus Carlsen even if he lost the game. One might look at his lines and think of better decisions along the way that could have yielded a better result without being 100% certain they’d be correct and without being better at chess than he is.
That’s all this is - speculation and opinion based on reasoning and what we’ve seen, for fun.
Trying to put a finer point on the smallball lineup discussion: What percentage of the time would you like to see lineups with no traditional 5 (I.e. Blake, ARob)? Last season it was 31% of possessions (around 12 mpg)