This was a TOUGH assignment...I must've changed my lineup 5 times.

PG- Villeda   Henson
SG- Hornung   Holmes
SF-  Valley    Rickard
PF-  Polk       Bragg
C-  Oliver      Asmus
.
Odd man out is Robison...great speed and defense.  He could be a defensive stopper vs. certain opponents. H e coulc even platoon with Holmes without jeopardizing the promised 10 minutes

Posted by alblack56 on 9/3/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):
This was a TOUGH assignment...I must've changed my lineup 5 times.

PG- Villeda   Henson
SG- Hornung   Holmes
SF-  Valley    Rickard
PF-  Polk       Bragg
C-  Oliver      Asmus
.
Odd man out is Robison...great speed and defense.  He could be a defensive stopper vs. certain opponents. H e coulc even platoon with Holmes without jeopardizing the promised 10 minutes

Interesting choices. Did you intentionally place a secondary importance on defense (the starting 5 have one of the lowest combined Def ratings possible)? It might still be the best way to go, since their strengths may make up for that, but wasn't honestly one I was thinking about.

I was only concerned about Valley and Villeda's DEF.   But I feel their other skills make up for it. I could see, however, switching Henson and Villeda

Do you think we can be competitive with top D3 teams with either of those lineups?

Personally I wouldn't consider anyone other than Valley to start at the 1.  He's a better passer by 9 points than your next closest guy, he's also the best ball handler on your team, and he's fairly fast.  I'd go:

PG: Valley, Villeda, Henson, Hornung
SG: Hornung, Villeda, Henson, Holmes
SF: Bragg, Henson, Rickard, Holmes
PF: Polk, Bragg, Asmus, Robison
C: Oliver, Asmus, Polk

Obviously the big risk with that lineup is that your freshmen, at least outside of Asmus, don't get their 10 minutes.  It's just me, but more often than not in the zone I'd rather take a 2nd walk-on than guarantee minutes to a freshman who would otherwise not get them based on my returning players.  Frankly, I'd probably switch Rickard and Holmes in the SF depth chart and hope Rickard winds up transferring - with his 17 WE you're just as well off if he decides to leave, probably better off than forcing 10 minutes away from your talented returning players in a season in which you could be pretty good.  If you could just play your 8 returning guys + Asmus that team looks strong to me.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/3/2012 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Obviously the big risk with that lineup is that your freshmen, at least outside of Asmus, don't get their 10 minutes.  It's just me, but more often than not in the zone I'd rather take a 2nd walk-on than guarantee minutes to a freshman who would otherwise not get them based on my returning players.  Frankly, I'd probably switch Rickard and Holmes in the SF depth chart and hope Rickard winds up transferring - with his 17 WE you're just as well off if he decides to leave, probably better off than forcing 10 minutes away from your talented returning players in a season in which you could be pretty good.  If you could just play your 8 returning guys + Asmus that team looks strong to me.

That's interesting, because I was/am actually leaning towards playing the **** out of Rickard.

The WE is very low now, but if I can get to mid-20s by sophomore year, I think he can make it most of the way to a 70 ATH, 85 SPD, 75 PER, 75 BH, 75% FT shooter. As a Jr. and Sr. I think that he could be a high quality scorer for me.

i dont see how you don't play robinson at either a backup for multiple positions or start.... he may not be able to score much, but you need the D, and he'll draw fouls.

Tried, can't.

Right now, I'm leaning towards this for most games:

PG: Henson; Villeda; Valley
SG: Horning; Holmes; Valley
SF: Rickard; Robison; Valley 
PF: Polk; Oliver; Bragg; Valley
C: Asmus; Oliver; Bragg; Valley

As you may be able to tell, WE plays a role for me, especially in games vs SimAI.

zbrent - Rickard is a nice pickup like Leblanc who I had with 17 WE a few years ago at NWU, now his name is all over the record books. If you start him and play the **** out of him then he will be good. 

I really don't think you can get away with a lineup that's not going to get Valley 20 or 25 minutes, if not more.  Your team is really hard up for offense and he's the only real scorer you have.  Villeda and Henson will get you some, but I just don't think the (significant) defensive advantages of Henson outweigh the (even more significant) offensive advantages of Valley, particularly on a team without a lot of other great scoring options...

I mean honestly, on what basis do you put Villeda above Valley on the PG depth chart?  I mean, he's a little faster, but behind in literally every other PG and scoring core.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/4/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
I mean honestly, on what basis do you put Villeda above Valley on the PG depth chart?  I mean, he's a little faster, but behind in literally every other PG and scoring core.

Well, part of it is that I consider 20 points of speed a considerable difference, more than enough to make up for 9 points (and closing) of passing. Villeda also performed better in the PG role and as a distributor than Valley did last season. 

In addition, come NT time, the current advantages of Valley in the PG cores will be gone, provided Villeda is given the PT and opportunity for growth. This is significant for me, since winning games in the NT is what I am aiming at each season.

Finally, against M2M and Zone anyway, locking Valley into the PG spot make it easier to game-plan for him. As you mentioned, he is clearly my top offensive threat, so if I can limit the opposition's chance to match top defenders against him, I think that could benefit me. He's also the 5th best rebounder I have, so I'd prefer his minutes not to all be spent at PG.