Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Class of '66 Old Fart

(2020) C Zach Loveday to Baylor

By Class of '66 Old Fart, in Indiana Basketball Recruiting Forum

Recommended Posts

Bigred3588    1,532

Bigred3588
Posted
3 hours ago, BGleas said:

Positionless basketball does not mean 5 LeBron’s on the floor. It doesn’t mean 5 guys that are wings all playing together. It typically means a guard, 2 wings, a stretch or perimeter 4 and a big that is athletic enough to switch defensively on the perimeter and has the skill to handle a bit, play the pick and roll, etc. 

Bigs IU has had that fall under a positionless lineup would be Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant, Beifeldt, Morgan, I’d expect TJD, etc. Perimeter 4’s we’ve had that fall under this are Watford, Troy Williams, Justin Smith, etc, 

So yes, you can build a program that way. 

 

 

By definition, "less" is an adjective suffix meaning "without." Ergo, positionless means without having a position. You just described a lineup consisting of 5 distinct positions. Just because you put more than 1 of them in a lineup doesn't mean the "traditional" roles don't need to be filled. You can call them a wing, but one of those wings needs to be able to shoot. It'll just be someone an inch or two taller than your prototypical SG. The other wing still needs to provide some offense as well as some rebounding. Call me crazy, but that sounds eerily familiar to the responsibilities of a SF. The only difference between what you're describing and the way teams have always been built is that traditional bigs are expected to be more athletic/mobile.  

As far as the IU examples, well, they're honestly kind of counter-productive. We've been using that approach for 8 years and made 2 sweet sixteen appearances. So sure, I guess you can build a program that way. But like I said before, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

HoosierAloha    29,885

HoosierAloha
Posted
By definition, "less" is an adjective suffix meaning "without." Ergo, positionless means without having a position. You just described a lineup consisting of 5 distinct positions. Just because you put more than 1 of them in a lineup doesn't mean the "traditional" roles don't need to be filled. You can call them a wing, but one of those wings needs to be able to shoot. It'll just be someone an inch or two taller than your prototypical SG. The other wing still needs to provide some offense as well as some rebounding. Call me crazy, but that sounds eerily familiar to the responsibilities of a SF. The only difference between what you're describing and the way teams have always been built is that traditional bigs are expected to be more athletic/mobile.  
As far as the IU examples, well, they're honestly kind of counter-productive. We've been using that approach for 8 years and made 2 sweet sixteen appearances. So sure, I guess you can build a program that way. But like I said before, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Because we’re already crazy off topic..

Overlapping/multiple positions would be a better title for it but that just doesn’t sound nearly as cool as position less.

On the IU teams, beyond Zeller being an athletic big who could trap a PNR to the point of making the steal, dribbling half the court, and then slamming it home you had other players doing multiple things.

Watford could shoot, well, from distance. He was also able to back his man down. He could defend an opposing big and use his length on smaller guards. He brought the ball up (VCU in the tourney).

Oladipo could do multiple things on offense and defense. He could bring the ball up or give him the ball at the top of the key, and when his mind caught up to his athletic ability, there wasn’t anyone who could stay in front of him. He worked on his shot and became a jump shooter from dribble drive kick outs.

Hulls ran point and was a lights out shooter.

Yogi ran point but could also move off ball.

It’s not about taking your 5 and having him run point. It’s not about your point posting up. It’s about players having multiple skills that overlap. If Curry wasn’t a lights out shooter it wouldn’t work. If you took Curry out and put Rondo in his place it wouldn’t work. However, you can use Durant or Green as a primary ball handler and run Curry off screens. If Looney still cod around in the Bay Area you could see even more wrinkles in the GSW offense too. That dude just does what’s asked of him now but he can be so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app
BGleas, mdn82, thebigweave and 1 other reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

323SGrant    1,176

323SGrant
Posted
Strom is so, so on point. 
Need players to rebound and defend against size - not 'positionless' in that respect. But on offense, there are plenty of skillsets that can work with so many different size players filling them. 
For instance, I grew up a Chicago Bulls fan. In the 70's they had a 'true' point (Van Lier) at 6'1", a true sg (Sloan) at 6'4", two true forwards (Love & Walker), and  true 5 (Boerwinkle) at 7'0"" Each of those players skills fit the conventional definition of what their size and position should encompass, and they were perenniel contenders.
In the 90's the Bulls had either Kerr, Paxson, or BJ Armstrong at 6'1" at the guard spot opposite Jordan for a large amount of time. On defense each of these small players guarded the other team's conventional point, but on offense they were pure wings, with Jordan, Pippen, or Kukoc playing the point. 
 

Stormin’ Norman and Sloan...very good defensive backcourt!


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app
Stuhoo reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BGleas    7,880

BGleas
Posted
19 hours ago, Bigred3588 said:

By definition, "less" is an adjective suffix meaning "without." Ergo, positionless means without having a position. You just described a lineup consisting of 5 distinct positions. Just because you put more than 1 of them in a lineup doesn't mean the "traditional" roles don't need to be filled. You can call them a wing, but one of those wings needs to be able to shoot. It'll just be someone an inch or two taller than your prototypical SG. The other wing still needs to provide some offense as well as some rebounding. Call me crazy, but that sounds eerily familiar to the responsibilities of a SF. The only difference between what you're describing and the way teams have always been built is that traditional bigs are expected to be more athletic/mobile.  

As far as the IU examples, well, they're honestly kind of counter-productive. We've been using that approach for 8 years and made 2 sweet sixteen appearances. So sure, I guess you can build a program that way. But like I said before, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

The “positionless” in positionless basketball isn’t meant to be a definition of the word, it’s  description of how the game is played in 2019. It’s not even a system that a coach chooses to play, it’s simple how the game is played in 2019. 

It’s about having skilled players that can do multiple things at every position, both offensively and defensively. It’s about bigs that can switch out on the perimeter defensively and players offensively that have multiple skills. It doesn’t mean there are literally no positions. 

As far as the IU point, it’s not like IU is the only program that plays like this. But again, it’s not really a system you choose, it’s simply how basketbalk is played in 2019. Look at Villanova’s last title, Spellman and Pascal could switch into almost anyone defensively and then offensively spent most of their time setting ball screens and popping out for 3’s or spotting up for 3’s while Brunson posted or DiVencenzo penetrated. 

 

thebigweave reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brass Cannon    24,064

Brass Cannon
Posted
17 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Back to Loveday. I think if IU pushes they will have real good chance.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

I hope so. Kind of the perfect scenario. Will have a year under his belt before we will NEED him to contribute. But if he’s ready there will be minutes his freshmen year

Hardwood83 reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

JaybobHoosier    11,821

JaybobHoosier
Posted


He’s someone I hope we can get. I assume we will make his top 5, but who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app
mdn82 and Class of '66 Old Fart reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go To Topic Listing Indiana Basketball Recruiting Forum


×