Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gxtrex

Projected Starting Lineup

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 961819 said:

Brock worked a lot on his shooting and actually can hit 3s pretty consistently now as well. Not sure if he’ll have the green light to shoot them like Perkins did but it’s still encouraging.

Not even just Brock though. Segu is showing more confidence and actually showing off his shiftiness (hesi move he’s known for) and is making acrobatic contested layups. 

Davonta looks more explosive and his shooting has improved remarkably. 

Graves is very quiet personality-wise (think Kawhi Leonard) like usual, but looks ready to lead and his shot looks as spot on as I’ve ever seen it.

Savion looks like he was severely underrated because he plays at a freshman Graves level.

Grant is being completely overlooked by the media because he has Jeremy Harris scoring potential and shows it on a daily basis.

Johnson reminds a lot of Wes Clark. Like a LOT. Hits shots with guys all over him like it’s nothing and is a very athletic rebounder.

Williams has improved in every aspect honestly. His shot is falling, and his long arms make him a really difficult matchup to guard. Very athletic dunking on people.

Skogman is very talented and has a very smooth 3 point touch but is just a step slow on some plays so he just needs to work on his lateral quickness and he could easily be a frequent double digit scorer.

Hardnett is extremely athletic and a very good rim protector as well as showing good slashing sense. Could see a lot of pick and roll alley-oops to him.

My biggest surprise along with Brock shining is Mballa. Online, Texas Tech fans said he was a project and needs work but that’s not the case because he looks very impressive. He’s strong, plays excellent perimeter defense (he’s been stealing the ball and poking the ball out even on Jordan and Johnson), and he can hit 3s.

Long post I know but all of these players are showing a lot of promise, this is coming from someone who was expecting a severe drop off from last season. Haven’t even seen Nickelberry yet but he figures to also be one of our best players. 

🍆

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MillenniumBull said:

I disagree completely.  Best site out there.  Barttovik is just using an algorithm, and putting out projections based on very limited data in a lot of circumstances for some 300+ d1 programs and some thousands of d1 players for offseason fodder.  But is probably one of the best sites for comparing said 300+ programs once the actual games and actual data is around to compare.  Wanna win some money come March, visit this site. 

Also wanted to reiterate that the barttovik site is great once it gets actual data.

It is goes very conservative on projections with an unknown history. It hates not having data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MillenniumBull said:

If I didn’t know any better I’d think you were watching with blue tinted glasses... hope your right!

No I went in not sure what to expect and quite frankly, feeling like we were going to drop off and come back down to earth. All this info is based off of what I’ve seen during full-speed, 5 on 5 scrimmaging. It’s easy for a player to shine during drills, but I believe full speed scrimmaging is a much better way to gauge where we stand.

Segu has improved defensively and is taking charges and reminding a lot of Caruthers, and we have more depth at forward than we have in years, just no clear-cut, #1 beast like Perkins. I’d say we’re about the same as last year defensively, and even with that strong defense players like Jordan, Graves, Johnson, and Grant have been very hard to stop.

You're all going to like Grant and Johnson A LOT

edit: Jeenathan is realizing his potential, very good chance of having a breakout year. His jumpshot mechanics have changed and look more natural. It’s helping his shots to fall more. Where he stands out the most however is Jeremy Harris type drives to the rim. 

My point in all this info though is to calm anyone who may be worrying. We lost some big time contributors, sure. But we have so many players that could push for a starting spot it’s crazy. We have much more depth than last year at every position. 

Edited by 961819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 961819 said:

No I went in not sure what to expect and quite frankly, feeling like we were going to drop off and come back down to earth. All this info is based off of what I’ve seen during full-speed, 5 on 5 scrimmaging. It’s easy for a player to shine during drills, but I believe full speed scrimmaging is a much better way to gauge where we stand.

Segu has improved defensively and is taking charges and reminding a lot of Caruthers, and we have more depth at forward than we have in years, just no clear-cut, #1 beast like Perkins. I’d say we’re about the same as last year defensively, and even with that strong defense players like Jordan, Graves, Johnson, and Grant have been very hard to stop.

You're all going to like Grant and Johnson A LOT

edit: Jeenathan is realizing his potential, very good chance of having a breakout year. His jumpshot mechanics have changed and look more natural. It’s helping his shots to fall more. Where he stands out the most however is Jeremy Harris type drives to the rim. 

My point in all this info though is to calm anyone who may be worrying. We lost some big time contributors, sure. But we have so many players that could push for a starting spot it’s crazy. We have much more depth than last year at every position. 

The Bulls were historically good for the MAC last year.  Even if they come down a bit, they are still in strong contention for a top-4 seed in the MAC Conference Championship..  Maybe they don't win games by 20 points this year...maybe by 10 instead!

I hope you are right and this isn't blue-colored glasses. I am happy that is seems Segu is developing defensively.  That will be crucial.   I am excited to see who will be the one (or more) players who, through their play, earn a lot of minutes this fall.  There are a lot of minutes to replace.

Go Bulls.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MillenniumBull said:

I disagree completely.  Best site out there.  Barttovik is just using an algorithm, and putting out projections based on very limited data in a lot of circumstances for some 300+ d1 programs and some thousands of d1 players for offseason fodder.  But is probably one of the best sites for comparing said 300+ programs once the actual games and actual data is around to compare.  Wanna win some money come March, visit this site. 

Fair enough, will see how it does once the games begin. As of now though, I see a lot of teams with projections on players who either aren't on the roster anymore or won't be eligible this season. Nothing quite like the Nickelberry duplicate, though 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 961819 said:

No I went in not sure what to expect and quite frankly, feeling like we were going to drop off and come back down to earth. All this info is based off of what I’ve seen during full-speed, 5 on 5 scrimmaging. It’s easy for a player to shine during drills, but I believe full speed scrimmaging is a much better way to gauge where we stand.

Segu has improved defensively and is taking charges and reminding a lot of Caruthers, and we have more depth at forward than we have in years, just no clear-cut, #1 beast like Perkins. I’d say we’re about the same as last year defensively, and even with that strong defense players like Jordan, Graves, Johnson, and Grant have been very hard to stop.

You're all going to like Grant and Johnson A LOT

edit: Jeenathan is realizing his potential, very good chance of having a breakout year. His jumpshot mechanics have changed and look more natural. It’s helping his shots to fall more. Where he stands out the most however is Jeremy Harris type drives to the rim. 

My point in all this info though is to calm anyone who may be worrying. We lost some big time contributors, sure. But we have so many players that could push for a starting spot it’s crazy. We have much more depth than last year at every position. 

If what you are saying is true I think we might stretch the rotation to 10 players this year instead of our usual 9. Maybe Johnson follows in Perkins footsteps and comes off the bench even though he is one of the better players.

Jordan/Segu

Graves/Johnson

Williams/Grant

Nickelberry/Skogman 

Hardnett/Bertram

This is assuming Mballa doesn’t get a waiver. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SGBull said:

If what you are saying is true I think we might stretch the rotation to 10 players this year instead of our usual 9. Maybe Johnson follows in Perkins footsteps and comes off the bench even though he is one of the better players.

Jordan/Segu

Graves/Johnson

Williams/Grant

Nickelberry/Skogman 

Hardnett/Bertram

This is assuming Mballa doesn’t get a waiver. 

 

This looks like the most likely to me. Only possible change is Grant starting over Williams. Not really sure though they’re so closely matched 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see how you don’t start Johnson and we usually play a 3 guard lineup so I see him starting with Jordan and Graves. Also don’t see Bertram playing any significant role unless god forbid there is some injury, he just doesn’t have the foot speed to play at this level. Sure he has improved but I just don’t see it. Would be a game changer if Mballa gets that waiver, need that strong body down low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ubbulls84 said:

I don’t see how you don’t start Johnson and we usually play a 3 guard lineup so I see him starting with Jordan and Graves. Also don’t see Bertram playing any significant role unless god forbid there is some injury, he just doesn’t have the foot speed to play at this level. Sure he has improved but I just don’t see it. Would be a game changer if Mballa gets that waiver, need that strong body down low.

I wouldn’t start Johnson because we have more forwards than in previous years. Also, like I said previously, he could be like Perkins where he comes off the bench but plays starters minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SGBull said:

I wouldn’t start Johnson because we have more forwards than in previous years. Also, like I said previously, he could be like Perkins where he comes off the bench but plays starters minutes.

Doesn’t matter the forward depth, nearly every team in the nation now runs the 2 forward, 3 guard lineup, as guards now are expected to contribute with rebounding the ball. Johnson, Graves, and Jordan should be starting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikescherrer8 said:

Doesn’t matter the forward depth, nearly every team in the nation now runs the 2 forward, 3 guard lineup, as guards now are expected to contribute with rebounding the ball. Johnson, Graves, and Jordan should be starting.

Nearly every team? Here is the data from RealGM.

1. Virginia - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

2. Texas Tech - 3 Guards 2 forwards (1 guard was 6'6")

3. Michigan State - 2 Guards, 3 forwards (1 guard was 6'5")

4. Duke - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'7")

5. Auburn - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

6. Gonzaga - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

7. Kentucky - 2 guards, 3 forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

8.Purdue - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'6")

9. UNC - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

10. Tennessee - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

11. Michigan - 3 guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'5" and 6'6")

12. Houston - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

13. Florida State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4 and 6'5")

14. Virginia Tech, 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'5")

15. LSU - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'6")

16. Kansas - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards, (1 Guard was 6'5")

17. Buffalo - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

18. Wofford - 3 Guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'4")

19. Kansas State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

20. Villanova - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

21. Oregon - 1 Guard, 4 Forwards

22. Maryland - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

23. Nevada -  1 Guard, 4 Forwards (no player under 6'7")

24. Wisconsin - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

25. Iowa State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (No player under 6'4")

 

So 10 out of the top 25 (40%) had 3 guards starting. Out of the teams who had 3 Guards, only Buffalo and Houston had 3 players under 6'4". Only 3 teams had 3 players starting who were shorter than 6'5" (Buffalo, Houston, and Wofford). So I am not really sure why you said nearly every team has 3 guards starting. I guess if you count all the teams with a NET below 200 you can find a bunch, but that isn't what we are striving for. The last two years we got knocked out of the tourney by long and athletic teams. 

Side note: After typing guard so many times I realized it is a really weird looking word. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SGBull said:

 

So 10 out of the top 25 (40%) had 3 guards starting. Out of the teams who had 3 Guards, only Buffalo and Houston had 3 players under 6'4". Only 3 teams had 3 players starting who were shorter than 6'5" (Buffalo, Houston, and Wofford). So I am not really sure why you said nearly every team has 3 guards starting. I guess if you count all the teams with a NET below 200 you can find a bunch, but that isn't what we are striving for. The last two years we got knocked out of the tourney by long and athletic teams. 

Side note: After typing guard so many times I realized it is a really weird looking word. 

 

Length seems to be pretty important in a starting lineup.  How would we stack up?  I know we recruited 4 guys 6'7+ this year which is definitely helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with starting Graves, Jordan and Johnson is that they are all 6-3 and under. That’s putting a lot of pressure on everyone to rebound. Then if you start Jeenathan, Nickelberry and/or Hardnett along side then that means our tallest starter is 6-7.  Would we really start a freshman in Skogman just bc he is tall?

I agree it isn’t who starts it’s who finishes but getting off to good starts is important. And for the efficiency analytics we need to rebound well to limit second chance opportunities and get second chance opportunities.

The fun part in all of this is that we have a crazy athletic team. Especially with guys who are 6-3 to 6-7. Too much of anything is not a problem. Our bigs are either young or inexperienced but they will grow. You might even see a, hate to bring them into this, New England patriots approach. Where each game is treated differently and we attack the opponent with different styles. 

I anticipate, especially in the non conference, all sorts of lineups combos and rotations until the players carve out their roles and patterns emerge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My blue tinted glasses love that players on the other MAC teams are just sitting on the beach getting fat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SGBull said:

Nearly every team? Here is the data from RealGM.

1. Virginia - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

2. Texas Tech - 3 Guards 2 forwards (1 guard was 6'6")

3. Michigan State - 2 Guards, 3 forwards (1 guard was 6'5")

4. Duke - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'7")

5. Auburn - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

6. Gonzaga - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

7. Kentucky - 2 guards, 3 forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

8.Purdue - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'6")

9. UNC - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

10. Tennessee - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

11. Michigan - 3 guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'5" and 6'6")

12. Houston - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

13. Florida State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4 and 6'5")

14. Virginia Tech, 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'5")

15. LSU - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'6")

16. Kansas - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards, (1 Guard was 6'5")

17. Buffalo - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

18. Wofford - 3 Guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'4")

19. Kansas State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

20. Villanova - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

21. Oregon - 1 Guard, 4 Forwards

22. Maryland - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

23. Nevada -  1 Guard, 4 Forwards (no player under 6'7")

24. Wisconsin - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

25. Iowa State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (No player under 6'4")

 

So 10 out of the top 25 (40%) had 3 guards starting. Out of the teams who had 3 Guards, only Buffalo and Houston had 3 players under 6'4". Only 3 teams had 3 players starting who were shorter than 6'5" (Buffalo, Houston, and Wofford). So I am not really sure why you said nearly every team has 3 guards starting. I guess if you count all the teams with a NET below 200 you can find a bunch, but that isn't what we are striving for. The last two years we got knocked out of the tourney by long and athletic teams. 

Side note: After typing guard so many times I realized it is a really weird looking word. 

 

40% is a pretty good amount in my opinion. We’ve always played a 3 guard lineup traditionally going back to when we first won with Bearden, Evans and Skeete. Not only does it allow you to have 3 ballhandlers on the court, but  it helps you push the pace like we want to. Jeenathan still has to prove himself and I’m sure he’ll get plenty of minutes off the bench to do that. When we are playing a big team where the size is a factor I can see us tweaking starting lineup to matchup better, but in most cases this won’t happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Giving players minutes because they're tall and we want to be like the high majors is a recipe for disaster. The Arizona game showed us we need to play to our style and make other teams matchup with us. Who knows what the starting lineup looks like but I'd be shocked if our closing lineup doesn't include Jordan, Graves and Johnson. They'll probably be our top 3 barring a surprise from somebody and should be on the floor together in winning time.

Edited by trueblue32
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SGBull said:

Nearly every team? Here is the data from RealGM.

1. Virginia - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

2. Texas Tech - 3 Guards 2 forwards (1 guard was 6'6")

3. Michigan State - 2 Guards, 3 forwards (1 guard was 6'5")

4. Duke - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'7")

5. Auburn - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

6. Gonzaga - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

7. Kentucky - 2 guards, 3 forwards (1 Guard was 6'5")

8.Purdue - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'6")

9. UNC - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

10. Tennessee - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

11. Michigan - 3 guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'5" and 6'6")

12. Houston - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

13. Florida State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (Guards were 6'4 and 6'5")

14. Virginia Tech, 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'5")

15. LSU - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'6")

16. Kansas - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards, (1 Guard was 6'5")

17. Buffalo - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards

18. Wofford - 3 Guards, 2 forwards (2 Guards were 6'4")

19. Kansas State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

20. Villanova - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

21. Oregon - 1 Guard, 4 Forwards

22. Maryland - 3 Guards, 2 Forwards (2 Guards were 6'4" and 6'5")

23. Nevada -  1 Guard, 4 Forwards (no player under 6'7")

24. Wisconsin - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards

25. Iowa State - 2 Guards, 3 Forwards (No player under 6'4")

 

So 10 out of the top 25 (40%) had 3 guards starting. Out of the teams who had 3 Guards, only Buffalo and Houston had 3 players under 6'4". Only 3 teams had 3 players starting who were shorter than 6'5" (Buffalo, Houston, and Wofford). So I am not really sure why you said nearly every team has 3 guards starting. I guess if you count all the teams with a NET below 200 you can find a bunch, but that isn't what we are striving for. The last two years we got knocked out of the tourney by long and athletic teams. 

Side note: After typing guard so many times I realized it is a really weird looking word. 

 

We got knocked out of the tournament this year by a better team whom went on to play in the final. I’m not a true believer it was all due to size. (though I can agree with the loss 2 years ago against kentucky). Guys like CJ and also Jayvon were able to rebound the ball at the guard position. And Caruthers and Jordan provided some rebound stats per game. Heck, Buffalo was what, top 20 in rebounding? And we still didn’t have the so-called adequate size and length. And we destroyed Arizona State in rebounding in the first round too. Guard play and ball movement goes a long way in college basketball, and to have 3 competent guards play significant minutes is huge. Especially guards who provide teams with the ability to rebound. I see the 2 forward, 3 guard all the time in college because guards are expected to do more defensively nowadays. So if Brock is taking a step forward to where he gets in the starting lineup. Then we can run Bertram, Nickelberry, Johnson, Jordan, and Graves. And then rotate according to how the game is playing out. It’s not too far off in my opinion on how the lineup will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 961819 said:

Davonta looks more explosive and his shooting has improved remarkably...

How are his free throws? He needs to bring that number up D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E-L-Y

The rest, I'm really excited to hear about. Hopefully we can (almost) run the table again this year! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ubmae86 said:

How are his free throws? He needs to bring that number up D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E-L-Y

The rest, I'm really excited to hear about. Hopefully we can (almost) run the table again this year! 🙂

If Jordan doubles his FT% from a year ago I’d happily take that. We need to be able to trust he can nail foul shots bc he needs to be on the floor in end of game situations. And also when he drives to the rim he can’t be afraid to get fouled.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ubmae86 said:

How are his free throws? He needs to bring that number up D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E-L-Y

The rest, I'm really excited to hear about. Hopefully we can (almost) run the table again this year! 🙂

Hard to gauge. Speaking from experience it’s different shooting free throws in practice vs in an arena full of people

edit: Then again I never played in an arena, more like gyms with semi-filled bleachers lol 

Edited by 961819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ubmae86 said:

How are his free throws? He needs to bring that number up D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E-L-Y

The rest, I'm really excited to hear about. Hopefully we can (almost) run the table again this year! 🙂

It's gotta be in his head, you don't shoot better from 3 (roughly at the national average too) than from the FT line with a busted shot. I'd almost rather that isn't his main focus all summer. I find when I golf a lot and focus on my swing mechanics too much I play like trash but coming back after a long break I play well. I think he's got a decent shot but missing then over thinking and missing again is a harsh cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RecoveringHillbilly said:

Collegesportsmadness has us at #109 (3rd in the MAC) in their top 144 countdown. But good words on us surprising the MAC if our team gells. No lineup guesses and written up before Hardnett's waiver news, and incorrect on Pat Moore being a JUCO.

I'd be very happy being around 100. Hardnett getting the waiver should help also. Mballa would be clutch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RecoveringHillbilly said:

Collegesportsmadness has us at #109 (3rd in the MAC) in their top 144 countdown. But good words on us surprising the MAC if our team gells. No lineup guesses and written up before Hardnett's waiver news, and incorrect on Pat Moore being a JUCO.

I say this is accurate. Our upside potential is very high. Top 4 in the MAC would be great and in line with where I think we currently are. And where I expect us to finish. But the upside is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...