We All Love Ed.....but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOX

We all love Ed as a player ,student - athlete, and future alum.
We long for his return next year .
So nothing in this post should be interpreted as a knock on Ed.
But we have seen that in his absence Q has blossomed , players have stepped up, the ball movement has vastly improved, and one has a sense of a team, not Ed plus 4.
Having Ed play the point was by default, but having a player with Ed's skill set at the point was not good.
Ed is a scoring machine who has to get to the basket.
When a scoring machine has the ball his focus is on scoring, not distributing.
When you play alongside a scoring machine you give him the first opportunity to score. If the ball comes to you it is not because you are open but because he is covered.
Imagine the team we would have with Q at the point, and Ed constantly in motion looking for an opening.
Everyone else would/could be in motion.
With Ed in motion It takes the pressure off of Bluett and Macura.
It can open up the base line for better opportunities for the Bigs.
That's what I see for next year!

---

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nasdadjr

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

---

Why on earth would you start both Tyrique and Gaston? Why would you sit one of our best offensive players? Makes no sense at all.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nasdadjr

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

---

And you thought X couldn't shoot before! Imagine that lineup.

I don't know why people still think a two-big lineup is a good idea. Jones and Gaston have half a jump shot between them. It would be one thing if one of those guys could stretch the floor, but if you threw out a lineup with Jones and Gaston together on a regular basis, you would see defenses pack in more than Xavier did against Seton Hall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

It's possible that I hated Stats more than Theology. Tough call....

---

You just never had me as a professor ;-). See, that's your problem.

Let's see how he does vs Nova before we warm up the chrism. M thrilled he has shown us three very good games, and that he seems to be maturing before our eyes. It's a silver lining to Ed going down, true. BUT.........All the rest of this discussion is angels on the head of a pin HOOEY.

Concerning the original topic, the coaches did play Goodin and Ed alongside each other from time to time, and I did like that look. Still, there's too much talent on the team to put out that look consistently, and Ed at point guard did have one of the better assist rates in the country. The team itself seems to be moving off the ball with more urgency now that Ed's gone, but frankly, they should have been doing that already, considering the missed opportunities this team has had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AviatorX

And you thought X couldn't shoot before! Imagine that lineup.

---

Good luck on Blueitt ever getting an open shot with that lineup. A bunch of layup attempts and one three point shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUFan09

I don't know why people still think a two-big lineup is a good idea. Jones and Gaston have half a jump shot between them. It would be one thing if one of those guys could stretch the floor, but if you threw out a lineup with Jones and Gaston together on a regular basis, you would see defenses pack in more than Xavier did against Seton Hall.

---

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

---

Farr and Reynolds were both capable of stepping away from the basket and scoring. Our present big men can't do that at this time. With this group Gates has to be the second big man.