I'm having a hard time understanding why Frank Martin is playing Gravett so much. If he were the only option, I could see that you have to go with what ya got. But while Gravett is on the court we have Wesley Myers sitting on the bench. Wesley is a much better player IMO. Gravett is a turnover machine and doesn't do anything extremely well. He's not a good shooter - even on FTs. He turns the ball over a lot. He is not particularly good on defense as guys blow by him to the basket at will. And, most importantly to me, is he almost never comes up with a 50-50 ball on a loose ball or rebound situation. I would like to see Wesley get substantially more minutes than Gravett. I think it would increase our chances of winning.
Basketball Lineup is a Mystery to Me
- Thread starter JGH 35
- Start date
I said from day 1 this year that Gravett must have something on Martin. The only thing I can come up with is that Gravett is a junior and Myers a senior. Maybe he's playing Gravett to provide added depth next year?
First of all, please don't take this as me arguing that Gravette should play minutes over Myers. I'm not trying to argue either side of that point.
I'm sure I don't have all of the answers Frank might give to this issue, but coaches usually play the guys they trust the most. In other words, which player does the best job of doing the things we instruct our players to do.
That doesn't mean those players are great at these things. It just means the coach thinks he is better than those who don't play/don't play as much.
Defensively, though...getting beat off the dribble isn't an indicator of bad defense in our system. Frank's teams play ball-pressure man-to-man. If you put extreme pressure on the ball you are naturally susceptible to getting beaten off the dribble. That is actually okay...as long as your man doesn't get a straight-line drive to the basket.
Defenders guarding a player 1 pass away also pressure and deny the ball, but have an opportunity to give help against a driving player, again, only if the drive isn't in a straight line. Defenders 2 passes away play a more traditional "help" role...sagging away from their man and more toward the ball to protect against post passes and drives.
We aren't nearly as good this year defensively. Partly because we are missing Thornwell and Notice, who you both very good college defenders and partly because these guys aren't particularly experienced.
I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. We give up a lot of easy layups to penetration in the paint from the guards. I don't think there is a such thing as a defensive philosophy that says "it's ok to get dribble penetration in the paint consistently." At least not by any coach that lasts more than a year as a HBC. That is certainly NOT Frank Martin's philosophy. I've heard him countless times complaining about giving up penetration in the paint. It is understandable when you're coming off a ball screen and have to switch, but then it's the other defender's responsibility to stop the penetration. But, that isn't what is happening many times.
I do agree with your last statement. We had some awesome defenders last year. All our seniors played really good defense.
You mentioned everything Gravett does poorly but one thing he does well for his size is rebound. Not sure if it makes up for the TO's but he does stick his nose in there and will grab some boards.
I'm not sure how that is such an advantage. He played 31 min last night and had 7 RBs. Myers played 19 min and had 3, so there is almost no difference there. Gravett had 5 turnovers and Myers had none. Myers scored 10 points to Gravett's 3. Playing almost half as much time he had over 3 times the points. To me there is just no comparison between the two. The playing time looks like it should be reversed. Myers should have the 31 min and Gravett the 19. Makes no sense.
@JGH 35 I bet if you attended practice and were privy to all the info Coach Martin is it would give you the clues to solve your mystery
It’s hard to get the ball in the paint, against a FM defense by pass. You have to have guards that can penetrate off the dribble. If the defense doesn’t rotate on time, you see some of the easy baskets. We have 8 new players in the system, so that’s why the defense looks inept at times.
I do have a pretty good set of eyes. I can watch and see what goes on in the games. I'm sure we always win in practice. It's the games I am concerned about.
You left out assists, probably the most important stat for a PG. Gravett had 7, Myers 1. That said, Gravett turns the ball over way too much for me, but this could be what Frank is looking at.
Mystery to Me is also a great early Fleetwood Mac album. Frank does rotate his guards alot to try to find the right combination during the game. Tonight will be tough, Arky is the worst matchup for us, they press and we can't handle that at all, they have quick guards which penetrate getting our bigs into foul trouble, we give up open shots and they have streaky shooting guards alot like Auburn, plus they are more athletic across the board. Hopefully, our legs won't be too tired after last night.
But saying all of that we do have a chance because with this team you never know and will be watching.
But saying all of that we do have a chance because with this team you never know and will be watching.
Agree, it's never ideal to give up penetration in the paint. If you allow them to get around you, it best be to the baseline where you can get some help.
This is how I look at it: if someone questioned a decision that was made at my work, but had not been to our staff meetings, read our emails, etc. I would think they were dumb as hell for passing judgment on something they didn't have key facts about. I get it's a message board though and if it was all just "trust the coaches" we'd have nothing to talk about. And there's some pretty good basketball discussion in this topic so I apologize; not like you're trying to troll or something.
No defense WANTS to have the ball dribbled into the paint. But if a coach believes in pressing the ball (as Frank clearly does) he realizes the defender won't always be able to stay between the ball and the basket. As long as the defender forces the offense to drive to the basket in an arc and not a straight line, the other defenders can help, stop the drive, and recover to their own man after a pass.
This is not at all true. Coaches base their perimeter defensive rules around how the play the post. For example, the ball is on the wing, 3 other offensive players are spread on the perimeter and one player is posting up.If the system teachers the post defender to play over the top (a 3/4 front with the defenders back toward the free throw line) then there is zero help if you get beat baseline. If the defense plays a full front in the post, or plays under their man (defender is closer to the baseline than the offensive player) then sure...there is help when you get beat baseline.
Somebody mentioned the "worst possible matchup" and I kind of agree.....I'm surprised latest line is +5 and not closer to 8 or 9......But I understand it's a lot about the $$$ coming in....I will be fiercely cheering them on tonight but feel very "unconfident" about this matchup..
Would you think they were dumb as hell if they (your boss for example) questioned your decision after the fact after a bad result occurred, even though he was not in on the staff meeting? If you had an employee who had lots of training in a particular task but continually had poor outcomes and you had another employee with less training but showed he was productive and had better outcomes, don't you think if you continued to keep the first employee in charge of that task that criticism of your decision would be warranted? That's the more appropriate comparison.
We have seen the results over an entire season that are not particularly good, and yet we continue to operate the same way. We can see that even though we weren't in the staff meetings (ie practices).
Is it not a fair question and comparison (only hypothetical of course)?Wow this is hitting a little close to home
I believe that was with Bob Welch. Seems like a dream, you've got me hypnotized. And I agree completely, you don't really know if we won or lost until about ten seconds after the final buzzer.
One of the 9 assistant coaches and graduate assistants are no doubt in charge of tracking the BPM for every line up. Have to assume FM is playing his best BPM line up as much as possible at this point. Otherwise, he’d be pretty crazy. We can’t see the BPM for every line up, but we can gues the best 5 by their individual BPM. It’s Booker, Silva, Minaya, Kotsar, and Meyers( Myers is pretty much interchangeable with Gravett at this point) Both struggle.
That's a good way of summing it up. I think most on this board would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot and it was their performance that was under fire.
Thing is, most of us do things nobody cares about, so we don't work in a fishbowl.
A little clarification here for a specific few that still WON'T GET IT: Our current team talent level is simply not as good as it was last year. =;-p
Kinda have a theory based on what I've seen watching college sports, and in particular basketball (from when I actually followed it, and would make it a point to watch say #3 Providence and #7 Boston College go at it).
And that point is this: What you see with a freshman is what they are going to be. Sure they get better. Maybe you have an athletic stringbean that blossoms with maturity and a weight program.
But there is no "make yourself a player." You either see signs these guys are going to really contribute from the get go, or they never do.
And based on that, last year's recruiting class only came up with Minaya. Does anyone think Cudd or Haase will ever develop or play if a similar guy to SIlva or even Kotsar comes in?
Also a few people have said it takes over a year to learn to play guard in Frank Martin's system. Well besides being a real weakness of that system, Beatty doesn't look like he will ever do much, even to be a kind of role player like Notice.
As a fan, I want Martin to succeed. I think he is ethical (or at least says the right things). His teams usually play hard.
But at the end of the day you are what your record says you are. And last year's tourney run aside, I'm really not seeing much evidence we are getting better. What we say this season was pretty much what we say year two and three as regards being competitive in the league.
We'll see. If I was Tanner, I'd definitely be inclined to give Martin a few more years. Love to see the guy here long term and successful.
But things have to start moving. And in an alternate dimension where we somehow hired Greg Marshal instead of him, I kinda think we'd be a perennial NCAA tourney team by now.
Before anyone brings up Coach K at Duke, well if it is ever going to happen at a stop usually you see signs of it before now. And like I said other than last year, we are no better in a lot of ways than Martin's second year here.
And that point is this: What you see with a freshman is what they are going to be. Sure they get better. Maybe you have an athletic stringbean that blossoms with maturity and a weight program.
But there is no "make yourself a player." You either see signs these guys are going to really contribute from the get go, or they never do.
And based on that, last year's recruiting class only came up with Minaya. Does anyone think Cudd or Haase will ever develop or play if a similar guy to SIlva or even Kotsar comes in?
Also a few people have said it takes over a year to learn to play guard in Frank Martin's system. Well besides being a real weakness of that system, Beatty doesn't look like he will ever do much, even to be a kind of role player like Notice.
As a fan, I want Martin to succeed. I think he is ethical (or at least says the right things). His teams usually play hard.
But at the end of the day you are what your record says you are. And last year's tourney run aside, I'm really not seeing much evidence we are getting better. What we say this season was pretty much what we say year two and three as regards being competitive in the league.
We'll see. If I was Tanner, I'd definitely be inclined to give Martin a few more years. Love to see the guy here long term and successful.
But things have to start moving. And in an alternate dimension where we somehow hired Greg Marshal instead of him, I kinda think we'd be a perennial NCAA tourney team by now.
Before anyone brings up Coach K at Duke, well if it is ever going to happen at a stop usually you see signs of it before now. And like I said other than last year, we are no better in a lot of ways than Martin's second year here.
Not sure why anyone would bring up a comparison to Coach K. He had 3 seasons where he was building his program...and then has 31 NCAA appearances in 32 years. The only year he missed, he only coached 12 games. The remainder of your post, I agree with.
I can't get with this hypothesis at all. Players SHOULD improve their physical attributes throughout 4 years of college, of course. But the ones who stick around USUALLY improve their basketball game and their skill-set.
Look at Silva. He contributed as a freshman, but his game now is well beyond what he could do just two years ago. Kotsar also contributed, and his game has evolved and improved a bit, as well. Thornwell and Dozier both improved their games over time, as did the Lithuanians, Michael Carrera and just about every player I can remember who stuck around for 4 years.
The players who don't get better do so because they don't work...and players who don't work often don't get their scholarships renewed.
Minaya will be a very good player by his junior year, I'd bet. Haase will most certainly become a steady contributor and likely starter.
I believe that Haase will contribute a lot over the next few years. My guess is that Cudd probably won’t make much of an impact here. Gueye and Cudd will probably end up...moving on.
Your post kinda enforces achilles' observation. As you stated Silva, Kotsar, Carrera, etc... all showed signs of being able to contribute their first year...maybe not consistently, but more often than not. He seems to agree on Minaya...so I guess the question is has Haase actually shown as much as some others his first year.
[
I have played basketball a long
You are blind if you don't think Haase will develop. He is more of a 3 / stretch 4 but there is no doubt he will develop into a player.
Maybe we were focusing on different parts of his post. I'm mostly replying to the "what you see as a freshman is what you are going to get" part, while you are talking about "seeing signs of possibility." I agree that you need to see SOMETHING from a freshman. I just think its rare to see discussions about guys who don't show anything. We have a few guys on our roster who never play and likely never will...but Beatty and Cudd both have the potential to become contributors.
So? You said he almost never gets loose balls or rebounds. That is incorrect.
Last edited:
In 6 seasons Martin has achieved a winning record in the SEC two times. I see little reason to believe the next 2 seasons will be much different.
He’s failing for the same reason season after season, which is frustrating. His offenses are incredibly inefficient. Pretty simple, way too many possessions result in either missed shots or turnovers. To my untrained eye, his sets are predictable and they play so slow that they get deep in the shot clock too often, forcing either bad shots or bad turnovers.
Everyone will focus on his ability to teach defense and intensity, but it’s time to admit his teams are pretty much straight garbage on offense.
Giving up steals at the top of the key on offense reminds me of watching my little brother @ 7&8 year olds playing basketball
Sorry, that's not what post #6 says. I acknowledged he got 7 rebounds in the game, but explained why that was negated by turnovers and poor play. Read much?
