It appears Coach will play high pressure, but "small" ball. From what I have heard and read, he is not looking for size in the middle like we have tried to have for many years. I am curious as to what you guys think. Is there any concern that when we get back to the dance we may not have the interior size to compete with the top 25/50 type teams?
From my point of view, I have always liked to have some nice size in the middle for defense if nothing else. If we go up against a team with a good big man and they are capable of getting the ball inside, we would be in real trouble without a defender that could hold his ground.
Just an odd observation, when Neal and Sanchez took over, their philosophies seemed quite similar. Now, Weir and Bradbury seem quite similar. Hopefully they will be much more successful! LOL
Go Lobos! Go Nunn! Go Sam! Go Joe!
Size matters...so she says...
I like your concern about strategy "when we get back to the dance". I'd be thrilled to just get there, initially.
Jeezus ... can we just keep focused and positive? For ONCE? FFS ... let's worry about then WHEN they get there.
I'm not concerned about it. Weir's job is dependent on winning. I'm sure he will recruit accordingly.
He apparently passed on a 7-3 shot blocker, but we know little about Sodom's academic status and health. If those issues were not a problem having a rim protector allows the smaller players-virtually everyone else in the universe-to put enormous pressure on the ball, knowing that teams were not going to get easy shots at the basket. Yes, imo, we need some size, but the Neal recruits weren't exactly what Coach Weir was seeking. I trust him to recruit some good bigs for his system, but we may have to wait another year or so.
If you are going to play small ball - no true big(s), you have to pressure the ball successfully so that entry passes are difficult - you can't get beat off the dribble (very difficult with the new rules) so that you are dependent on an eraser, rather the help has to come sooner so the recovery to the 3pt. shooter has to be fast, hard but under control (easier but not easy to do with smaller quicker folks). It's a different philosophy and SC proved that if you have the right players any scheme can work - it's not the scheme it the execution.
It looks to me like Weir is looking for mobility and shooting skills first. There are mobile 7 footers out there and actually quite a few, in relative terms, 6'9 ball players. One of the main issues is that many of the P5 schools are looking for the same thing. I don't think he going to pass up a Lonzo Ball just to get a 6'2 or shorter point, but reality is that particularly at this time of the recruiting season, that the pickings get slim. You hope you can run into the Shaver and Simons kind of player who is not going where they signed originally or a graduate transfer. I don't think we are going to see the double post in action though as in order for the press to work you can have a rim protector, but the other four really need to be on the ball.
If Weir is truly committed to playing fast and furious on both ends of the court I'm not worried too much about having traditional bigs as we will be gassing any of them on opposing teams fairly quickly. If he hesitates and slows things down we could be in trouble.
regardless, I look forward to the newest era of Lobo BB!
This is all speculation. Coach Weir will bring in size and speed. I'm sure he will go after he thinks who will fit in his system.
WE ARE NEW MEXICO !
1.) "The Lobos will struggle in the dance because we don't have the bigs we need to compete with the P5 teams. Everyone knows you need quality big to make a run in the tourney!"
2.) "The Lobos don't have the guards we need to compete with the P5 teams. Everyone know you need guards, the tournament is all about guard play!"
Obviously the specific roster/position inadequacies in a given year will dictate the answer.
News flash, unless your school is among the top 2-3 from a Big 6 conference your team is going to have a void. Depending on the quality of your other players & COACH, your team will either be exploited game after game, or your coach will instill a system, an identity, a culture (I know Mark likes that word) in which your team will thrive.
Bob Huggins talks about how he can't compete for the same players as Kansas and other schools of the same stature, so he doesn't waste his time or budget on that caliber of recruit. Instead, he focuses on recruiting kids that can thrive in his specific system. This approach reminds me of what Bob Davie has done so successfully with our football team, and something I think Weir can do with our basketball team. In the end, it is better to have what you need than what people tell you you should have.
Last edited by BYF; 1 Week Ago at 11:05 AM.
Some say size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it. Hopefully Weir can properly use whatever size he does have.
"Small ball" doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have size. It just means that the primary focus is on mobility and being flexible. Just think of Kevin Durant and how well he fits in with the system that Golden State runs.
I think that it's somewhat of a "stretch" to think that Weir won't be integrating size into the Lobos' line ups.
Weir arrived at NMSU in 2007. Although that class was recruited by Reggie Theus, I included bigs (6'10" or more) from fall 2007 through spring 2017 since those 2007 bigs remained with the team -- which is not always the case when you have a change in coaching staffs.
Check out these dudes from Weir's tenure an NMSU:
6-11, 245lb (211cm, 111kg)
7-0, 215lb (213cm, 97kg)
6-11, 240lb (211cm, 108kg)
High School: Rapides
6-10, 268lb (208cm, 121kg)
High School: Stoneridge Prep
7-5, 360lb (226cm, 163kg)
High School: Huntington Prep
7-3, 335lb (221cm, 151kg)
Hometown: Ontario, Canada
High School: Father Henry Carr
6-9, 230lb (206cm, 104kg)
Hometown: Douala, Cameroon
High School: God's Academy
6-10, 225lb (208cm, 102kg)
Hometown: Lille, France
High School: La Lumiere HS
6-11, 207lb (211cm, 93kg)
Hometown: Santa Marta, Colombia
6-11, 260lb (211cm, 117kg)
Hometown: Abidjan, Ivory Coast
This is not to suggest that these were all great players, but some of them were definitely very good -- especially Siakam.
Last edited by Digital Lobo; 6 Days Ago at 05:04 PM.
A mile high and louder than howl
South Carolina's "bigs" who played significant minutes were 6'9" and 6'10".
I'm just wondering since when does a 7'3, athletic, can run up and down type of kid doesn't fit into your program? I really hope we're not left with 2 players taller than 6'8 and none taller than 6'9. I don't care what type of offense you're running, there is always room for some size.
As for size, etc., we will just have to wait to see who Weir & Co. bring in - let's give him some time (like until next year as this is a late start) before we decide what type & size of players he will bring in. Just my take.
Plus, it's not like they just going to let teams with a big man get the ball deep in the paint and back down our center. The point is to use the athleticism to cut passing lanes and prevent those type of post feeds. As a example, do you remember the way David Chiotti masterfully defended Bogut? That's a clinic in technique. With that kind of coaching, which I believe we have, it shouldn't be an issue unless we run up against a handful of teams like North Carolina or UCLA. But while their size may be an issue for us, our quickness and tenacity may be just as much of a mismatch for them. After all, if having two good big men on the floor was the answer, then how did we lose to Harvard?
"I wish we played in front of a crowd at home like this." - Bobby Knight on playing in The Pit.
SDSU has done pretty well over the years ...
Some prefer size and some prefer the motion of the ocean. Your preference really!
you know i think there's a lot of pros and cons when it comes to size. you can think that the shorter we are the quicker it is to get up and down as a opposed to if we were longer in length then there may be slower tempo of the game, possibly slower to get up and down. however, it depends on how we utilize the length to determine how pleasurable the game can be to play. wait...
don't count the bhullars...
'...the Pit is just God awful uncomfortable for a visiting team.'
...he yells, "No one comes to the hoop now, Melvin. No one!", Harv Schmidt to Mel Daniels
“They’re loud and they get on you. They know everything about you. They know your mom’s name.”, jimmer fredette.
‘We surrender. If that’s who we are, then let’s surrender,' Steve Fisher.
Although a different era, the late 70s, I remember Ellenberger and Tarkanian had great success running with a pressing style of defense that featured mobile athletic players in that 6-8 to 6-9 range in the front court. 6-10 Wil Smiley backed up 6-9 Jimmy Allen on that Johnson/Cooper team. Both of them ran the floor with the rest of the team which always seemed to be on the fast break after causing yet another turnover. 6-8 Willie Howard and 6-5 Phil Abney playing at the 4 put down some spectacular dunks as the Lobos never seemed to stop running averaging 98pts a game with an offense fueled by it's defense.
UNLV and Tarkanian were doing the same with similar type and size players up in Vegas. Got to give credit to assistant Dennis Hodges who implemented that great defense at New Mexico, and then put in at UNLV for Tarkanian. It made the difference for UNLV as they went on to continued success and eventually a national title. I don't recall too many players over 6-9 during the Tarkanian Era.
Last edited by BrutusXXX; 6 Days Ago at 03:40 PM.
Warriors without Durant won 14 in a row with 4 6 foot 7's manning the front line. Not to say I don't like some size, but CMac and Joe are big enough. It's their fouling that scares me. Could use some depth
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)