We were touted as deepest team in BIG XII at the start of the season but last two games our bench barely plays in the second half or not at all. I understand Love is injured. But up 17 tonight with under 5 to play we don't play Little until Nunn fouls out. Can you explain CSD thinking. I am worried we will wear out by the tournament

It turns out that pre-season statement, made long before any basketball was played was just plain wrong. This team is not deep.

We have 1 player on the roster who is capable of playing the college 4. Lohner gets minutes against all logic.

Everyday John is just not capable of D1 level athleticism anymore it's sad. He's looks way out of his depth physically now when he gets on the court.

Having said that, our Bigs are truly 2 deep and that is a win.

While we have some nice top end talent at guard with JaKobe, what we have behind him is a mixed bag, not a bunch of guys who would start across the conference. Dennis is a decent point guard but he's not special. Love is good but injury prone and still streaky when healthy. Nunn is extremely streaky. Little is young and needs lots of development. Then we lost Grimes who I thought showed a lot of promise but clearly he couldn't earn more time, so I guess his ball handling skills weren't up to snuff for the level of competition we play - which is sad we really need a point guard.

The fact is our guards are streaky offensively which means they're inconsistent, and none of them are good defenders. We have a lot of guards but I don't think it was fair to say we were deep with talent, because that implies lots of high talent guys when the talent level is a lot of guys who are just kinda borderline starters at the big 12 level. A could of them though could really develop over the next year, they've just got to find consistency.

Drew always plays a tight 6 or 7 once conference starts. He's been doing it for 20 years.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Drew always plays a tight 6 or 7 once conference starts. He's been doing it for 20 years.

---

The issue isn't the size of the rotation. It's the lack of production from the back end. Little and Ojianwuna are playable but limited. And Lohner is barely even playable.

Josh O is one of the best backup bigs around. After that I agree we have zilch.

IowaBear said:

---

Josh O is one of the best backup bigs around. After that I agree we have zilch.

---

I love Josh O. I think he's become an excellent post defender. But he still limits you on the offensive end.

He'll have games where he shows flashes of his potential, but he'll also have games like Kansas and tonight, where you see how far he still has to go.

I really like Josh O - right now he is our only competent bench guy -gotta get Love back and healthy for a down-the-back stretch run at this thing. That gets us back to a decent 7 man rotation.

Pre season mod hype... why are you still believing it is the real question

ALLBEAR said:

---

Pre season mod hype... why are you still believing it is the real question

---

Or…someone transferred and someone is hurt.

We were a deep team until the backup PG transferred out and LL got hurt.

And why are we acting like a 7-man rotation is strange for a NCAAM's team? Houston and Purdue sometimes go 9-deep. UCONN is usually 8. Outside of those three, not a lot of other teams have more than two bench players getting minutes.

UNC, Duke, KU are all comparable rotations to us, except all those teams are extremely top-heavy both minutes-wise and points-wise. Kansas relies on three guys for all their scoring (if you don't include Furphy), and they have no backup for Dickinson.

We're fine. We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%). This is a top 5 team if they could figure out team defense...which probably ain't happening at this point, but still.

IowaBear said:

---

Josh O is one of the best backup bigs around. After that I agree we have zilch.

---

I would add that before the injury, Langston was a sure bet for 6th man of the
year in Big 12. 2 Injuries, or 1 injury and one transfer, is all that needs to happen to destroy your depth.

Oh he absolutely was. He was straight running away with the 6th Man award.

bear2be2 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

It turns out that pre-season statement, made long before any basketball was played was just plain wrong. This team is not deep.

We have 1 player on the roster who is capable of playing the college 4. Lohner gets minutes against all logic.

Everyday John is just not capable of D1 level athleticism anymore it's sad. He's looks way out of his depth physically now when he gets on the court.

Having said that, our Bigs are truly 2 deep and that is a win.

While we have some nice top end talent at guard with JaKobe, what we have behind him is a mixed bag, not a bunch of guys who would start across the conference. Dennis is a decent point guard but he's not special. Love is good but injury prone and still streaky when healthy. Nunn is extremely streaky. Little is young and needs lots of development. Then we lost Grimes who I thought showed a lot of promise but clearly he couldn't earn more time, so I guess his ball handling skills weren't up to snuff for the level of competition we play - which is sad we really need a point guard.

The fact is our guards are streaky offensively which means they're inconsistent, and none of them are good defenders. We have a lot of guards but I don't think it was fair to say we were deep with talent, because that implies lots of high talent guys when the talent level is a lot of guys who are just kinda borderline starters at the big 12 level. A could of them though could really develop over the next year, they've just got to find consistency.

---

Losing Grimes hurt our depth. He was a competent college guard with some experience to his game.

Without him and Love, Little is our only bench guard, and while he's mistake-averse (a decidedly good thing), he also doesn't do a whole lot when he's on the floor.

A bench of Little, Lohner and Ojianwuna gives you almost nothing offensively.

---

Hadn't thought about the impact that losing Grimes to the TP had, but you're right. He probably wouldn't have played big minutes consistently, but would have been an important piece in this stretch without LL.

And then there was L.J. Cryer.

I agree, losing Grimes really hurt, to me he looked like he could give us valuable minutes in conference. I wouldn't be shocked if he ended up starting for a decent mid major or low power 5 next year.

Hey - Syracuse won a natty playing a zone defense. It does seem to fit our team's assets and liabilities (lots of length/questionable guard foot speed).

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have to sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

Yep, can't agree more. I do think Nunn has stepped into the point role a couple of times and performed well. He is not the answer for an entire game but he has played well at PG on a couple of occasions when Dennis is sitting. He just doesn't have the same vision or back to the basket game that Dennis has.

If Love is healthy we could survive being without Bridges or Dennis (not both). If he's not healthy we need both, especially Bridges.

Nunn cannot pass, how can he play point guard effectively?

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

---

Not unique to other teams and not even as much as several better teams around the country. Purdue and Houston are I believe the most one player dependent teams in the country based on the metrics this board loves to site. Only UConn is "deep" if we're going on this standard.

I agree Dennis makes things happen and plays guys open. His pick and roll play is high level and gets things going. He passes guys open and is skilled playing his pace. No doubt.. team is still has a depth of guys who can really go in comparison to almost everyone else. Which makes them more frustrating but still dangerous.

He had 5 assists in the Houston game. I'm not saying he is the answer at point, but admirable in fill in duty.

Every November for the past 10 years as we blowout Nicholls St, the usual collection of SWAC and MEAC schools, and other easy non-conference opponents (not suggesting our entire schedule is easy; just the same as other power schools in mixing creampuffs with difficult games), this forum goes on and on about how deep we are. This year I can resurface all the hot takes about how we are 11 deep and some proclaiming our 2nd 5 could finish in the top 5 of the Big 12 (yes, it's there -- you can find it). Some confuse how we dominate creampuffs with what it is gonna be like once Big 12 play arrives. And just like Evil pointed out early in the thread, Drew has always had a 7, max 8, rotation.

Love is basically the same as a starter. Josh O is a rotation player. The others (Lohner, EJ, Little and Grimes before he transferred) are just dudes who are actually limited producing role players.

The only one who has surprised me this year is Little. I really thought he was gonna be able to contribute much more productive numbers than what he's recorded. But that is probably more on me than him. I may have overassessed his ability to adapt to college ball. I thought his play overseas would actually help him be prepared. I think he'll be fine in a year or two, assuming in the world of transfer portal that he doesn't look at Wright, Nunn, Edgecombe, Love and any transfer portal signings and decide to hit the road.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

---

When you are talking about a 67-man rotation, you can't really afford losing anyone, imo. Langston is crucial for us because of his ability to score or get fouls in the lane. RayJ can score off the glass but struggles against the tougher defenses in the Conference. It wasn't a fluke that Love was our leading scorer in conference play before he went down.

TWD 1974 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

---

When you are talking about a 67-man rotation, you can't really afford losing anyone, imo. Langston is crucial for us because of his ability to score or get fouls in the lane. RayJ can score off the glass but struggles against the tougher defenses in the Conference. It wasn't a fluke that Love was our leading scorer in conference play before he went down.

---

RayJ's value isn't his scoring. It's his facilitating. He could score six to eight more points per game than he has for us this season if he wanted to. But he's taken on a vital creation/distribution role in our offense.

And I love Love, so this isn't a knock on him at all. But we've more than held our own since he went down against arguably the toughest schedule stretch in the country over that span.

We need Langston back to reach our full potential, but we have other guys who can fill in and score. We don't have anyone else on our roster who can do what RayJ does or bring what he brings to our offense.

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

If Love is healthy we could survive being without Bridges or Dennis (not both). If he's not healthy we need both, especially Bridges.

---

I agree that Love could play big and replace Bridges' minutes capably for stretches. His return would do little to replace what RayJ gives us on either end.

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

---

Not unique to other teams and not even as much as several better teams around the country. Purdue and Houston are I believe the most one player dependent teams in the country based on the metrics this board loves to site. Only UConn is "deep" if we're going on this standard.

I agree Dennis makes things happen and plays guys open. His pick and roll play is high level and gets things going. He passes guys open and is skilled playing his pace. No doubt.. team is still has a depth of guys who can really go in comparison to almost everyone else. Which makes them more frustrating but still dangerous.

---

There aren't many contending teams with no backup point guard and one playable forward. Those are roster holes that we've managed to overcome because RayJ and Bridges have stayed healthy and been really effective. But those are fairly unique roster holes for a team in our current position.

Our depth everywhere else is fine. But we're an injury to one of those two away from seeing a completely different -- and much worse -- team on the court.

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

If Love is healthy we could survive being without Bridges or Dennis (not both). If he's not healthy we need both, especially Bridges.

---

Agree. Which makes the depth of talent fairly deep. You won't find many teams that could lose their 2nd or 3rd best player.. and still do pretty well. Thats the point. Now unfortunately we just don't have a lot of bodies to run out there.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

We have 6 guys averaging double figures in points, and 5 of those are competent three-point shooters (three of those are over 40%).

---

This is the answer to the question. This team has 6 guys on any given night that can put up 20+. That isn't a stretch.

With Nunn's emergence, we have 6 when you include Love. So while we don't have 9 D1 bodies, we have one of the deepest groups of guys who can go off. Unfortunately it hasn't happened at once but other than maybe UConn and Kentucky, haven't seen a team capable of that.

---

The problem is starters have sit at some point. And RayJ and Bridges both have key and irreplaceable skill sets. Our offense grinds to a halt without RayJ because all of those other players capable of going off depend on his playmaking ability to do so. And Bridges is the only playable forward on our roster, so every time he sits, we're playing four on five for those minutes.

We have a really talented starting five, but depth matters because those guys have to rest at some point, and our offensive capabilities take a cliff dive when they do.

---

We're answering different questions. He was asking why they were considered deep. That's one of the reasons. The depth of talent that only probably two teams have.

I fully understand this isn't the most common def of deep. Still applies. I didn't say we are deep in the sense that we have 8+ guys that can go bc it's not the case.

Most teams have a player or two they can't afford to lose although I don't completely agree with you description of our untouchables.

Losing our second/ third best player for a month and not tanking proves we have depth of talent not necessarily depth of 10 deep bodies.

---

We can afford to lose Love because we have other players who can score. We have one player on our entire roster who can facilitate an offense (RayJ) and one competent forward (Bridges). If we lost either, we'd be utterly screwed.

---

Not unique to other teams and not even as much as several better teams around the country. Purdue and Houston are I believe the most one player dependent teams in the country based on the metrics this board loves to site. Only UConn is "deep" if we're going on this standard.

I agree Dennis makes things happen and plays guys open. His pick and roll play is high level and gets things going. He passes guys open and is skilled playing his pace. No doubt.. team is still has a depth of guys who can really go in comparison to almost everyone else. Which makes them more frustrating but still dangerous.

---

There aren't many contending teams with no backup point guard and one playable forward. Those are roster holes that we've managed to overcome because RayJ and Bridges have stayed healthy and been really effective. But those are fairly unique roster holes for a team in our current position.

Our depth everywhere else is fine. But we're an injury to one of those two away from seeing a completely different -- and much worse -- team on the court.

---

Again, it is a fact that there are better teams than ours much more dependent on one or two players. This is fleshed out in any impact metric you want to use. Im a critic of some of the analytics at times, but since everyone references them they point to it very clearly. Yes, Im not interested in searching them out so yall can have it.

So if a contending team has a back up scrub pg or center.. cool. Watch that depth play and the team completely sink. That is the point. You could play Nunn (like he's playing now) and while a large dropoff would occur.. it would be less than if Purdue or Houston lost their top two guys.. (maybe not Purdue if Edey is still there but it would be close).