Chris Clarke (Committed to Virginia Tech)

[DogMania]

Why are people assuming that it's either Clarke or Jones? Why can't it be both? We really only have 1 true SF/wing on the roster right now in D-Ham (Omar is not a 3, he's a 2 who had to play the 3 his freshman year)…so with the small chance that Hamilton is gone after this year, I think it might be in KO's best interest to try and grab 2 wings in this class.

They both have a eerily similar game. I'd think they and those in their camps would prefer they play at different programs. I also think KO wants to fill a few different needs, though at some point if both wanted to come her he'd likely take both. I think it's going to be a dog fight to just get one of them, which I hope happens.

I'm sounding like a broken record like many here, but a class of Adams (1/2 Combo), Enoch (4/5 Combo), Stone (5), Jones or Clarke (3s) and if KO decides to add one more take the next best recruit or some elite kid (Newman in the spring), who wants to round out this big time class.

 

[otp85]

Call Calhoun at 6, Hamilton a 7, Adams a 0 and Enoch a 37. Because it doesn't matter. Position labels don't matter, not one bit, they are all basketball players. There will be 5 players on the court, they will run a motion offense and play man to man defense. Which means all that matters is that we have players on the court that can defend each opposing player.

 

[Yankees32123]

DHam likely playing the 3 has nothing to do with the roster being "skeletal"(which its not). Not saying he's as good, but he has a similar skillset as Rip and Rip played the 3 next to KEA and Ricky Moore, was the roster "skeletal" then? UConn and most schools use a PG and a combo guard next to a 3, UConn may have started Lamb and Bazz together, but they mostly played with Bazz, Boat(when he was ineligible), and Lamb together, same thing the prior year with Kemba.

By "skeletal" I only meant that we have a short roster. 12 guys on scholarship but only 10 that will get real minutes. And not many options at the 3 other than D-Ham and Omar. We will be seeing a lot of 3 guard lineups this year.

 

[7774]

By "skeletal" I only meant that we have a short roster. 12 guys on scholarship but only 10 that will get real minutes. And not many options at the 3 other than D-Ham and Omar. We will be seeing a lot of 3 guard lineups this year.

If you have 10 guys getting real minutes your roster is the opposite of skeletal.

 

[aceboon]

By "skeletal" I only meant that we have a short roster. 12 guys on scholarship but only 10 that will get real minutes. And not many options at the 3 other than D-Ham and Omar. We will be seeing a lot of 3 guard lineups this year.

How deep do you think rosters across the country are? Two guys who will play the majority of their minutes at the 3 in DHam/Calhoun and then we know Samuel, Cassell Jr, and Purvis can slide over there in a 3 guard lineup does not make a lineup skeletal to me. The spot to me that is the most worrisome is at the 4 spot since Facey and Lubin are so unproven, if they can play quality minutes the roster is fine imo. They're basically down one quality/proven big man, and a combo of Facey/Lubin may prove to fill that role in time.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Calhoun belongs at the 2. As does Hamilton for that matter, but we have to play him at the 3 because the roster is so skeletal. In the college game you can get away with that, especially since we've become so used to the 1 and 2 positions being occupied by 2 really small combo guards. We haven't had a real point guard/shooting guard combination since Napier/Lamb in 2011-2012.

Where a guy looks like he would play in the NBA has nothing to do with where he should play in college. Omar, with a massive injection of talent and athleticism, would have to play the 2 in the NBA. Hamilton would be a 2/3 in the mold of Kobe Bryant.

But that is not where they should play in college. JC was extremely stubborn about fielding NBA-sized lineups, and it caused more harm than good (think AO at the 4 and Drummond at the 5; Denham Brown at the 2 and Rudy Gay at the 3).

Note how successful our small-guard lineups have been, with two legit ballhandlers at the 1/2: Ollie/Sheffer, Ricky/Khalid, Taliek/Ben, Kemba/Bazz, Bazz/Boat. Granted, they don't all have to be sub-6' like our recent incarnations, but Boat/Purvis, Purvis/Adams will be similarly-constructed lineups with two guys who could conceivably play the point.

The example you cited with Bazz/Lamb at the 1/2 was a disaster, with way not enough ballhandling. Our best lineup that year was Bazz/Boat/Lamb at the 1/2/3.

 

[Mooch82]

Call Calhoun at 6, Hamilton a 7, Adams a 0 and Enoch a 37. Because it doesn't matter. Position labels don't matter, not one bit, they are all basketball players. There will be 5 players on the court, they will run a motion offense and play man to man defense. Which means all that matters is that we have players on the court that can defend each opposing player.

You're right, doesn't matter at all. Let's roll out this year with Boat, T-Sam, Purvis, Cassell, and Patty Lenehan.

Of course it matters to an extent. There's some interchangability to it, but you need certain guys out there that can do different things, especially when it comes to ballhandling, rebounding, and defense.

 

[Gurleyman]

Where a guy looks like he would play in the NBA has nothing to do with where he should play in college. Omar, with a massive injection of talent and athleticism, would have to play the 2 in the NBA. Hamilton would be a 2/3 in the mold of Kobe Bryant. But that is not where they should play in college. JC was extremely stubborn about fielding NBA-sized lineups, and it caused more harm than good (think AO at the 4 and Drummond at the 5; Denham Brown at the 2 and Rudy Gay at the 3). Note how successful our small-guard lineups have been, with two legit ballhandlers at the 1/2: Ollie/Sheffer, Ricky/Khalid, Taliek/Ben, Kemba/Bazz, Bazz/Boat. Granted, they don't all have to be sub-6' like our recent incarnations, but Boat/Purvis, Purvis/Adams will be similarly-constructed lineups with two guys who could conceivably play the point. The example you cited with Bazz/Lamb at the 1/2 was a disaster, with way not enough ballhandling. Our best lineup that year was Bazz/Boat/Lamb at the 1/2/3.

Not sure that Brown at the 2 and Gay at the 3 was a product of JC's stubbornness so much as it was a product of AJ Price's brain hemorrhage and not having a choice. The year he played AO at the 4 was actually a year he tried all sorts of things (Olander was our 4 for a while, Roscoe got some shots at the 4, Giff and DD had some shots at the 3). Other than Olander early (which didn't last), nobody seized the opportunity. I was big on trying Giff that year at the 3 to be a glue guy, but he didn't play well when given a couple starts - this year's Giff on that year'a team might have been the missing ingredient.

There was a bit of stubborness in JC's approach (post Marshalls) in that he always wanted two bigs. He didn't utilize the stretch 4 with guys who would have been really tough to handle there in college (Caron, CV, Rudy, Sticks). CV played the 4 his sophomore year, but worked inside and almost never went out to the three-point line. It wasn't until Roscoe slid over to the 4 out of necessity in 2011 that JC used that type of lineup. You think about what Rudy might have been able to do at the 4 in college instead of trying to beat guards off the dribble and getting locked down - he might have been a monster. Would have been at Hilton and Josh's expense (and Nelson - and JA as a freshman), and it still wouldn't have solved our issue at the 2.

 

[Mooch82]

Not sure that Brown at the 2 and Gay at the 3 was a product of JC's stubbornness so much as it was a product of AJ Price's brain hemorrhage and not having a choice. The year he played AO at the 4 was actually a year he tried all sorts of things (Olander was our 4 for a while, Roscoe got some shots at the 4, Giff and DD had some shots at the 3). Other than Olander early (which didn't last), nobody seized the opportunity. I was big on trying Giff that year at the 3 to be a glue guy, but he didn't play well when given a couple starts - this year's Giff on that year'a team might have been the missing ingredient.

There was a bit of stubborness in JC's approach (post Marshalls) in that he always wanted two bigs. He didn't utilize the stretch 4 with guys who would have been really tough to handle there in college (Caron, CV, Rudy, Sticks). CV played the 4 his sophomore year, but worked inside and almost never went out to the three-point line. It wasn't until Roscoe slid over to the 4 out of necessity in 2011 that JC used that type of lineup. You think about what Rudy might have been able to do at the 4 in college instead of trying to beat guards off the dribble and getting locked down - he might have been a monster. Would have been at Hilton and Josh's expense (and Nelson - and JA as a freshman), and it still wouldn't have solved our issue at the 2.

A lot of good points here. Our most successful teams have had 2 guards who can handle enough to play point ('99 KEA/Ricky, '04 Taliek/BG, '14 Bazz/Boat). '11 was a little bit of an anomaly with Lamb as the starting 2, but Shabazz played a ton as 2nd ball handler. Even '09 had Austrie playing the 2 once Dyson went down.

Some of our more disappointing teams had loads of talent but lacked in ballhandling...'06 (still was a successful team but had one of the most disappointing losses in UConn history) and '12. I agree that playing Denham/Rashad at the 2 was out of necessity - our only other guard options were freshmen Austrie and Rob Garrison. That team was so talented that it didn't matter the majority of the time, but we definitely got it some ruts with MW as our only creator.

 

[BUHusky]

Is it possible to move all this Omar (and general roster) talk to another thread (e.g. the thread with Amore's Omar piece)? Everytime I see this thread bumped I get excited for some new Chris Clarke news, but alas it's just BY'ers pointlessly arguing about whether Omar is a 2 or 3... Please stop. This thread is about Chris Clarke.

 

[Kembacity]

Guys what position does Chris Clarke think Omar slots in as? can somebody contact him for a comment?

 

[uchusky32]

Guys what position does Chris Clarke think Omar slots in as? can somebody contact him for a comment?

I should have the answer in about 20 minutes.

 

[pj]

Not sure that Brown at the 2 and Gay at the 3 was a product of JC's stubbornness so much as it was a product of AJ Price's brain hemorrhage and not having a choice. The year he played AO at the 4 was actually a year he tried all sorts of things (Olander was our 4 for a while, Roscoe got some shots at the 4, Giff and DD had some shots at the 3). Other than Olander early (which didn't last), nobody seized the opportunity. I was big on trying Giff that year at the 3 to be a glue guy, but he didn't play well when given a couple starts - this year's Giff on that year'a team might have been the missing ingredient.

There was a bit of stubborness in JC's approach (post Marshalls) in that he always wanted two bigs. He didn't utilize the stretch 4 with guys who would have been really tough to handle there in college (Caron, CV, Rudy, Sticks). CV played the 4 his sophomore year, but worked inside and almost never went out to the three-point line. It wasn't until Roscoe slid over to the 4 out of necessity in 2011 that JC used that type of lineup. You think about what Rudy might have been able to do at the 4 in college instead of trying to beat guards off the dribble and getting locked down - he might have been a monster. Would have been at Hilton and Josh's expense (and Nelson - and JA as a freshman), and it still wouldn't have solved our issue at the 2.

It was a mistaken approach to recruiting he took for a few years. In the late 1990s Duke was dominant and often put three talented big men on the court at the same time. JC seemed to be impressed with their success and how difficult it was to beat them, even in 1999, and tried to copy that approach once (after the first national championship) he was able to recruit highly regarded big men. I think all those decades of playing small lineups and three guard lineups, and always falling a bit short of the prize, had made him greedy for big men. Then we ended up being guard-deficient through much of the 2000s, and it cost us several championships.

Once you have a lot of bigs on the roster, you have to get them playing time -- it's not only for their happiness and team chemistry, but also our program's recruiting pitch was "we get guys to the NBA", and he couldn't fail to develop his big men and get them to the NBA.

JC acknowledged his under-recruitment of guards later and said after one NCAA loss that he'd never let us be so guard poor again. I don't remember if it was the San Diego State loss in 2008 or the George Mason loss in 2006. Probably San Diego. And indeed, we got Kemba and Shabazz and that was that.

 

[CallMeBruce]

The 1999 Duke team definitely didn't play with three bigs. It's two if you count Battier, which I wouldn't. In no way was Carrawell a big man.

 

[3uconn]

@coreyevans_10: Tentative official visit schedule for Chris Clarke now is this wknd to Creighton, 9/26 to Virginia Tech, 10/4 to Tennessee @ny2lasports

 

[mauconnfan]

@coreyevans_10: Tentative official visit schedule for Chris Clarke now is this wknd to Creighton, 9/26 to Virginia Tech, 10/4 to Tennessee @ny2lasports

Maybe the key word here is "tentative" .........??

 

[pj]

The 1999 Duke team definitely didn't play with three bigs. It's two if you count Battier, which I wouldn't. In no way was Carrawell a big man.

Perhaps "big" was the wrong word if you took it to mean PF or C, but at the SF position Corey Maggette got as many minutes as Carrawell in 1999 and both had good size. Duke's guards were also big, 6'2" and 6'3". They had a lot of length compared to their opponents for years in a row is what I was trying to say; and JC tried to mimic that with long SFs like Rudy Gay and Sticks, as well as long PFs.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Perhaps "big" was the wrong word if you took it to mean PF or C, but at the SF position Corey Maggette got as many minutes as Carrawell in 1999 and both had good size. Duke's guards were also big, 6'2" and 6'3". They had a lot of length compared to their opponents for years in a row is what I was trying to say; and JC tried to mimic that with long SFs like Rudy Gay and Sticks, as well as long PFs.

Maggette and Carrawell were both 6-6, the same height as Rip Hamilton. Neither was a particularly big SF. Shane Battier was as much a stretch 4 as anyone. And now 6-2 is a big guard? What?

 

[Huskyforlife]

@coreyevans_10: Tentative official visit schedule for Chris Clarke now is this wknd to Creighton, 9/26 to Virginia Tech, 10/4 to Tennessee @ny2lasports

Maybe the key word here is "tentative" ....??

Yeah seriously that tentative word has me all curious now. Could that very well mean he'll commit to us soon?

 

[otp85]

You're right, doesn't matter at all. Let's roll out this year with Boat, T-Sam, Purvis, Cassell, and Patty Lenehan.

Of course it matters to an extent. There's some interchangability to it, but you need certain guys out there that can do different things, especially when it comes to ballhandling, rebounding, and defense.

Replace Lenehan with AB or Nolan and I would not be surprised at all to see it on the court.

And, if you read what I wrote fully you'll notice I said you must be able to defend and after that it really doesn't matter. Although, you are right, I forgot rebound, defend and rebound.

My overall point was that position labels are stupid, of course balance is important, but the idea of positions is outdated, it's a constantly moving game. Position labels are pointless.

 

[Gurleyman]

Maggette and Carrawell were both 6-6, the same height as Rip Hamilton. Neither was a particularly big SF. Shane Battier was as much a stretch 4 as anyone. And now 6-2 is a big guard? What?

Duke's size was definitely a problem for us in 1990 - Abdelnaaby killed us. We were outmuscled a bit by Florida and Mississippi State too.

2004 was interesting in hindsight, since CV would have been an ideal 4 in this era as a guy who could stretch the floor and give Emeka room to work. Instead it was Boone who played there with a range of two feet, and it worked - Boone was really good at setting cross screens for Emeka, and got some garbage points on put backs. And we also had Gordon and Rashad stretching the defense out so well by themselves that they didn't need a stretch 4 so much.

 

[mauconnfan]

I think there are obvious times in which people can be labeled as a numbered position but there are more times than not, especially the wings/2G's, wings/SF's and the C/PF's in which it really doesn't matter at all. I like Chris Clarke a lot for instance because he comes in as a basketball player.....maybe even a "2" at some point and potentially like Giffey was as a Sr a "4" when called upen. "opt's" thoughts are correct he's just saying so many athletes are now very interchangeable and there is no need to label them.......unless you like to of course!

 

[mauconnfan]

Gut feeling is Chris Clarke is trying to fall asleep counting sheep but instead is seeing Huskies fly through the air with big smiles............

 

[UConn990411]

Maybe the key word here is "tentative" ....??

Let's hope for some reports about car trouble.

 

[mauconnfan]

Let's hope for some reports about car trouble.

Yeah like a rental while on his way to Creighton LOL.......good call on that one! He may not get on that plane!