I know we still have the WCC and perhaps NCAA Tourney to go, but I am thinking a lot about next season. I believe the Zags could be a force to be reckoned with next year considering how much talent they will probably return (Steven Gray is the only guy we are going to lose as of now).

However, there is a logjam of talent and not a lot of spots to go around. Without a doubt, Marquise Carter and Sam Dower most likely earned their minutes for next season. However, with Elias Harris and Robert Sacre most likely manning the post down low next year, whether or not Dower will receive a significant minute spike will be determined.

The biggest loser at first glance looks to be Kelly Olynyk. Yes, he didn't live up to the hype after a solid FIBA performance with the Canadian National Team. That being said, Olynyk has shown tremendous improvement. He improved his eFG % and TS % by almost 10 points this year (he hovers around 60 percent in both categories). The biggest jump in his game though might be his rebounding. He leads the team in both offensive and defensive rebounding rate (12.3 and 21 percent, respectively). If the Zags want to bolster the strongest part of their game (the post), Olynyk will need to be a key cog to the playing rotation next season.

How is that going to happen though?

The easy solution would be to slide Harris to the small forward position.

Now a lot of naysayers will say that Harris is a natural power forward and that he needs to play in the post. Let's look at some stats to see if the numbers back up that theory:

Defensive rebounding rate: 17.6 percent (Third best on team). Offensive rebounding rate: 8.7 percent (sixth best on team). Block percentage: 1.5 percent (4th best on team).

The "post" stats don't necessarily discredit him playing in the post, but they don't necessarily argue that he "absolutely" needs to be a power forward.

Let's look at some numbers that are more important for wing players and guards:

Assist percentage: 10.4 percent (seventh best on team). eFG percentage: 53.9 percent (seventh best on team). 3 point percentage: 33.3 percent (seventh best on team).

Okay, so those numbers don't help his case to move to the wing. But then again, you have to consider a couple of things:

1.) He wasn't 100 percent this year, so a lot of the best part of his game (athleticism) was hindered. Harris made a lot of plays happen last year because of his athleticism. Without it, he became a less efficient offensive player (as evidenced by his offensive rating dropping from 114 to 111 this year).

2.) He's still a career 39.5 3 point shooter. Last year, he jacked up just as many threes (51 to 45 this year) and did so with a much better 3 point percentage (45 percent last year). Thus, Harris has the shooting touch to probably play the three, he just had a down year this season when it came to shooting (also evidenced by his drop in eFG percentage from 58.5 to 53.9 this year).

So, Zag fans may still argue that moving to Harris would be messing with the team chemistry. I ask you this: how does he compare to other players that will be competing for the small forward position next season? Right now, it seems to be Monninghoff, Keita and Arop. Monninghoff is a superior shooter (128.7 offensive rating), but he needs to have help and plays run for him to make things happen. He can't create on his own (16.6 shot percentage, 12.4 possession percentage), and I think that could be dangerous considering how limited our guards will be (especially Meech).

As for Keita and Arop, offensively, they can't compare with Harris. Both have lower offensive ratings than Harris, and don't show much touch from outside (25 and 37.2 percent 3 point percentages for Keita and Arop offensively). Both show some upside defensively, but overall, their defensive abilities don't compare to the offensive upside Harris gives the Zags.

Overall, it's a tough decision. In many ways, it is similar to the Austin Daye situation in 2008-2009. Daye was more of a natural small forward, but was put at power forward because of his size and need (they already had the wings set with Gray and Bouldin). Well, Harris has the size to play power forward, but the need is no longer there. They have help in the post and three guys who can handle the load admirably. Now, the need is on the wings, and Harris, though not a natural fit at small forward, would best help the team and perhaps his own NBA aspirations (he probably would need to switch to the 3 at the professional level) if he made the move to the wing.

If Harris makes this move, the Zags not only will be an effective team next season, but they will also have a more concrete, efficient playing rotation, something they struggled to figure out this year.

<!--Session data-->

I'm actually re-posting this from a Blog I'm starting out called the "Ball Street Times."  I would have just done a Fanshot, but the Blog is in its early stages and I wanted to get the full post to be read without people saying "What the hell is this?" because the blog is so sparse as of this moment. It will look better...I promise.

As a Gonzaga fan, I have been getting in bickering matches on Facebook with people who defend Mark Few, the head coach of Gonzaga. With the Zags 13-8 going into tonight's game against San Diego, this year has been a disappointment. A pre-season top-15 team, the Zags seem to be heading to the NIT unless they run the gantlet and win the WCC tournament (not entirely impossible, but your asking the Zags to win two to three games in a row? I don't know).

So here's the question. Is Mark Few one of college basketball's top coaches? Or has great players helped overshadow his inefficiencies as a coach?

Here are a few of the arguments I'm going to make:

1.) Few is a great recruiter, but the rest of the league is catching up to him in terms of talent.
2.) Few is solid offensively.
3.) Few's ability as a defensive coach is atrocious.

In terms of point one, you can't deny his ability as a recruiter. When you're bringing in ESPN-rated recruits to a WCC school in Spokane, Wash., that's a feat and an ability in itself. Come on. There is not much to attract recruits to Eastern Washington. Washington State has struggled with this for years. However, Gonzaga still is getting talented players. Even this year, despite their awful performance, the players are still talented. Many players who used to consider a Pac-10 school are now considering Gonzaga, and to me, that's incredible. For a while, that wasn't happening at other WCC schools. Even with its nice locale, Pepperdine still struggled to bring in recruits.

That being said, Gonzaga's reputation, the coaching stability in the WCC and the increased national television exposure due to a gazillion sports networks has evened out the talent level in the conference. The fact of the matter is that the WCC is much better talent-wise than it was five or six years ago. Luke Sikma, Kevin Foster, Mickey McConell, and Keion Bell are all legitimate talents. Maybe five years ago, instead of going to Santa Clara, Foster goes to Cal or Stanford. But because the WCC gets as much television time as a Pac-10 team nowadays, Foster is a Bronco. Because the Pac-10 coaches are changing every year, Bell goes to Pepperdine instead of a school like Arizona State or USC. This is great for the WCC, but it makes things tough for Gonzaga. They don't have the leg up talent-wise on the conference like before.

As for point two, I give credit to Few offensively. His teams according to PPG are usually in the top-25 in the nation. Check out college basketball-reference. com and this fact backs it up. Few's teams can score points and points in bunches.

However, is that part of scheme, great players or just lackluster talent in terms of the competition? In my opinion, I think it's more of the last two, and less of the first. First off, if Few is really known for scheme, somebody tell me the offensive identity of his teams? John Calipari is known for the dribble-drive. Mike Anderson is known for 40 minutes of hell. Ben Howland runs the motion at UCLA.

As for Few? I guess it's a flex-style offense with some triangle principles, but even then, it's hardly a true flex (and not done well to boot). Yes, the center is required to be a good passing man, and a lot of the the offense runs through the center. Since Gonzaga has had good centers who can pass (Violette, Turiaf, Batista, Heytvelt, and Sacre are all decent with the ball in their hands), I guess you can attribute this to their success on the offensive end. But Gonzaga has always been a team better in the fast break than in the half-court. That IS NOT the characteristic of a good flex or triangle team. In fact, if anything, Gonzaga has seemed to be a team that wants to play in the fast break rather than in the half court. Heck, they almost look uncomfortable and lost when in the half-court game. That's another sign of a team that does not have a true identity on the offensive end.

So if the Zags don't have much of an identity on the offensive end, why have they been so effective? Simply because they have had great offensive players. Dan Dickau was an All-American player. As was Adam Morrison. Batista was very effective. As was Matt Bouldin and Derek Raivio. Few brought in guys with exceptional skills on the offensive end, and despite the lack of a scheme or identity, they were able to excel. This is actually common in college basketball. Georgia Tech has absolutely no identity on the offensive or defensive end. However, the talent is always so incredible that they are able to be better than average because talent will always win out in the end. That's really how basketball works. Scheme is important, but you need to have great players. There's a reason why the Lakers and Celtics played in the NBA Finals and why Duke won a title last year. They simply have the best players.

Furthermore, the offensive talent on Gonzaga's roster was always head and shoulders above whatever the WCC could produce. Would Morrison have dominated the conference now like he did during his tenure as a Zag? What about Dickau? I'm not so sure. Yes, Morrison had some incredible games against non-conference opponents, but I wonder how those guys would do going against players like Bell, Foster and McConnell rather than Manny Quezada and John Bryant.

As for the last point, the numbers show how bad defensively Few's teams have been. Now, if they had a "seven seconds or less" mentality where they were just trying to score as much as possible and maximize possessions, than I would say, "Okay, I can live with the terrible defensive performance on a year to year basis." But Few has never emphasized this kind of offense nor has even shown a semblance of it with his teams, and seems to want to play more half court than full court.

Here is some shocking facts: in Few's tenure, only four teams have ranked lower than 100th in the nation in points per game allowed. Six of his teams have ranked higher than 150th in points per game allowed. He's only had two players who's broken the three mark in defensive win shares (Corey Violette in 2001-2002 and Austin Daye in 2008-2009) and he's only had four years in his tenure where he had multiple players break the two defensive win shares mark (2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009).

The fact of the matter is Few's teams don't make any commitment to the defensive end. Even in the pre-Morrison era there wasn't much of a commitment to defense. The only times the teams ever played well defensively in Few's tenure were when he had great defensive players like Casey Calvary, Ronny Turiaf and Austin Daye (all players who had multiple two defensive win share seasons). Sans those players, his teams were terrible on the defensive end.

Even if you don't buy the whole "advanced stats" argument, you can't deny that his teams aren't good defensively in person. They don't communicate. They don't adjust. They always are outhustled and out-matched in terms of physicality. Yes, that can be partially talent (exhibit B: when they got manhandled at Spokane arena in 2009 by Memphis), but when McConnell and Foster go for 30-plus in consecutive weeks, then well...you have some problems in your defensive scheme. Again, much like there is no clear-cut offensive identity, the defense is even worse. Jim Boheim runs the 2-3 religiously. Rick Pitino is known for his full court press. Bob Knight was always a man to man guy. Few doesn't have that commitment or identity on the defensive end, and doesn't have his players "buy" into one scheme like a good coach would. They play all kinds of defensive schemes half-hearted. To use the restaurant analogy, on the defensive end, the Zags are Denny's (a million things on the menu done in a mediocre way), while a team like Syracuse is like Morton's (only a few things on the menu done exceptionally well).

What are the good things about Few? Like I said, I think he's a good recruiter, I think he's brought stability to the program and I think he's made the conference better by bringing in top-notch talent (which has forced the WCC to up their standards and commitments to basketball). However, as a game coach, especially on the defensive end, Few is questionable at best, and probably not in the discussion of Top-10 coaches in college basketball, maybe not even Top-20.

<!--Session data-->

Without a doubt, the biggest surprise during the first two games (other than Mathis Monninghoff) has to be David Stockton for the Zags. Thought of as just another walk-on in the Sorenson and P-Maag mode (e.g. great team guy, but not a guy who's going to do any serious damage on the court), Stockton has gotten off to a stellar start. Against Southern in 11 minutes, Stockton scored 7 points with three assists and a steal. Today against IUPUI in 11 minutes, Stockton scored 6 points on 3-of-5 shooting, and piled four rebounds and an assist (he could have had more if some of his players finished on their end).

Regardless of the expectations Zags fans had of Stockton this year, you have to admit this: those are pretty impressive stat lines, and even more impressive when you consider his main competition (Marquise Carter) hasn't been exactly lighting up either (2-of-8 shooting, four turnovers and four assists in the first two games; though he does have four steals).

So does Stockton have a realistic shot of competing with Carter and Meech for minutes at the point? Or is Stockton pretty much what we think: a nice story (he is J-Stock's son after all) that will probably be regulated to garbage minutes in blowouts.

Why Stockton Should Get More Playing Time.

• On the fast break, Stockton has looked great these first two games. He pushes the ball well, he has good court vision and he makes solid passes. Tonight, he could have had two or three more assists had his players finished on their end. In terms of point play, I think a true point guard has been the team's weakness the past five or so years. Jeremy Pargo was a tremendous athlete, but he did not have good court vision and often made dumb passes or settled for driving to the rim head down (which often resulted in missed shots and turnovers). As for Meech, while you could argue that Bouldin was the true point (and he really was last year), he often has a tendency to go through the same "Pargo-esque" tendencies (driving to the hoop head down, not looking to pass). Stockton seems to be a pass-first player, which would benefit this team which has many offensive weapons.
• Stockton doesn't seem to be too mistake prone. He is very composed and plays with a lot of confidence, which is pretty remarkable for a walk-on with no guarantee of playing time or even a roster spot. Like I said, nothing against Sorenson and P-Maag, but they weren't initiating the fast break like Stockton was these past two games. That's not so much a shot on those two, but rather a compliment to show how special Stockton is. He isn't looking to be an end of the bench guy who's looking to solely give high fives and pat butts as the team goes into timeouts. He wants to play and you could tell that he wants to prove he can make the rotation in the minutes he's been out there on the court so far this year.
• He's John Stockton's son. I mean, this is a guy who tutored Deron Williams and other Gonzaga point guards for years. You're telling me he's not teaching his son the same things?

Why Fans Shouldn't Expect Too Much Out of Stockton.

• Let's face it: Southern and IUPUI aren't very good. Gonzaga got off to huge leads, which allowed Few to play guys like Stockton and Hart and let them stick out for stretches of time. It's easy to play well when you have a twenty-plus lead, and you know there is backup behind you on the bench waiting to put the nail in the coffin if you can't do it. That being said, how would Stockton perform against better competition? How would he perform in a three point game rather than a 23 point game? While it's not fault of his own, Stockton hasn't proved to GU fans that he can play in big-time minutes and I'm not sure if you take that risk when every game counts as much as it does in College Basketball.
• Stockton is still small. He's 5'10, but ESPN lists him at 150 pounds. He looks a little bigger than that, but it's safe to say, he's giving up a lot to bigger, more athletic point guards. On the defensive end, Stockton hasn't been awesome, but he hasn't been awful either. It makes you wonder though if he can handle better points like Keion Bell when the Zags reach WCC play. My gut tells me Stockton just isn't physical enough to take on the better, more athletic point guards in College Basketball, and that isn't a good sign for more playing time.
• He's surprised guys, but what happens when players check on him, keep a little better tabs on him on the defensive end? (e.g. not let him drive and kick like he's been doing the past two games?) What happens when defenders put serious pressure on him? What happens when he goes against physical guard combos like the ones from LMU, Memphis or even San Diego State and Kansas State? Will he still be able to play out in the open? Or will Stockton find little ways to generate points? (Be it by his hand or helping other score?) Or will he go in the tank and get overwhelmed? On the fast break, Stockton has proved to be very dependable, especially when it comes to pushing the ball. But in the halfcourt? I don't know if he's ready, and I don't know if he'll be able to handle the better half court defenses the Zags will see from teams as the season progresses.

Overall, it's been a good start for Stockton. But what are some of your guys opinions? Is Stockton a sleeper? Or were these first two games a flash in the pan?

I am very excited by the addition of BYU to the WCC. It's a great basketball program that undoubtedly will boost the reputation of the WCC. In my opinion, with this deal, the WCC certainly belongs in the discussion of the best basketball conferences in the West, especially with the Pac-10 (soon-to-be Pac-12) coming off an atrocious season a year ago and not much hope on the horizon, even with the addition of Utah.

That being said, with the addition of BYU, that leaves the WCC with 9 teams. The most logical decision would be to add another team, mostly for the sake of having an even number of teams.

I believe Seattle should be the logical choice to join the WCC.

Now let's look at some pros and cons of Seattle U joining the WCC.

 Pros

• A team in Seattle would give the WCC a great imprint in the West Coast. Basically, every major city in the west coast (except Phoenix) would be represented, which I think would be great exposure for the WCC, and further close the gap between the Pac-10 and WCC.
• Seattle is a budding team. I saw on the BYU post that people said Seattle wasn't a good program. That's overstating it. Are they a great program? No. But they were the only independent to finish with a winning record (17-14), they had quality wins against Fresno State, Oregon State (whom they beat by 51 in Corvallis), Weber State (the regular-season Big Sky champs) and Utah (a tournament team two years ago). Also, they won 10 out of their last 13 games last season. I think the team was getting adjusted to the new coach and the fact that they were playing a full DI schedule for the first time. That being said, I think they could be ready this year, now that they have Dollar back and the first-year jitters out of their system.
• A Seattle-Gonzaga rivalry would be fun, just for the Eastern-Western Washington rivalry thing.
• They play at Key Arena, so the Zags would get two games minimum in an NBA-quality arena. (Just saying.)

Cons

• Apparently, GU's athletic department doesn't want their inclusion for fear of losing recruits in the Seattle Area (A BS excuse because Gonzaga has been starting to go more national and international for recruiting) as well as ceding some exposure (another BS excuse because Gonzaga has a huge following in Portland).
• And...well...I can't think of any other cons. I don't think Seattle would be any worse next year than Pepperdine.

So, those are some of my ideas? With BYU on-board, would you guys be gung-ho for Seattle to be included? Or should the WCC just stick to nine teams for the time being?

Let's just say we live in an alternate reality where Austin Daye did not declare for the 2009 NBA Draft. Let's say instead of getting minimal minutes with the floundering Detroit Pistons, he was back in Spokane playing for the Zags for his junior season.

And...let's also say, that Elias Harris still came to Gonzaga, despite Daye's presence.

So, with those two things being known in this "alternate" college basketball reality, I offer this question: who would you rather have at power forward: Daye or Harris?

I'll make the case for each guy.

The Case for Daye

• Daye is an incredibly more natural outside shooter than Harris. I know the stats may be a bit in the German's favor (Harris is shooting 45.5 percent from three point land, while Daye shot 42.9 percent his sophomore season) but Daye took more attempts (Daye had 84 last year, while Harris has only 22, and most likely will only double that number by the end of the year). Additionally, the best part of Daye's game was his perimeter shooting, while Harris is better utilized in the fast break where he can take it to the rim. What's even more staggering was that Daye was as tall as Josh Heytvelt, and he had a better shooting motion than Matt Bouldin. Seriously, Daye was a matchup nightmare for small power forwards or big men who liked to camp in the paint because of his shooting.
• Daye was a talented shot blocker. Defensively, Daye wasn't all that great. He was slow laterally, and could get banged down low by more physical forwards. That being said, I don't think GU has ever seen a shot blocker like Daye in a Bulldogs uniform. Not only could Daye block shots, but Daye was smart when he blocked shots. Remember how Heytvelt would block shots out of bounds and mean mug opponents? Well...not Daye. Daye would block shots and keep them in play, initiating the offense. That's the kind of stuff Bill Russell was known for, and not a lot of guys currently do now because it doesn't get you TV time. Watch Jarvis Vanardo from Mississippi State. He can block shots, but he's not as smart a shot blocker as Daye was at-times. Vanardo still falls in that "block shot out of bounds for cameras" pattern that plagues all good shot blockers. Furthermore, I'm not even counting Daye's sideline defense as well, which might be the most underrated aspect of his game. Until Daye, I never thought of getting the ball inbounds as a big play, and yet Daye always made things interesting. Granted, refs let him get away with some things (such as crossing the line), but I never saw a guy at the college or NBA level deflect as many inbounds plays as Daye did in his two years as a Zag.
• Versatility. Daye could play almost four positions. His ballhandling was passable for a two or three. His shooting was certainly good enough for a two or three. He could block shots like a center. And he was tall enough to play four or five. That's how versatile he was. Harris is athletic, but he doesn't have the ball-handling abilities to play two or even three. Harris looks uncomfortable when he puts the ball on the ground. As for Daye, he's not Pete Maravich, but he certainly looks capable when he's dribbling the ball.

The Case for Harris

• Toughness. Harris is one bad dude. This was a guy who elbowed a Wake Forest player clearly intentionally with the idea of taking McFarland's face off, and was totally unapologetic about it after the game. Just check out his quote in the Spokesman:

“I just stepped back and just normal underarm on his chest and went for the rebound. He just fell.”

• Seriously, that's all he said. He didn't say "sorry" he didn't apologize for being "unsportsmanlike." He just said "He just fell." I know I may get some critics, but that's the kind of stuff Zag basketball fans haven't seen since Adam Morrison and Zach Gourde. And that's a good thing. A lot of people wonder why this Bulldog team is tougher than years past. Harris is the answer to that question. Harris brings a no-frills, no prisoners attitude to this team. Now, I know some fans will say "What about Rob?" Well, Sacre is tough as well, but Rob plays to his environment. When in a loose environment like last year and the year before, he shows some toughness, but is more prone to the knucklehead antics of his teammates (e.g. Daye's complaining). But when you get a guy that is as serious as Harris (he has a scowl the whole game), it rubs off on Sacre and he becomes tough as well. If GU overachieves in the tournament this year, Harris will be the reason, not because of his skills, but because of the mean streak he brings to a team that has lacked that fire and intensity since Adam Morrison's last year at Gonzaga.
• Harris is explosive. Nobody gets to the rack harder than Harris. You can try to bump him and he'll still get airborne and throw it down. The amazing thing about Harris is that he actually seems to want contact. Daye was the polar opposite. He hated it. You bumped him, and not only was he retreating, he was looking to the refs for a bailout. Not Harris. Don't believe me? Check out this dunk in Germany from last year. The defender did everything he could to knock Harris away from the hoop and Harris still throws it down. If that's Daye, he's in the fourth row seats.
• Harris is a better rebounder. No question about it, Harris knows how to grab boards. Sure, Harris has the statistical advantage (7.5 to Daye's 6.8 last year), but Harris is much smarter and more fundamentally sound in comparison to Daye when grabbing rebounds. He understands position, and he's tenacious on misses both on the defensive and offensive end. Daye simply used his height and that was about it. Daye didn't really know how to box out, and consistently he was losing out on boards because he was too far underneath the hoop. Remember the Western Kentucky game? Daye boxes the guy out, there is no buzzer beater, and Gonzaga wins comfortably. I just don't see that happening with Harris if he's in that situation (though in a pressure moment like that, anybody could freeze, just ask Hakeem Olajuwon).

So who do I go with? I love Daye's shooting and shot blocking, but Harris is the better overall deal. He's explosive, he's more fundamentally sound, and he has the X-factor (toughness and a mean streak) that Daye sorely lacked. That X-factor alone in my mind just trumps any of the athletic gifts Daye brought to the table. That isn't to bash Daye. I do like Daye, and love his game (I think I pardoned his actions more often than most GU fans), but Harris gives you the better chance to win. Plain and simple.

I definitely would like to see who Zag nation would go with on this issue.

After watching the Portland-Gonzaga game, I came to two conclusions:

1.) The Zags love to make games interesting at the end.

2.) Matt Bouldin needs the ball in his hands at all times to be successful.

Point one can't really get answered. In the game of basketball, college basketball especially, games are always going to go to the wire, I would say 75 percent of the time.

As for point two, I would say the easy move would be to move Bouldin to point guard and bring somebody like Bol Kong or Manny Arop off the bench to start at small forward.

Now, I know this suggestion will be met with controversy, so I decided to look at the pros and cons of the move.

Pros

• For starters, the offense pretty much runs through Bouldin already. The Zags are trying to run a Don-Nelson-esque point forward system which has worked a lot in the pro game (mainly because so many point guards these days in the NBA are pretty much small shooting guards, no thanks to Allen Iverson). Bouldin is the main man in the offense, and thus, it isn't surprising why he leads the team in scoring and assists.
• That being said, if we run a point-forward offense now, then having Meech in the starting lineup gives the Zags two point guards, thus, making one guard pretty much useless. Since that useless guard is not Bouldin, Meech is regulated to being a player who has to be a spot-up shooter to make up for the shooting absence that occurs with Bouldin runs the playmaking duties. Since Meech isn't known for shooting, he is a bit of square peg in a round hole when the Zags are trying to run a half court offense.
• So, with Meech not much of a shooter (which is needed with Bouldin running the offense), there needs to be another guy to fill that role. A guy like Kong would satisfy that role perfectly mainly because a.) he's a better shooter than Meech. b.) he can matchup EXTREMELY well against small forwards (especially in the WCC) and c.) he can be depended on should Steven Gray go into a black hole, which he has a tendency to do from time to time (with Meech starting, if Gray goes into a black hole, the Zags are in trouble because Bouldin needs to run the offense, but unfortunately is putting into "scorer" duty, which is not his strength as a player).

Cons

• By taking Meech out, the defense could suffer greatly. Sure, Kong will be a great defensive matchup against small forwards, but there is no way Bouldin can guard point guards, and I'm skeptical Gray could as well. The only solution to hide Bouldin's inability to guard smaller, quicker guards (seriously, it would be like Hedo Turkoglu guarding Chris Paul if Bouldin was matched up against TJ Campbell last night) would be to play strictly a 2-3 zone for 40 minutes, but that would be a terrible decision mainly because a.) the WCC is notoriously known for three-point shooting, and the 2-3 doesn't combat that well and b.) with so many matchup nightmares that the Zags present, man-to-man defense would work to the Zags' advantage (as long as they stay out of foul trouble).
• The fast break could suffer a bit with Meech on the bench. Let's face it, nobody can push the ball on the teams as quickly Meech, and while Bouldin is an incredible passer, especially in the half court, I don't think he has the speed to do it like Meech. Granted, he's more polished than Meech (Meech can get out of control at times and jack a bad layup from time to time), but I think with Meech running the point, guys like Elias Harris are utilized more because they are so sound when the pace is sped up.

So those are the pros and cons. What should Mark Few do? I'm not totally sure. I think the prospect of Bouldin playing point, Kong starting at three, and Meech coming as a spark plug off the bench is intriguing, but with the Zags playing so well, I wouldn't want to mess up the chemistry they are building as well. Few's flip flop of the lineups last year with Gray and Micah Downs seemed to really hurt the Zags, and they seemed to never get a really consistent flow offensively all year in 2008-2009. I would hate to see thta happen again with a team so loaded with talent like this 2009-2010 team.

Was skimming through the SB nation blogs and found this on Bucs Dugout, the Pittsburgh Pirates' SB Nation blog. Here's what they said:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Giants are "thought to" be interested in Freddy Sanchez, and possibly also Adam LaRoche. Yay, passive voice! The Chronicle suggests that the Bucs might trade Freddy for another Sanchez, starting pitcher Jonathan. I do like Jonathan Sanchez, but he's 26 and still has big problems with walks, and anyway, the Pirates have any plenty of rotation options right now. Also, Sanchez hasn't yet posted a big-league ERA below 4.95 despite good strikeout numbers. I'd take him, but the Giants would have to include something else pretty nice. The Pirates should be listening to offers for Freddy, despite the fact that they really have no one to replace him, but a Sanchez-for-Sanchez swap doesn't do it for me.

Big news and with Downs being sent down, this leaves the Giants position player roster very thin and their bullpen very crowded. With inconsistency plaguing second base, Freddy Sanchez is an interesting idea, but the guy has been so hot and cold in his career I'm not sure how good he will be as the everyday second baseman. There has also been Adam LaRoche talks, but I think that would barely be an upgrade over Ishikawa or Bowker in Fresno, who should get a second chance before we go after somebody like LaRoche.

But speaking of Sanchez, do you think we should make the trade? He's looked great coming out of the bullpen, but you can just tell he hates pitching relief and he won't be happy unless he's a starter.

It's been interesting to see the Giants shuffle through Burriss, Frandsen, Downs and now Uribe at second base. Does anybody think Juan would be our best option at second base at this point. I know he's old, he makes a bonehead error every now and then (and not just on the field), but he's got a hot bat and he has experience on a winning team (as evidenced by him starting on the 2005 World Series Sox team).

Originally, I wanted a Uribe-Sandoval combo with Uribe at 3rd and Sandoval at first but Ishi's bat is starting to come around and Ishi's solid defensively. Furthermore, I want Sandoval to get settled at one position and 3rd seems to be it.

Until Burriss gets his bat together, Uribe in my mind is the best option at second. Downs is not ready for the major league level and Frandsen is just a question mark in my mind (injured, was terrible in his call-up earlier this year).