Bryce Schneider - 2017 Signee
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Great to hear! Also heard that Tomas can shoot the lights. As we found out last year, it's nice to have all the guys on the floor be able to shoot.
I think he has a good left handed shot because he's left handed Ulla.
From what I remember, most of the good things we heard about home come from tweets from his father, articles written by his brother, or comments from Ulla.
His surroundings look like he doesn't need a scholarship, just a financial advisor.
can you explain to me why you bumped this thread Saturday morning by quoting me from December 2016?
Bryce was redshirted with 2 others. we don't know what kind of player he is yet, or what he can become. maybe you'd like to share what you've seen from him lately that caused you to bump this?
I would assume it was bumped because he is one of our players and we don't know a lot about him. We have 5 guys who have played in a D-1 game on our roster, so lots of unknown with this second consequitive rebuilding year.
that doesn't explain why you quoted me from 12/2016, PA.
oh wait ... you're not PA.
I completely agree with your sentiment. I made a couple of posts after watching practice that were hopeful regarding Bryce Schneider's game.
Problem is that we will not see what he can do next year. It was clear to me (in practice) that Schneider and Ford were the last two on Mooney's player list last season. It would be mighty unusual if Schneider were able to rise up the depth chart that far in 1 redshirt off season.
Maybe we will get to see what he can do the following year when the Spiders have a new coach
I know it's been beaten to death, but it really is amazing that somehow we are going into next season less experienced than this season. Oy vey.
Not really. Going into last season, we returned guys who averaged about 34, 30, 22, and 21 minutes a game. Our 5th guy was Grant with about 7 min a game, and that was only in 9 games.
This season, we return guys who averaged about 36, 32, 31, 16, and 13, and all 5 played 32 games. So, we will have more experience coming into this season.
A lot of teams play 8 or 9 guys and lose 3 or 4 and only have 5 with experience returning. But, many of these teams also have freshman or others with little experience that will step in and give them that 8 or 9 man rotation again. No question the key for us will be how the new guys perform because we have some good talent returning. I am optimistic because I think with their size and shooting, they are a good fit and will do well. Time will tell.
We are going to be younger this year. Our roster is 1 senior, 1 junior, 3 sophomores and 7 freshmen. 2 upperclassmen and 10 underclassmen. That is ridiculously young. That is the product of years of bad recruiting and roster management.
Look at the successful A10 programs recently, what do they have in common? Upperclassmen led teams with lots of experience.
He said less experienced. We clearly have more experience coming into this year than last. I used minutes, but since you used class, last year we had 2 juniors and 2 soph. who got any key playing time the previous season. How is that less experienced than 1 senior, 1 junior, and 3 soph.?
Being young is a perfectly legitimate reason for a team performing poorly. We were the 8th youngest team in the country last year, and will be even younger this year. The top two teams in the A10 last year were the 36th and 30th oldest teams in the country. The year before last, the top two A10 teams were 35th and 39th oldest. Experience is essentially a necessity for high level success in the A10. No team anywhere near as young as we were last year and we will be next year has received a bid out of the A10.
Being young is not an excuse for poor performance, it is an explanation. But having a young team is inexcusable in itself since it puts the program in a situation where success is very unlikely. It demonstrates the repeated recruiting failures over the past 4+ years.
I think you’re cherry picking data a little bit, but in the interest of simplifying, last year we started a rs-Jr, 2 sophs, and 2 frosh.
This year we go 1 Jr, 2 sophs, and probably 2 frosh/rs-frosh. Same general makeup although we have lower bench experience.
The real takeaway is that we shouldn’t be equivalent or less experienced given what we trotted out last year.
Last edited:
I’d love for the staff to line that up as a reason for lower expectations going into next season, but find that unlikely.
Maybe we should sent them to Cancun for the summer so they can gain some beach experience.
The only young teams that perform are the ones loaded with "one and dones" like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. Most of the perennial NCAA teams recruit on a consistently high basis and build a multi-year pipeline of good (top 100 level) talent. We have put together two or perhaps three high-level classes in the entire CM era. But we have had long recruiting droughts between the good years, and many of our recruits were clearly not A10 or even D1 level talent.
We were very young this past year and will be even younger next year, so who is responsible for that?
We were very young this past year and will be even younger next year, so who is responsible for that?
Not cherry picking at all. Whether you use minutes like I did or class like you just did, this year's team will be more experienced than last year's team. If we start 2 freshman as you stated, and match last year's starters, than we would have JJ (Sr.) and Nate (soph.) off the bench, which is also the same as last year except they would each be a year older. So, we would not have lower bench experience in your example, we would have better bench experience since JJ and Cayo would each be a year older (sr. and soph. instead of jr. and fresh.).
No example you use can make last year's team more experienced than this year's team no matter how many times you try to say it.
Out of curiosity...what were the total career minutes on our court of last year’s roster on Nov 5th? And the same number for our current roster?
And am I right of 7 younger teams, Duke & Kentucky were 2 of them?
Last edited:
Last year: 4690 minutes
Khwan: 1838
Buck: 1042
JJ: 988
Nick: 754
Grant: 68
This year: 5880 minutes
Nick: 1762
JJ: 1498
Jacob:1166
Grant: 1049
Nate: 405
Can we please stop saying last year's team was more experienced than this year's? It is not even close.
For comparison, just Adams and Mobley alone provided over 6000 minutes of experience to Saint Bonaventure last year. EC and Terrell provided over 6200 minutes of experience to URI. The number of minutes we have returning this year may be ~25% more than what we had last year, but it is still incredibly small and will still be very close to last in D1. Top A10 teams regularly return over 2x as many minutes as we return next year.
Similar threads
