Great video of Nathan Cayo
- Thread starter UR80sfan
- Start date
I see UR80's thread here and agree so much improvement in Cayo and also his thread on GG and Jacob having amassed such great stats through their first two years and wonder why the team only went 13-20? Mooney having 3 stars like this how can that be? It's called poor coaching.
they're developing and only sophomores. the recruiting in the classes above that left us with very little in the senior and junior classes was the problem. we were forced to start two freshmen a lot this year who while promising, shouldn't have been in that position. and depth wasn't there.
the roster issues look to me to be in the past. but I know some will disagree.
the roster issues look to me to be in the past. but I know some will disagree.
I agree for the short term.
However, there is still a part of me that worries that Mooney will fall into a recruiting lull again, based on the past 8 years of recruiting.
if we add Tate to Burton in the current class, that will be 4 straight good recruiting classes. let's see who we get.
Yes, that Verbinksus, Schneider, AJ Ford class of two years ago is tearing it up.
Do you mean the Gilyard, Cayo class?
Half empty, Half full...
Love to see a complete Glass...
yeah, I'm not suggesting we're hitting 100%.
Gilyard was a homerun. Cayo was a single that turned into a triple in year 2. and we added Francis to that group.
Ford and Schneider were misses. I won't write off Verbinskis yet.
97, you are on the record of saying you need 2 good players each class in order to get your 8 man rotation. I think s-man was saying we had a few classes in a row that met that criteria.
Golden/Sherod/Buckingham, then Gilyard/Cayo, then Wojcik/Gustavson/Kouressi. Hopefully Burton fits into this category as well.
Golden/Sherod/Buckingham, then Gilyard/Cayo, then Wojcik/Gustavson/Kouressi. Hopefully Burton fits into this category as well.
The Gilyard and Cayo class should get an A. I guess some people expect every recruit to be a starter. The math does not work that way for any school.
Not sure how much Tate would play the next 2 years anyway. Would rather get another big.
Actually, I’m the one who said that.
And yes, we are closer to being on target with our recruiting the last few years. We are still a year away from capitalizing on it I think. That presumes we solve our defensive issues.
But the personnel problem is improving drastically.
You can’t really use that math. Three misses in one year means you can’t really miss on guys in any other year.
60% miss rate means you have 5-6 capable players on a 13 man roster. That’s not gonna do it.
I give it an A because of the production we got from them as sophomores. I will take my chances with Jacob and Nick and the misses, and see what the next few years gives us. Not sure how you get 5-6 capable players. Why wouldn't 2 a year mean consistently 8?
If you only hit on 40% of recruits, that means you have 5.2 capable scholarship athletes (.4 x 13).
Your math presumes that we we will get 2 every year but not if it takes us 5 offers every year to get those 2.
You sound as if you think we shouldn’t give 20 scholarships at a time to get 8 players...
I’m just spitballing here...but why don’t we just offer 25?
Mental note: check with NCAA on this.
I hear you, but I am only focusing on the 2. Not saying what will happen if we hit 40%, or who we miss on. Others have said if you get 2 good ones a year, that is pretty good, and I agree with that. If they turn out to be Jacob and Nate, a pretty good class becomes real good.
I’m the one who has said you need two per class
But my theory is you have 3.25 scholarships per year to do that with, so youbhave to be averaging 60%. If it’s 5 scholarships you have to get at least 3 and maybe a fourth. That’s a good “class.” We can’t survive on a 40% hit rate, it’s really that simple.
I know you're focused on just the 2 guys in that class who are definitely quality players but you can’t look at it in a vacuum.
I see your math about the scholarships, but didn't 2 of they guys leave and open up 2 scholarships? So, that is better than going 2 out of 5 and having 3 guys never play. Using your math related to scholarships, by opening up the 2 scholarships, we could say we hit on 2 of 3. I do see your point, but I still give us an A for Jacob and Nate.
Maybe we should just not fill 5 ships that way we don’t have to count them as misses at all. Bizarre thinking, do u happen to work for Hardt?
Some of you guys are too easy on the recruiting grades. Maybe it’s because we got a bunch of D’s and F’s (not including transfers - yes TJ basically saved Mooney’s job) in the 3 prior seasons which only yielded Shawndre and Kwan vs. 8 guys who basically never played (Josh Jones, Tim Singleton, Kadeem Smithen, Paul Friendshuh, Chandler Diekvoss, Julius Johnson, Jesse Pistokache, and Kovien Dominaus).
I think the class of Sherod, Golden and Buck was originally an A- but has slipped to a B+ after Buck couldn’t cut it. I really like Golden and Sherod but I’m not as high as some here because neither has proven they can play solid defense yet.
We hit big with Gilyard. I give him an A+ by himself. I also really like Cayo and his improvement from Fr to So gives him a B with upside. But he still needs to improve his range and rebounding. The rest of that class appears to be a waste of scholarships. I would give the overall class a solid B for now with lots of upside. I can’t include a Francis yet because I haven’t seen him play. I give Mooney credit for bringing him in as a transfer as he seems to have great upside. I do worry about two small guards in the lineup together, considering defense and rebounding are where we struggle the most.
I’m still not sold on last year’s class. Overall it's provided some quality depth that we really needed. But there doesn't appear to be a star player in the group. Even though two players got a lot of time we still finished 13-20 against a terrible schedule. Koureissi seems to have the most upside but he played the least of the 4 for a bad team. He will need to get stronger if he is going to meet expectations. I'm still not sure Gustavson, Wojcik and Grace will ever be more than quality role players (which every class needs). Wojick was the most ready to play because of his shooting ability. But he might have the lowest ceiling due to athleticism. I like Gustavson but he has a long way to develop to be a high quality A10 starter. Right now I give them a B- but my confidence not as high as the other two classes. My grade will quickly drop if 1 of the 4 doesn’t develop into a starter for an NCAA tournament quality team by their Jr year.
There is no way we can say Burton and Tate (edit - just realized he committed to BU) would make another good class. Burton choose us over UMass, Northeastern, Iona, and Hartford (offer from URI?). Right now we are too thin and will probably waste 1-2 scholarships of late signees unless we can find someone who is not happy with a coaching change or comes from overseas. Much like the prior year's group I think we would have to see these guys successfully contribute to a winning team before we can consider them a good recruiting class.
I think the class of Sherod, Golden and Buck was originally an A- but has slipped to a B+ after Buck couldn’t cut it. I really like Golden and Sherod but I’m not as high as some here because neither has proven they can play solid defense yet.
We hit big with Gilyard. I give him an A+ by himself. I also really like Cayo and his improvement from Fr to So gives him a B with upside. But he still needs to improve his range and rebounding. The rest of that class appears to be a waste of scholarships. I would give the overall class a solid B for now with lots of upside. I can’t include a Francis yet because I haven’t seen him play. I give Mooney credit for bringing him in as a transfer as he seems to have great upside. I do worry about two small guards in the lineup together, considering defense and rebounding are where we struggle the most.
I’m still not sold on last year’s class. Overall it's provided some quality depth that we really needed. But there doesn't appear to be a star player in the group. Even though two players got a lot of time we still finished 13-20 against a terrible schedule. Koureissi seems to have the most upside but he played the least of the 4 for a bad team. He will need to get stronger if he is going to meet expectations. I'm still not sure Gustavson, Wojcik and Grace will ever be more than quality role players (which every class needs). Wojick was the most ready to play because of his shooting ability. But he might have the lowest ceiling due to athleticism. I like Gustavson but he has a long way to develop to be a high quality A10 starter. Right now I give them a B- but my confidence not as high as the other two classes. My grade will quickly drop if 1 of the 4 doesn’t develop into a starter for an NCAA tournament quality team by their Jr year.
There is no way we can say Burton and Tate (edit - just realized he committed to BU) would make another good class. Burton choose us over UMass, Northeastern, Iona, and Hartford (offer from URI?). Right now we are too thin and will probably waste 1-2 scholarships of late signees unless we can find someone who is not happy with a coaching change or comes from overseas. Much like the prior year's group I think we would have to see these guys successfully contribute to a winning team before we can consider them a good recruiting class.
Last edited:
Vol, completely agree. Just like all of the NBA, NFL draft grades, you really need to look at these in a 4-5 year scope, and look at team performance and contribution to winning. Ability to impact winning on the court is huge in grading if you ask me. For example, Kevin Smith was not hightly recruited out of high school. But this guy impacted winning from day one on the court. He would have been a "C" on initial rating, but an "A" by the time he left.
Our greatest player of the Mooney era, Kevin Anderson, only had interest from Georgia, Murray St, Marshall, Purple and us. At least we beat out Madison on that one.
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/44984/kevin-anderson
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/44984/kevin-anderson
The list of former Spiders standouts who weren’t heavily recruited includes guard Kevin Anderson (offers from Appalachian State, Wofford, UNC Greensboro), guard David Gonzalvez (originally signed with South Carolina Upstate, then a Division II school), center Dan Geriot (Siena, Vermont, UNC Wilmington, Toledo), and guard Kendall Anthony (South Alabama, Lipscomb, Wright State).
https://www.richmond.com/sports/ur-...cle_977dcddc-c056-5174-ac65-3af90393a452.html
Article in Times dispatch say Cayo completing changing his free throw style. Hopes to significantly improve shooting percentage. Says he had a high percent in high school.
Thanks 80s, good update and would love to see Nate be confident at the line. He gets there a ton.
At times we don’t think enough about free throws. An example is how much we
discuss our 3 pt. percentage in another thread.
How many games could we have won if we had been better at the free throw line
last year?
discuss our 3 pt. percentage in another thread.
How many games could we have won if we had been better at the free throw line
last year?
Actually not that many I think. We lost a lot of games that weren’t close.
But I agree that I’d love to see us improve our FT shooting. Seems like an easier opportunity for improvement than improving from 3.
You are correct in that we lost plenty that weren't close, but when you lose 20 games, you will also likely have a few that were. We lost our 1st game by 5 and went 6-16 at the line, we lost to VCU by 3 and went 8-19 from the line, lost to Duquesne by 6 and went 10-18. It is not just the misses costing 1 point, because sometimes a miss is a front end of a 1 and 1 and cost 2 points.
It really comes down to Grant and Nate. They took 166 and 156 FTs for a combined 322, while the rest of the team took a combined 230. If we can just get each of them to 70%, that would go a long toward making us a good FT shooting team.
Grant (65.7%) was 109-166.
Nate (57.7%) was 90-156.
Yes definitely true on some games and particularly true where we missed front ends. I generally don’t recall thinking too often “if we’d only shot better from the line” in games we lost last year. I definitely recall feeling that way three seasons ago though.
If both those guys get to 70% I’d be ecstatic. Grant’s form is fine, he just needs to not let it get in his head. Nate needs/needed some actual changes to his stroke so I’m glad he’s working on it.
I wonder if both those guys could be taught to shoot 80% from the line shooting "granny goose" style? I am seeing this trend come back a little bit. I think one of Rick Barry's kids was top 5 in the nation a few years ago. It seems to be particularly effective with big men. It would be worth a 3-4 day boot camp to try shooting about 1000 this way.
My second son was not a great FT shooter. He tried it in the driveway one day and proceeded to make 4 in a row. But he thought he would be mocked if he went with it in h.s. games and never really pursued. I saw a couple guys in NBA summer league doing it.
My second son was not a great FT shooter. He tried it in the driveway one day and proceeded to make 4 in a row. But he thought he would be mocked if he went with it in h.s. games and never really pursued. I saw a couple guys in NBA summer league doing it.
A million times "like". It drove me nuts that Trey Davis had the same form for 4 years. Kudos to Nate for putting in the effort to address it.
If he shot a high percentage in high school, what changed? Did he change his form when he got here for some reason? If not, I'm confused.
EL, many have questioned that in the past. We get guys that regress on FT shooting. I understand FG and 3 PT percentage, speed of the game etc. I guess we would blame it on weights, right Fezz, wink wink.
Similar threads
