On to 2017?
- Thread starter urmite
- Start date
always working on future classes, local (Hampton VA) 2017 SG sharpshooter Marquis Godwin visited last weekend.
"Extremely thankful to receive my 7th offer from Coach Mooney and the Richmond Spiders! Loved my visit. #SpiderNation"
"Extremely thankful to receive my 7th offer from Coach Mooney and the Richmond Spiders! Loved my visit. #SpiderNation"
Here is a link to his twitter account. He posted a picture from UR.
https://twitter.com/marquisgodwin_
https://twitter.com/marquisgodwin_
We have four 6-3 to 6-5 Shooting guards in our next 2 classes, all of them very high acclaimed.
I'm glad this kid was impressed with his visit and he might very well be a great recruit, but he plays a position which we have already have a load of young talent.
I'm glad this kid was impressed with his visit and he might very well be a great recruit, but he plays a position which we have already have a load of young talent.
the 2017 class will have 4 guys replacing SDJ, Josh, Marshall and TJ.
assuming we finish the current class with 2 bigs like we should, the 2017 class should consist of 2 more bigs and a wing and a guard. Marquis would fit in fine. tough road to earn early time, but that's what we want at all spots. talented competition.
assuming we finish the current class with 2 bigs like we should, the 2017 class should consist of 2 more bigs and a wing and a guard. Marquis would fit in fine. tough road to earn early time, but that's what we want at all spots. talented competition.
What is the possibility of the staff looking at the 2016 class as replacing the upcoming Juniors in instead of Seniors because there are no Sophomores? If so than the 2017 class allows them more freedom in types of players to choose, doesn't it? As well as allowing them to keep an eye out for Transfers that fit.
For the past 4 years we have only had at most 4 available players who were 6'6 or taller. We haven't had more than 5 players who were 6'7 or taller in the last decade, maybe ever. We really don't need as many big guys as some of you think, we have never had that many.
We really only need ~2 players in the 6'8+ range and ~2 guys in the 6'5-6'7 range.
would agree with fan2011, with one notable exception, we have to have enough depth at the 4/5 spots, regardless of their height. we've been ok to play "smaller" at 4 in the past with someone like DWill (6'6") or even Jamal Scott (6'5"), but I think we probably would want at least 4 guys to cover those two spots.
Well, last year, we had 6 front court players (Paul, Marshall, Terry, TJ, ANO, Deion) on the roster out of our 13 scholarship players. We will have 5 active players on this year's roster and would have had 6 had ANO not transferred.
In 2 years, we will only have 1 player on the roster who is considered a front court player (Paul). Even if we get 2 big men this year, we will probably need another 2 in next year's class to ensure that we have the 4 front court players we have averaged over the past 4 seasons. And you need more than 4 on the roster, because you might have an injury, a redshirt, big man typically take longer to develop. And you need depth, not to mention quality depth and given the higher "miss rate" with taller players, I think Spiderman is right on the mark with 5-6 players who are front court players.
In 2 years, we will only have 1 player on the roster who is considered a front court player (Paul). Even if we get 2 big men this year, we will probably need another 2 in next year's class to ensure that we have the 4 front court players we have averaged over the past 4 seasons. And you need more than 4 on the roster, because you might have an injury, a redshirt, big man typically take longer to develop. And you need depth, not to mention quality depth and given the higher "miss rate" with taller players, I think Spiderman is right on the mark with 5-6 players who are front court players.
true, but 2 of the 6 guys listed for last year were redshirting. not saying we don't want that many, but i am saying we can survive without it.
i think 5 is a healthy number to cover the 4/5 spots. if you get an injury or real foul problems, then you have enough guys to pick up that slack. you can always pull in a smaller player at the 4 if you're really pressed to.
unfortunately, there aren't that many big and skilled guys out there, so sometimes you reach hoping the skill will come and sometimes you go smaller with someone who has the skill.
i think 5 is a healthy number to cover the 4/5 spots. if you get an injury or real foul problems, then you have enough guys to pick up that slack. you can always pull in a smaller player at the 4 if you're really pressed to.
unfortunately, there aren't that many big and skilled guys out there, so sometimes you reach hoping the skill will come and sometimes you go smaller with someone who has the skill.
fan2011, I doubt we've EVER had only two 6'8" guys on the roster. at minimum you have to have 3 guys that can play the middle. 2 that actually do and a reserve for injury, fouls, whatever like 97 said. so that's 3 bigs. and you need guys with size to play the 4. minimum 2 guys that can bang with other teams big 4s.
height aside, we have 6 guys coming in this year and next with the bulkiest being 185 lbs. all the weight work in the world isn't going to make any of these guys a post defender.
and beyond the need for size, having 9 guys 6'4" and under just causes an impossible situation for playing time. you're setting yourself up unnecessarily for a wave of transfers. doesn't make sense to set up a roster this way. and again, like 97 said ... big guys usually take a little longer to be ready to play. why would we force ourselves to find a big that has to play a ton on day one?
height aside, we have 6 guys coming in this year and next with the bulkiest being 185 lbs. all the weight work in the world isn't going to make any of these guys a post defender.
and beyond the need for size, having 9 guys 6'4" and under just causes an impossible situation for playing time. you're setting yourself up unnecessarily for a wave of transfers. doesn't make sense to set up a roster this way. and again, like 97 said ... big guys usually take a little longer to be ready to play. why would we force ourselves to find a big that has to play a ton on day one?
In 2013 the only players we had who were 6'8+ were two freshmen, TA and ANO. Our tallest returning players were 6'6 DWill, 6'5 Greg Robbins and 6'3 Darien Brothers.
Big Luke was returning off of redshirt and expected to play. and Derrick was the exception. yes, a post can be under 6'8" ... if he's 270. we don't have anyone like that now.
Yes we do. We NEED twelve 7 foot guys with Kendall Anthony's skill set...
Just trying to lighten the mood...
well, we can rationalize that we don't need tall but our last dance visit we had two starters 6'8" or above. maybe that says we do better with some size.
Everyone references Dayton's run last year with no guy taller than 6'6. The reason everyone references that run is because of how rare it is to have that good of a season with no big men. 2013 is a great reference point, we went in with only 3 legit front court players, D-Will gets kicked off the team, we lost six of our last 8, and didn't go to the postseason.
Rick Lewis@Coach_Rick57 5h5 hours ago
6'6 '17 NC Top 80 JP Moorman (Greensboro Day) will be on an unofficial visit to Richmond this coming weekend.
6'6 '17 NC Top 80 JP Moorman (Greensboro Day) will be on an unofficial visit to Richmond this coming weekend.
If you look under each of Schneider's ears, you will see the letters U and R. Omen?
Thanks WebSpinner from the University of Richmond for coming to workout today at Fallbrook @CoachTeeHicks @TexasHoopsGASO @TXboysbasketbal
8:15 PM - 29 Sep 2015
