NERR@NERRHoopsRichmond has offered the Cushing Academy duo of 2019 Daman Tate & 2021 Bensley Joseph
Two Offers
- Thread starter spiderman
- Start date
NERR@NERRHoopsRichmond has offered the Cushing Academy duo of 2019 Daman Tate & 2021 Bensley Joseph
Daman Tate has offers from Canisius and Gardner Webb, two East Coast power houses. He is a 6'5" SF.
Based on recent history, particularly our inability to select A10 talent over 50% of the time, Daman sounds like a long shot or simply filler (Ulla probably has a different take.).
Not sure why we are so unsuccessful in our ability to draw better talent since there is still a ton of 2019 or 2020 talent available out there.
Have we no ability to select players who are more likely to succeed at the A10 level? Or is a problem with our inability to attract such players to our school? If the latter, what steps can we take to improve the situation, except to fire Mooney, (which seems to be growing into a consensus)?
Based on recent history, particularly our inability to select A10 talent over 50% of the time, Daman sounds like a long shot or simply filler (Ulla probably has a different take.).
Not sure why we are so unsuccessful in our ability to draw better talent since there is still a ton of 2019 or 2020 talent available out there.
Have we no ability to select players who are more likely to succeed at the A10 level? Or is a problem with our inability to attract such players to our school? If the latter, what steps can we take to improve the situation, except to fire Mooney, (which seems to be growing into a consensus)?
I have Spider friends outside of this board who are not as convinced as those who post here. In my circle of friends, there is still a substantial group of Spider Fans who want Mooney back next year.
Hard to imagine, I'm sure, but there is a different universe of fans who do not participate on this board and who do not want to fire Mooney. Additionally, if I had to bet, I'd give odds that Mooney will be back next year, regardless of whether we win another game, and despite the growing contrary "consensus" of this board.
Tate's coming on late. some here only get excited about an offer if the guy has offers already that we probably won't beat. https://newenglandrecruitingreport.com/in-the-news/stock-risers-tate-adding-offers
https://www.thehoophustle.com/news_article/show/989432
that one includes a video. take a look.
https://www.thehoophustle.com/news_article/show/989432
that one includes a video. take a look.
Find some new friends, I. Do these friends also believe in chem-trails, unicorns, and a flat earth?
Yes, lol, and they all agree that global warming is a product of the machinations of left-wing scientists.
Look, I'm just trying to add value to these discussions. While I do not agree with my friends who are still enamored with Mooney, I am, however, not willing to ignore reality merely to justify or support the feelings and desires of the majority on this board. Like it or not, Mooney will most likely be back next year. It seems to me that almost everyone is ignoring this likelihood in their notions and projections about the future of UR basketball.
Well, the problem is the great majority if us have lost steam picturing recruits in the Spiders uniform. That will change if we get a good coach. If Mooney is brought back it will be the death penalty of our basketball program.
yeah I know. it's been stated 45,000 times. but it doesn't need to take over every thread. that's not the point of a message board.
if you're determined to make sure Hardt and PQ see those thoughts 30 times a day, please email them 30 times a day. or just continue endlessly on a "fire Mooney" thread that puts the AWIII thread to shame.
as a sign of good faith, I promise not to clutter up any "fire Mooney" threads with any material not specifically focused on firing Mooney.
Thanks for the links. He has an offer from
Rhode Island as well where his brother is a freshman. Video does show athleticism as well as a decent shot.
how many 3s do we need. Don't get me wrong a great one would be excellent but a line up of 3s won't work in the A10
When it comes to Recruiting - I think you have to have a mix in terms of recruiting highly rated recruits and getting under-recruited guys who may fit your system. Recruiting ratings once your outside the top 100 are pretty hard to measure. I don't value much in 3 stars vs 2 stars, but value more who else is recruiting the kid. If 5 other A10 schools are recruiting the same kid, then chances are he is an A10 level recruit. Hard to imagine 5 head coaches and staff being all wrong on the same kid.
But I think Mooney and his staff are constantly looked for under-recruited kids. Kids who are recruited by schools and conferences below the A10 and UR. I am not sure if this is by design because they really value kids who fit their system more than anything, or is this because of the admission requirements they are running into, or simply all we can get right now because of our lack of success in recent years.
Truth is - following our back to back NCAA appearances - we had to capitalize on that and turn that into recruiting success, and we were unable to do so. Just look down the road and see what they did - they capitalized on it by getting Larrier who was a top 100 recruit and the rest of their recruits were just outside the top 100. I know - they have easier admissions, but point being - VCU was not getting top 100 players before their run, and after - they got one and were getting guys 100-150 who were being highly recruited within the A10 and even leagues above the A10. They capitalized on it - we did not.
But I think Mooney and his staff are constantly looked for under-recruited kids. Kids who are recruited by schools and conferences below the A10 and UR. I am not sure if this is by design because they really value kids who fit their system more than anything, or is this because of the admission requirements they are running into, or simply all we can get right now because of our lack of success in recent years.
Truth is - following our back to back NCAA appearances - we had to capitalize on that and turn that into recruiting success, and we were unable to do so. Just look down the road and see what they did - they capitalized on it by getting Larrier who was a top 100 recruit and the rest of their recruits were just outside the top 100. I know - they have easier admissions, but point being - VCU was not getting top 100 players before their run, and after - they got one and were getting guys 100-150 who were being highly recruited within the A10 and even leagues above the A10. They capitalized on it - we did not.
Yep. And now it is really hard to go out and recruit coming off 2 well below .500 years with everyone and their mom knowing that your coaching seat is on fire. Who wants to sign on to that experience? I guess we are about to find out.
We don't like guys who can dunk. Mooney prefers the soft lay-up.
we can't be an undersized, slow team and be 180th in 3 point shooting and win. I'll take a consistent 3 point shooters any day.
I have nothing bad to say about this prospect. He shows quickness with the ball and an air of confidence. Per usual, there isn't enough sample to assess much more than this.
One thing I have noted over my 3-years on this forum is the tendency for many fans to classify everyone who makes a couple of highlight jump shots as "good" or "great shooters." It seems that this tends to trick many posters into thinking that Mooney has repetitively recruited a bunch of above average shooters.
Evidence has proven that the above average shooter premise under Mooney is mostly not true. I would say that Darrien Brothers was the closest thing to a pure shooter, maybe Kendal Anthony as well. Gonzalvez, Shawndre Jones, Nick Sherod, (sometimes Anderson and Gilyard) are better than average shooters. Wojcik has potential, and Harper shot the ball effectively in his senior year.
This is not many true shooters for a 14-year coaching tenure. Again, not knocking this recruit, but from what little sample I see, his form and release are not consistent with a player who will become known as a great shooter.
One thing I have noted over my 3-years on this forum is the tendency for many fans to classify everyone who makes a couple of highlight jump shots as "good" or "great shooters." It seems that this tends to trick many posters into thinking that Mooney has repetitively recruited a bunch of above average shooters.
Evidence has proven that the above average shooter premise under Mooney is mostly not true. I would say that Darrien Brothers was the closest thing to a pure shooter, maybe Kendal Anthony as well. Gonzalvez, Shawndre Jones, Nick Sherod, (sometimes Anderson and Gilyard) are better than average shooters. Wojcik has potential, and Harper shot the ball effectively in his senior year.
This is not many true shooters for a 14-year coaching tenure. Again, not knocking this recruit, but from what little sample I see, his form and release are not consistent with a player who will become known as a great shooter.
I like the looks of him. Ideal situation would be to get him, get new coach, and they convince brother Dana to transfer to UR. Win, win, win. Winners win.
He does look similar to me to Tyler Burton, but I would take both. We did pretty well when we had Martel battling with K Smith and Butler no?
He does look similar to me to Tyler Burton, but I would take both. We did pretty well when we had Martel battling with K Smith and Butler no?
Teams do not focus on having a 1,2,3,4 and 5 anymore. But, if you are talking about "3s" as what used to be "small forwards", the more the better. When teams did worry about positions, the "3s" were usually the best athletes on the team, and the ones who could do a little of everything: handle, shoot, rebound, score inside and outside, and guard multiple positions. So, why wouldn't you want.a lot of "3s" on your team? Especially if you already had a PG like Jacob and a big like Grant?
I think there’s some fallacy in this. Teams still clearly have a go to 1. Most teams have a “big”’who plays more of a low block role. Of course there’s more perimeter play and you want to recruit that. We haven’t really done much of a job getting a slew of interchangeable SF types though to fill 2-4 on the floor.
yeah and either of those go down what have you got? We don't have enough inside size. And alot of 3s that don't shoot well consistently.
Yes, of course every team better have a PG. My point was the days of starting a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C are long gone.
I don't disagree with that, but I will still take as many good "3s" as possible. It is a position where 3 of them can play at the same time.
True, those days are gone.
We opt for PG, 2nd PG, NGSG (not great shooting guard), undersized SF or F and C.
The formula is working.
How many good 3s have we had in the last 8 years? I’m actually struggling to figure out who fits the model we’re supposedly aiming for.
I was simply responding to the comment asking how many 3s do we need. I certainly would not, not recruit a player I thought could help us because I felt we had too many "3s". Would you?
I see both sides of this one. I do think the Martel-Smitty-Butler model gives you a lot of flexibility. Bringing Tate in along with Burton would be fine with me.
I do disagree to a certain extent with position less basketball. It certainly works for Golden State, but they ALWAYS have a big banger at the 5 - so not position less. When I coached travel ball I would mess around with big and small lineups, but it always seemed to work best when I had guys that were skill and size appropriate for the five positions. Heck, look at our last 2 NCAA teams, those were all position guys - KA at 1 , Gonzo/Brothers 2, Smitty 3, harp 4 geriot.
I do disagree to a certain extent with position less basketball. It certainly works for Golden State, but they ALWAYS have a big banger at the 5 - so not position less. When I coached travel ball I would mess around with big and small lineups, but it always seemed to work best when I had guys that were skill and size appropriate for the five positions. Heck, look at our last 2 NCAA teams, those were all position guys - KA at 1 , Gonzo/Brothers 2, Smitty 3, harp 4 geriot.
I hear you, and I think what it really comes down to is very few teams go with both a power forward and a center anymore. We used to always see this in lineups because you had to start a few bigs to counter the opponents multiple bigs. Or, if you do, at least one of them is a good shooter from outside. No question our defense would be better with a little more size and quickness, but we also need to have as many shooters out there as possible.
Most teams now might only have one true big on the floor, and some won't even have any at times. With the 3-point shot, the game has changed dramatically. Just look at the stats in the number of threes teams make and attempt now vs. even as recent as 5 years ago.
The difference is Duke, UNC, VA, Gonzaga have 6'9+ players who can shoot, defend and rebound. Our 3s are smaller and we don't have enough back up for inside. ( for football, It's like London not recruiting linemen and going for athletes only.) We need enough bigs to deal with the pounding inside game and not panic about them getting in foul trouble.
Similar threads
