Valid point but what if you don't like the 6 forwards on the roster right now? I hope the 2 redshirt freshman are ready to be starters because I've watched Tanner for 2 years and AP for one and I don't want either to be our starter this year.
2025 Portal Tracker
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
if the coaches don't like the 6 forwards on the roster right now, then they have a fixable problem. you tell a kid he isn't in our plans. he'll transfer out. then you find a forward you like.
as we haven't done that yet, I'm going to assume our coaches like the forwards we have. we don't see what the coaches see every day.
I think the point is we don't think the coaches see very well!
Yes, we have some guys that are terrible decisions makers and very very low effort on D.
Duane Thompson into the portal from Bona. We expressed interest in him coming out of high school but never offered. Other than a 16-point effort against Mason, he didn't do a ton for the Bonnies this year.
Believe the revolving door at Bona is down to just two returning guys and only four total on the roster for next year at the moment. Looking for that More with Woj impact.
Believe the revolving door at Bona is down to just two returning guys and only four total on the roster for next year at the moment. Looking for that More with Woj impact.
Yep, they have three frosh coming back and that's it at the moment...Pettis scored 23, Pachucki scored 10, and Price apparently redshirted.
For Bona, Bowen is coming back after a season-ending injury this year. Frosh Wedlow who scored 47 points is the only other returnee.
Of course, VCU is apparently only returning Fermin and Hill, though they're starting to fill in a couple of decent-looking transfers. Long way to go to fill out the roster though.
Well, they liked Tanner so much they anointed him our opening day starter and one of our most improved players. That was all fine and good until he laced them up and then was out of the starting line up after like 6 games or so. Tanner can't guard anyone at an A-10 level, so that is a huge problem.
I think if you gave the staff some truth serum they would love if the entire roster (except for Walz) transfers out. But they can't very well do that, unless they want to admit that they recruited an entire roster of not very good players.
This is what I saw too. And I am not sure if it is a lateral foot speed issue, or a want to issue. If a want to issue that is on the coaches. Could be a little of both. Again, have seen times when a wing/guard on D just gets totally blown by with no effort - and stays in the game. Other mistakes get you the bench and an earful. That is a culture/coach issue.
I don't care what your philosophy is, you can't be one that allows direct line drives to the hoop without repercussions / adjustments.
Last edited:
again ... if they wanted a forward to leave so they could replace one, someone would be hitting the portal. it's not hard at all these days.
and maybe they still will.
Maybe some would rather stay here and not play much than transfer down? Or, some are waiting to see who we bring in. If we don't bring in a forward, and are done with spots, then the returning guys will have to get some time. But, we should always try to improve our team, and I think that is exactly what we are trying to do at that spot in the portal. So, I could see Mooney having the lack of playing time conversation with GW3 and Soulis because they likely would have been non rotation guys again, but it is still depending on who we get as far as playing time for our forwards go.
Last edited:
I'm with spiderman on having 3 guys that are big enough to play the 5 in our system. Guys get hurt. Soulis got hurt. Beagle was out for a couple games. So was Walz. If we only have 2 dudes there, that's really, really thin. I think it is much more appetizing for a guy to come here knowing that both those guys are gone in one year. And frankly, if they can play D, they'll play in front of Beagle.
When is the last time we really needed 3 bigs? As in, would have been in big trouble without them all? If we had several spots, maybe, but it would be terrible roster management to use a final spot on a 3rd big, who if any good at all, likely sees Walz and Beagle here and has no desire to transfer to a place where playing time is uncertain. Sounds like you would rather have a big like Kwesi than a wing or guard who could get good minutes and be a factor every game?
We’d over sign? Which is fine but I thought u & sman were adamant we’d never do that. Even when it was a hs recruit in the Fall 7 or 8 months b4 end of season. Bc technically there was no spot even tho 100% guaranteed we’d have transfer. Now seems guys r saying bring in a guy & force out a returner within weeks.
I’m with 4700 on this one. We’re basically always fine with 2.
If we played 2 bigs at a time then ok. But we don’t. We don’t even O rebound with bigs. I don’t see point in a vet big for depth just to have 3. The ones we’d attract will be Kwesi types. Just go with smaller forward if u have to play someone at that spot.
I would like a young big because we have none in pipeline. That seems unlikely too unfortunately. If available that’s who I’d take. But not a lot of interest in a 3rd guy to have 3. I’d rather roll odds with a guy who can beat out our guards or wings.
VT you gotta help me out and stop bringing up Kwesi. I don’t even care about if it helps an argument, but I get such bad PTSD when I hear that name. Dude could sing, but man I want to forget about those times
Mods let’s just end this one. We’ve got the bloods and the crips on the same side here. I’m here for it. Also just bought a $21 beer so I’m not of sane mind
Hope it came with a souvenir cup. Even better, a souvenir sippy cup.
I would prefer 3, but more important is to have some younger and some older.
I’d take a wing, not sure about another guard if he’s smallish.
That’s not really the issue. This plan leaves us with no big the following year. That’s a huge problem and this system is pretty dependent on a quality center.
LOL. I hear u...but it's the perfect example for who I think we would land if we took a big in the portal right now. What decent big would come here unsure of his minutes because we have Walz and Beagle?
That's a wrap on Derin Saran's Stanford career. He appeared in 5 games, playing a total of 20 minutes and scoring 3 points before going down with some sort of lower-body injury. Irvine fan boards seem to want him back if he's healthy and interested.
This is more my point. In a perfect roster-building world, we don't have to worry about getting a productive wing because there's already 4 on the roster (a senior, a junior, and two redshirt freshmen), or a guard because there's already at least 6 on the roster (a senior, two(?) juniors, and 3 freshmen). We have two centers who both will be gone after next year. Soulis was the heir apparent but is now gone. We need a continuity plan there, in addition to depth. I'd prefer it to be a HS senior than a portal guy, actually.
I know you will say that there's no 6-10 HS senior that's worth taking at this point in the year, and that may very well be true.
But what I am trying to express is that I think better roster building is to have sufficient depth and continuity plan across all position groups.
You can just watch him and he plays really "stiff", like he isn't very flexible. I don't think it is so much an effort thing but rather his athletic limitations. Also, why I don't see this as a fixable issue moving forward. His body is his body. Maybe instead of strength training, we put him in some type of yoga/stretching regimen?
When Mooney claimed Tanner was ahead of Dji at this point, guess he was 100% focused on offense as usual. Dji could play defense, and actually impact the game with playmaking and rebounding too. Probably being too hard on Tanner, but if it is just inherent athleticism then probably better off transferring down a bit.
Lol, did Mooney really say that. Dji was an outstanding defender, cerebral, and incredibly athletically gifted player, kind of the opposite of Tanner. I do think Tanner probably has some better offensive attributes though. And yes, probably being too hard on Tanner here, he has some skills, but agreed they are probably better suited for a lower mid major conference.
It did take Dji until his senior year to put it all together though, partly due to injuries and partly due to Mooney giving him the short leash treatment.
why do you think we'd get a guy who could beat out our guards or wings, but we couldn't get a big who could compete for time with Walz or Beagle? are they that unbeatable? and why are you comparing some stud wing we could get vs a Kwesi type post player?
again, my 3rd big doesn't have to be a true center only. a 4/5 combo guy is ideal. a guy who can play both spots. heck, AP is our only 4 right now unless you include Beagle and excluding the unknown freshmen. what the heck did AP do to be locked into 40 mpg?
with 15 guys on the roster it's irrational to me to want a 7th wing or 7th guard and carry only 2 bigs.
See your point sman. The issue is we need wings and bigs. Unless we get another departure, and/or Graham and Mooney get demoted doesn't seem like it is going to happen. Did see us mentioned with a big guy earlier.
Yes, but seems like from reports still actively pursuing guards? Maybe both guards and forwards, no idea.
To answer your question....numbers. How many bigs are even in the portal right now? There are way more guards and wings in the portal than bigs. Guards dominate the portal every year, then wings, then bigs. You ask why would there be a better chance we find a guard/wing who can get good minutes? Not only are there more options available in the portal, but also because we can play 3 guards, so there are more minutes for guards. We can play 2 wings so there are minutes there too. But, we only play 1 big. We already have 2 experienced bigs who got good minutes last year. The minutes are not there for a 3rd big like they are for a guard or wing.
The really good bigs in the portal are power school bound. The others who can play more at a mid major level are gonna look for big minutes if they transfer. No one who is similar to Walz and Beagle from a talent standpoint are gonna risk their transfer to come compete for minutes and maybe beat them out, but maybe not. You are focused on the team and what player you want us to add, but not focusing enough on the player's interests and what is best for him. If I were a big, there is no way I would transfer here right now.
Also, you said why do we need guards and wings when we have so many? Well, 2 are walk ons, and 5 more are guys that have never played college ball, so that is 7 guys right there. There are still plenty of impact guards/wings available in the portal. Proven guys who can play and help us right away next year. That's who we need to add.
I wanted to keep Soulis because he was a young pipeline big. I don’t think we need a 3rd for depth which was impression I got. Usually we only play 2 5s. A 4 who can slide over is fine. But Mooney usually gets 5s only. I think 5s will be harder to get especially a good one with our situation. Walz might be our best player so idk if it’s an attractive situation to recruit a portal guy to beat him out. If we can great u think Moon can do it…I don’t. Plus Beagle while he struggled he can at least back up ok. We may have better chance at a hs big kind of how we got Soulis late.
Btw the 15 roster limit is in jeopardy.
The settlement hearing was yesterday, and the judge has asked them to try to make some tweaks before approving it. One issue was around potentially phasing in roster caps to limit the impact on having to cut current athletes. (Though that ship has nearly sailed already given those athletes are going into the portal now.)
Unclear to me how it could impact hoops numbers, but maybe walk-ons won't immediately count against the limit?
The judge also expressed concern over this being a 10-year agreement, meaning future athletes with no say in it will still be covered by it. Judge suggested a revolving door of 1-year agreements, but that seems like utter chaos.
Unclear to me how it could impact hoops numbers, but maybe walk-ons won't immediately count against the limit?
The judge also expressed concern over this being a 10-year agreement, meaning future athletes with no say in it will still be covered by it. Judge suggested a revolving door of 1-year agreements, but that seems like utter chaos.
Yes the judge approving settlement pushed back on it. Essentially said work out that part. Suggested grandfathering them in which I thought was likely w walk ins when I first heard about roster limits. However the ncaa and teams said they still want it. So who knows. & can they put genie back in the bottle? But usually judges win. Check out Mit Winter former W&M player now agent/lawyer he’s a good read. W&M may have been smart delaying opt in a year.
If walkons count toward your total number of allowable players, we can’t have walkons anymore if we are a serious basketball program. End of story.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
NCAA Tournament "at large" candidate University of Richmond Women
- Latest: Section 204and5