3 point shooting

Oct 19, 2015
223
221
43
Below are the number of three pointers made last season by each of our five likely starters for this season.

2
25
57
16
0

So a total of 100. Last year our five starters shot 23 + 0 + 57 + 16 + 94 for a total of 190.

We were not a good 3 point shooting team last year, and we need to find an additional 90 (more if you count whoever started before Gustavson) just to match what we did last year.

Given the importance of 3 point shooting in today's game, this seems very problematic to me. How are we going to either solve or overcome this?
 

urmite

Spider's Club
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
10,208
3,283
113
Below are the number of three pointers made last season by each of our five likely starters for this season.

2
25
57
16
0

So a total of 100. Last year our five starters shot 23 + 0 + 57 + 16 + 94 for a total of 190.

We were not a good 3 point shooting team last year, and we need to find an additional 90 (more if you count whoever started before Gustavson) just to match what we did last year.

Given the importance of 3 point shooting in today's game, this seems very problematic to me. How are we going to either solve or overcome this?
The first mostly likely adjustment is - this year's zero is much less likely to stay zero than last year's zero...

Who were our next 3 last year? and who will be the next 3 this year?
 
Last edited:

gospidersgo

Team Manager
Dec 21, 2015
1,658
1,934
113
Given the importance of 3 point shooting in today's game, this seems very problematic to me. How are we going to either solve or overcome this?

Two of our most used subs will certainly be Roche and Bigelow, and I would not be shocked to see them combine for the 90 threes you reference.

Also pretty sure our pgs will average at least a 3 per game between them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Oct 19, 2015
223
221
43
Two of our most used subs will certainly be Roche and Bigelow, and I would not be shocked to see them combine for the 90 threes you reference.

Also pretty sure our pgs will average at least a 3 per game between them.

According to O'Connor, Bailey (0) and Bigelow (40) are our two main options off the bench. Sherod alone had 56 last year.
Scrimmage highlights

It would be one thing if Roche(110) was our first or even second sub off the bench, but if he is neither of those I'm really concerned about our 3 point shooting this year.
 

urmite

Spider's Club
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
10,208
3,283
113
According to O'Connor, Bailey (0) and Bigelow (40) are our two main options off the bench. Sherod alone had 56 last year.
Scrimmage highlights

It would be one thing if Roche(110) was our first or even second sub off the bench, but if he is neither of those I'm really concerned about our 3 point shooting this year.
Are you concerned that Nelson will have the same number of 3's as Cayo? They both had the same number last season...
 
Oct 19, 2015
223
221
43
Are you concerned that Nelson will have the same number of 3's as Cayo? They both had the same number last season...
Of course not. I'm talking about TEAM 3 point shooting. Gustavson is 28.6% for his career. Matt Grace is 31% Quinn rarely attempts, but is 28.6% for his career. Nelson is unknown, but I don't recall him being touted as a 3 point shooter when we recruited him. Burton is our best at 35.1%. Those numbers don't inspire confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

Eight Legger

Spider's Club
May 27, 2003
18,241
14,456
113
I'd say Nelson is good for at least one three a game. I'll be surprised if Roche has only half as many as he had last year, but even if he does, we've basically made up the 90 you referenced just with the two if them alone, without accounting for Bailey or Bigelow. Not really concerned about it.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
Goose and Tyler = Goose and Tyler. We can hope they both shoot better from 3, but no guarantees there, so it makes sense to call that a push.

Grace/Quinn should be better from 3 than Nate/Grant. Grant was 4 for his last 37, and Nate was 0-0, so I feel confident these 2 will give us better production this year. I expect both to shoot the 3, and make enough to be factors.

Nelson or Dji will likely be a significant drop from Jacob, but if they can make enough to close the gap here a little, that will be huge.

So, looking at starters, advantage last year because of Jacob, but, our likely bench of Roche, Bigelow, and Crabtree should be better from 3 than last year's bench. Crabtree = Crabtree, so, when comparing Nick and Wilson to Roche and Bigelow, I give a nice advantage to this year's guys.

Add it all up, and I expect us to shoot more 3s, make more 3s, and have a better % from 3 than last year.
 
Oct 19, 2015
223
221
43
I'd say Nelson is good for at least one three a game. I'll be surprised if Roche has only half as many as he had last year, but even if he does, we've basically made up the 90 you referenced just with the two if them alone, without accounting for Bailey or Bigelow. Not really concerned about it.

But Roche wouldn't be bridging the gap in the 90 for starters since he is apparently not even in our top 7. I could easily seeing him getting less half of his 36.2 minutes (we don't even know for certain he is #8 for us), and therefore less than half of his 3 pointers made, which means he won't even replace Sherod's 3 point baskets.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
According to O'Connor, Bailey (0) and Bigelow (40) are our two main options off the bench. Sherod alone had 56 last year.
Scrimmage highlights

It would be one thing if Roche(110) was our first or even second sub off the bench, but if he is neither of those I'm really concerned about our 3 point shooting this year.
I would say if our 3 point shooting is bad and inconsistent, Roche will likely be given an opportunity for a lot more playing time. So, I don't see a combination of poor 3 point shooting and Roche not playing much. Now, if we have poor 3 point shooting including Roche, yes, we might be in trouble.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
But Roche wouldn't be bridging the gap in the 90 for starters since he is apparently not even in our top 7. I could easily seeing him getting less half of his 36.2 minutes (we don't even know for certain he is #8 for us), and therefore less than half of his 3 pointers made, which means he won't even replace Sherod's 3 point baskets.
I wouldn't read too much into the top 7 stuff from one scrimmage. And, it wouldn't surprise me if our 8th guy (3rd guy off the bench), whoever that might be and it could certainly change, ended up with more minutes than the 6th and 7th guys several games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger

Eight Legger

Spider's Club
May 27, 2003
18,241
14,456
113
Yeah, considering that no one even knows who actually won the game, I'm not going to place a lot of emphasis on that game. Roche made 110 threes in a league that was statistically one spot behind ours last year. I doubt he's going to be wasting away on the bench this year for us.
 

POMSpidur

Rookie
May 26, 2022
187
81
28
Quite a turn from the “Could this be the best 3pt shooting team in school history?” thread…
Defense is going to be this teams calling card. We’re going to be longer and more athletic than in the past with Dji, Bigelow, and Randolph off the bench. Shooting will be down but if we can hold teams to 50s & 60s, we’ll have a chance.
 

SpiderDad75

Star
Gold Member
May 12, 2020
1,101
2,630
113
Quite a turn from the “Could this be the best 3pt shooting team in school history?” thread…
Defense is going to be this teams calling card. We’re going to be longer and more athletic than in the past with Dji, Bigelow, and Randolph off the bench. Shooting will be down but if we can hold teams to 50s & 60s, we’ll have a chance.
🎯
 

SpiderDad75

Star
Gold Member
May 12, 2020
1,101
2,630
113
Yeah, considering that no one even knows who actually won the game, I'm not going to place a lot of emphasis on that game. Roche made 110 threes in a league that was statistically one spot behind ours last year. I doubt he's going to be wasting away on the bench this year for us.
We won and I’ll take the word of coaches and players before JOC and even Bob. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Roche is going to play but what IF he isn’t beating those others out in practice? A lot on here always say best players play. That to me means more than just shooting a three, and I'm not saying he can't do other things. I'm saying what if other players are doing the other things better.
 
Last edited:

spiderman

Spider's Club
Jun 7, 2001
16,928
6,214
113
we weren't good shooting 3's last year, and to read our board we were also bad defensively. still won a lot of games.

I don't think we'll shoot the lights out this season but I'd like to think we improve on defense. maybe fewer steals, but overall I think we can be better.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,776
4,519
113
Quite a turn from the “Could this be the best 3pt shooting team in school history?” thread…
Defense is going to be this teams calling card. We’re going to be longer and more athletic than in the past with Dji, Bigelow, and Randolph off the bench. Shooting will be down but if we can hold teams to 50s & 60s, we’ll have a chance.

A thread started by 1 poster who is wildly optimistic and that nobody else agreed with...wow what an amazing turn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
We won and I’ll take the word of coaches and players before JOC and even Bob. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Roche is going to play but what IF he isn’t beating those others out in practice? A lot on here always say best players play. That to me means more than just shooting a three, and I'm not saying he can't do other things. I'm saying what if other players are doing the other things better.
Then he still plays. I think the only way he doesn't play much is if he can only shoot 3s and does not make a good percentage. But, I don't see him being a bad shooter this year. I would expect some other players to do some other things better than him. If he were better at shooting 3s and better at all the other things too, then he needs to be at a high major waiting to be a 1st round NBA pick. I would think we got him for his shooting, especially after our bad percentage from 3 last year, so I expect him to see the floor a lot because of his shooting.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,776
4,519
113
We won and I’ll take the word of coaches and players before JOC and even Bob. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Roche is going to play but what IF he isn’t beating those others out in practice? A lot on here always say best players play. That to me means more than just shooting a three, and I'm not saying he can't do other things. I'm saying what if other players are doing the other things better.

Never been an election fraud guy but man if we can't count to the 50s we may be in trouble. JOC and Philly Bob have made mistakes and been wrong before so there's that, but they'd still have more credibility than the "message board guy", which pains me to say as a message board guy. Regardless if we won 56-55 or lost 57-55 it does not matter.
 

Spider B

Team Manager
Oct 11, 2013
2,597
2,964
113
Richmond, VA
Quite a turn from the “Could this be the best 3pt shooting team in school history?” thread…
Defense is going to be this teams calling card. We’re going to be longer and more athletic than in the past with Dji, Bigelow, and Randolph off the bench. Shooting will be down but if we can hold teams to 50s & 60s, we’ll have a chance.
Counting on a CM coached team to rely on defense to win is very concerning.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
we weren't good shooting 3's last year, and to read our board we were also bad defensively. still won a lot of games.

I don't think we'll shoot the lights out this season but I'd like to think we improve on defense. maybe fewer steals, but overall I think we can be better.
I hope we can improve in both, but if I had my pick, I would say improve our 3 point shooting. We still had a top 100 offenses and defense last year, but our 3 point shooting was 239th at 32.9%, and cost us in plenty of games. By comparison, in 2020 we were 45th at 36.2%. I really don't think it is hard to figure out. We shoot 3s better this year, we go better than 10-8 IC.
 

spiderman

Spider's Club
Jun 7, 2001
16,928
6,214
113
we're going to need a lot of overtime to get everyone the playing time we're projecting.

we've seen Nelson will play 30 mpg projections.
Dji got 28 minutes in a preseason game ... some of that at the 2.
but Goose is playing 30 mpg at the 2.
Roche will play ... I guess at the 3 since minutes at the 2 are mostly gone?
but Burton's playing 35 at the 3. maybe move some of that to the 4?
but Grace is playing 20 at the 4 plus backing up the 5. and Bigelow will play the backup 4.
wait ... what about Crabtree?
and Noyes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
Never been an election fraud guy but man if we can't count to the 50s we may be in trouble. JOC and Philly Bob have made mistakes and been wrong before so there's that, but they'd still have more credibility than the "message board guy", which pains me to say as a message board guy. Regardless if we won 56-55 or lost 57-55 it does not matter.
They played 4 quarters. Maybe it was 8 minute quarters. But, bottom line is it was a scrimmage. You work on things. If you did something wrong, maybe you back to it a couple times and get it right, when in a regular season game you don't do it that way. The points being in the 50s does not mean anything to me, both offensively or defensively. The score being close is not a tell all, but does mean something because you certainly don't want to get blown out in a scrimmage.
 
Oct 19, 2015
223
221
43
Yeah, considering that no one even knows who actually won the game, I'm not going to place a lot of emphasis on that game. Roche made 110 threes in a league that was statistically one spot behind ours last year. I doubt he's going to be wasting away on the bench this year for us.
I read that portion of the article not as a summary of the exhibition game, but what we can expect early in the season. "The Spiders will not decrease much in height when going to the bench. Coming in early will be 6-7 Isaiah Bigelow, a transfer from Wofford with two seasons of eligibility, and 6-5 junior Dji Bailey"

I was high on this team in part because I though Roche would be a major factor. Having Roche as the top outside threat, followed by Burton seems a lot better than Burton as the only outside threat. We can hide Gustavson on offense with the triple-headed offensive monster of Burton-Roche-Quinn, but can we if it is just Burton-Quinn? (and we still don't know exactly what we have with Quinn).

And now we've got people talking about our defense being the strong point. It wasn't long ago we were talking about defensive problems with both Grace and Quinn in the game.

It will be interesting to see what this team's identity is, but I'm beginning to understand/agree with the prognostications that have us 6/7 in the league.
 

SFspidur

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 5, 2003
15,816
10,310
113
we're going to need a lot of overtime to get everyone the playing time we're projecting.

we've seen Nelson will play 30 mpg projections.
Dji got 28 minutes in a preseason game ... some of that at the 2.
but Goose is playing 30 mpg at the 2.
Roche will play ... I guess at the 3 since minutes at the 2 are mostly gone?
but Burton's playing 35 at the 3. maybe move some of that to the 4?
but Grace is playing 20 at the 4 plus backing up the 5. and Bigelow will play the backup 4.
wait ... what about Crabtree?
and Noyes?
Think we're employing this strategy...

1000_F_446862684_D3QbSwPBmUFxeQlqaqqg3mNuFHY8Z6jS.jpg
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
we're going to need a lot of overtime to get everyone the playing time we're projecting.

we've seen Nelson will play 30 mpg projections.
Dji got 28 minutes in a preseason game ... some of that at the 2.
but Goose is playing 30 mpg at the 2.
Roche will play ... I guess at the 3 since minutes at the 2 are mostly gone?
but Burton's playing 35 at the 3. maybe move some of that to the 4?
but Grace is playing 20 at the 4 plus backing up the 5. and Bigelow will play the backup 4.
wait ... what about Crabtree?
and Noyes?
I will be shocked if Nelson and Dji get close to 58 combined minutes. And, with 200 minutes out there, I don't think it's as difficult as you might think to find these guys minutes, especially if Tyler will be the only one above 30.

Here is how I look at the minutes. I separate PG and big because we know we will get 40+ from each of those:

Nelson/Dji 45 (I have changed this from 40 because SDad seems confident they will be on the floor together some.

Quinn/Grace 50 ( 40 at the big and 10 minutes together).

Tyler 36

I think we can expect this most games. That puts us at 131. I think the other minutes will vary game by game with Goose averaging the most.

Goose 26
Bigelow 20
Roche 18
Crabtree/Noyes any others 5
 
Last edited:

spider23

Spider's Club
May 31, 2002
14,106
7,703
113
Dedmon Center USA
ruhoops.proboards.com
Yes, this will be a big challenge for Mooney. I have always called out big holes in the roster in past years, lack of depth, etc.

This season, I do think - barring major injuries - we have a lot of solid depth - so there will be guys that don't play as much as they hoped and some of us guesstimated.

It seems like on the scrimmage feedback, so far the guys that may start out seeing less minute than thought could be Crabtree and Roche, and I guess Noyes - if you were thinking he would get minutes. Obviously this is a lot of conjecture but reading the tea leaves seems plausible. From what I have seen from Crabtree this past season, I think he is a mentally strong and mature player that can play no minutes one game, and be ready to step in and play 15 at a high level the next. Hopefully everyone has the same mentality.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,776
4,519
113
They played 4 quarters. Maybe it was 8 minute quarters. But, bottom line is it was a scrimmage. You work on things. If you did something wrong, maybe you back to it a couple times and get it right, when in a regular season game you don't do it that way. The points being in the 50s does not mean anything to me, both offensively or defensively. The score being close is not a tell all, but does mean something because you certainly don't want to get blown out in a scrimmage.

My post was in reference to the discrepancy in who won. like I don't know how people, whomever is wrong, gets that wrong. It had nothing to do with the game. I had already said a game in the 50s sounds ugly offensively but u r right we don't know how things were handled in this "secret" scrimmage. We supposedly lost last year's scrimmages and ended up in NCAA so I don't read much into these scrimmages. Tho we did struggle big time early last year so maybe those scrimmages did tell us something.

I will say if we are going to bus all the way down to Blacksburg I have no idea why we'd play 8 minute quarters. If anything u should play longer games not shorter.
 

spiderman

Spider's Club
Jun 7, 2001
16,928
6,214
113
My post was in reference to the discrepancy in who won. like I don't know how people, whomever is wrong, gets that wrong. It had nothing to do with the game. I had already said a game in the 50s sounds ugly offensively but u r right we don't know how things were handled in this "secret" scrimmage. We supposedly lost last year's scrimmages and ended up in NCAA so I don't read much into these scrimmages. Tho we did struggle big time early last year so maybe those scrimmages did tell us something.

I will say if we are going to bus all the way down to Blacksburg I have no idea why we'd play 8 minute quarters. If anything u should play longer games not shorter.
some teams play 3 halves in closed door scrimmages. the first 2 like a regular game. the 3rd to get deep bench guys some extra minutes. I've never hear a college team playing four 8 minute quarters.

as for the score ... maybe they cleared the score every quarter for fresh 0-0 starts. someone just did the math wrong.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
Yes, this will be a big challenge for Mooney. I have always called out big holes in the roster in past years, lack of depth, etc.

This season, I do think - barring major injuries - we have a lot of solid depth - so there will be guys that don't play as much as they hoped and some of us guesstimated.

It seems like on the scrimmage feedback, so far the guys that may start out seeing less minute than thought could be Crabtree and Roche, and I guess Noyes - if you were thinking he would get minutes. Obviously this is a lot of conjecture but reading the tea leaves seems plausible. From what I have seen from Crabtree this past season, I think he is a mentally strong and mature player that can play no minutes one game, and be ready to step in and play 15 at a high level the next. Hopefully everyone has the same mentality.
I agree 100% about Crabtree. He probably won't be in the first couple off the bench, so nights where we are solid from the start and get good production from the first few bench guys, he might not see the floor more than a couple minutes. But, there will be nights when some guys aren't on, and I could definitely see him coming in, providing a spark, and giving us a solid 12-15 minutes.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,776
4,519
113
some teams play 3 halves in closed door scrimmages. the first 2 like a regular game. the 3rd to get deep bench guys some extra minutes. I've never hear a college team playing four 8 minute quarters.

I agree, that is how they should handle, plus add in some situational end of game scenarios imo but who knows.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
My post was in reference to the discrepancy in who won. like I don't know how people, whomever is wrong, gets that wrong. It had nothing to do with the game. I had already said a game in the 50s sounds ugly offensively but u r right we don't know how things were handled in this "secret" scrimmage. We supposedly lost last year's scrimmages and ended up in NCAA so I don't read much into these scrimmages. Tho we did struggle big time early last year so maybe those scrimmages did tell us something.

I will say if we are going to bus all the way down to Blacksburg I have no idea why we'd play 8 minute quarters. If anything u should play longer games not shorter.
Since there is a question who won, this tells me they worked on different things throughout the game and did not treat this as a win/lose game. We could have been extra focused on running our offense, so maybe we ran more clock and passed up some shots we might take in a regular game. Just another reason why the score and who won is irrelevant to me.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,736
2,129
113
some teams play 3 halves in closed door scrimmages. the first 2 like a regular game. the 3rd to get deep bench guys some extra minutes. I've never hear a college team playing four 8 minute quarters.

as for the score ... maybe they cleared the score every quarter for fresh 0-0 starts. someone just did the math wrong.
I just mentioned the 8 minute quarters thing because I read they played 4 quarters, and maybe they had reasons to not play 40 minutes. But, irrelevant and I was just throwing a maybe out there. Makes sense to reset to 0-0 each quarter. This would give you a better idea of how lineups are doing.
 

SpiderDad75

Star
Gold Member
May 12, 2020
1,101
2,630
113
They played 4 quarters. Maybe it was 8 minute quarters. But, bottom line is it was a scrimmage. You work on things. If you did something wrong, maybe you back to it a couple times and get it right, when in a regular season game you don't do it that way. The points being in the 50s does not mean anything to me, both offensively or defensively. The score being close is not a tell all, but does mean something because you certainly don't want to get blown out in a scrimmage.
They had a 5th Quarter just fyi...
 

SpiderDad75

Star
Gold Member
May 12, 2020
1,101
2,630
113
agreed, but I do think coach is high on both. I think they man all 40 at the point, plus play together a little.
True...but we played one scrimmage game and some are acting like everything is set in stone. With that said I personally think it will be Dji and Zay off first and I don't think I or anyone said Jaynel and Dji would get 58 min but VT based his comment off the total min. in 1st scrimmage. I have not idea if they reset between the quarters or not. These scrimmages give the staff an idea of what guys are able to do when the lights come on, at least to a degree. And yes I believe we will be better defensively.
 

Latest posts