No question that your best players will and should play more. If Mooney had 8 solid contributors (basically starters) that he counted on regularly, then I suspect that this discussion would never have developed
Assistant Coaches
- Thread starter SpiderFan
- Start date
No question that your best players will and should play more. If Mooney had 8 solid contributors (basically starters) that he counted on regularly, then I suspect that this discussion would never have developed
I think that you are operating under the assumption that our bench players would not have been significantly worse than the people ahead of them. Mooney obviously feels differently.
Agreed, and that should be concerning for said bench players. If you can't beat out Deion and Trey for time, than you obviously are not very good. Trey was a shell of the player he was at the end of the season for whatever reason, and even with that Jesse could not bust a single minute of time out there.
During our final 7 games our playing time looked like this:
SDJ: 34.3
TA: 32.0
TJC: 30.8
KF: 26.0
TD: 24.2
DT: 17.7
JJ: 15.8
MW: 15.2 *injured for 2 games
JM: 3.7
PF: 0.2
Freshmen accounted for 21% of our minutes. That is a lot. I agree, the fact that JP couldn't get playing time is not a good sign for him, but JJ was able to get a lot of playing time towards the end of the season. PF has the two best players on our team ahead of him, so it is much tougher for him to get time while JJ could take time from Trey and Deion. Should be easier for PF next year unless GG is really good.
SDJ: 34.3
TA: 32.0
TJC: 30.8
KF: 26.0
TD: 24.2
DT: 17.7
JJ: 15.8
MW: 15.2 *injured for 2 games
JM: 3.7
PF: 0.2
Freshmen accounted for 21% of our minutes. That is a lot. I agree, the fact that JP couldn't get playing time is not a good sign for him, but JJ was able to get a lot of playing time towards the end of the season. PF has the two best players on our team ahead of him, so it is much tougher for him to get time while JJ could take time from Trey and Deion. Should be easier for PF next year unless GG is really good.
Last edited:
Dan, improved a little injuries held him back. Darrius and Alonzo never developed any offensive skills and came with the athleticism that helped them on Defense. KA was what he was when he showed up. Kevin Smith his heart and energy improved but did his skills, I don't know. Ryan improved but was never going to be a top tier A10 player. TJ is the closest thing we've had to a decent, offensively skilled post we had in ages. We're not going to recruit the 6'10"+ player who comes in ready to play, we'll have to develop them which I haven't seen any indication we can.
Our guards are interchangeable have been for years, so PG/SG distinction does not matter. Same as the your "Paul is injured idea" you have been floating, it is a pretty lame excuse, to distract from the more probable fact that they didn't play because Mooney didn't think they were very good.
Paul at least had some really good players in front on him.
Do you think Jesse has the quickness needed to be a point guard in the A10? I don't, he'll be a 2 or 3.
Here are some guys who didn't play a ton of minutes early in their career but many folks would say were decent contributors by the time they were starting:
FCM (15mpg or less fr/so years, 18/25 mpg jr/sr years)
Garrett (14mpg or less until senior year, 25mpg)
Robbins (6mpg or less fr/so years, 17/27 jr/sr years)
Again, there are only 200mpg to go around, so you probably won't see a lot of minutes go to the 8/9/10th guys on the bench unless it's a blowout.
I think the reality as others have stated above, is that we probably have a lack of talent in our bench depth. The guys above were all limited minutes fr/so years, and then role players in jr/sr years. We don't have that many guys who did nothing in years 1-2 and then burst out years 3-4 (maybe Harper). If guys are good, they will play (TJ, TA, K0, CL, etc.). If injuries occur, guys will also play, although they may not be ready or an upgrade (SDJ for instance). I think we've had some gruesome recruiting the last several years, so it's very possible that no amount of real gametime was going to turn some guys into role player types their jr/sr years.
If you look at our bench right now, the realistic candidates for this are Paul, Jesse, Julius, Kovien and Khwan. Khwan was getting 20+mpg down the stretch. Julius averaged 8mpg, but it was definitely on the rise end of the year. I disclude Jesse from the analysis because I think there was an off court thing going on there. Paul and Kovien are the question marks. CM could be bad at developing them, or they could just not be quite good enough to earn time.
Two big guy examples that have been developed:
Justin Harper (improved every year in ppg, rpg, apg, and bpg)
TJ Cline (improved each year including Niagra in ppg, rpg, apg)
ANO was actually on a decent trajectory until he got injured and then transferred, but I will concede he didn't blow everyone's socks off. You could argue that he was supplanted by TJ which helped TJ develop, so you can't have it both ways there unless we go with a three big lineup (which I would have liked).
I just don't see how you can say we aren't able to develop big men, the data doesn't support that. We don't develop ALL big men, but that could have a lot to do with inherent limitations a player has.
Last edited:
But I don't think that Coach is oblivious to what goes on in practice. I have always felt that you earn your playing time during practice and obviously, John Moran did. When Coach was asked about him his comment was something like, "John is killing it in practice and has earned some time on the court." He certainly played well in his opportunity. Not having seen much of practice, I wonder if JP and PF were trying to "kill it" like Moran or if coming from a situation where you were the star to having to sit and watch didn't take some of their starch. I have seen that before first hand. I do think that Paul's injury last year somewhat limited his participation but I liked what I saw in the one practice I attended and in the few minutes that he played.
Likely gap in quality between John Moran and the guys he was coming on for (TD/DT/JJ) was relatively small.
The likely gap in quality between PaulF and the guys he would be coming in for (TA/TJ) was probably vast.
So I think you can bust your butt in practice and still not earn time if the guys ahead of you are far superior. This presumes of course that you earn playing time less by working hard and more by demonstrating you are more capable than the other options at the same position.
Better athletes and better bball players who can contribute from day one - correct. Also, we need a couple of defenses that these better athletes can play by Christmas of their freshman year. Sitting great high school players on the bench is going to bite us, eventually - and maybe has already bitten us in recruiting.
From what I saw the last couple of games, Moran should have been starting all year. Not flustered at all, always had his head up surveying the floor and the other team had to guard him. PF should have played 5 or 6 minutes a game, especially when it was obvious the season was over and DT was in pain out there.
DT and PF play different positions. PF would have to take time from TA or TJ, not DT.
You raise an interesting debate about whether it is better to play your 5 best (not saying Fore should play center), or are you better off to go with best that you have at each position?
I suspect that this question will be in play for the Spiders next year. Personnel seem to be very unbalanced from the perspective of position players. Smaller athletic lineup may be more productive. Right now it looks like the 5 most effective players will not conform to the 1,2,3,4,5 system.
Looking at the year's box scores, I would argue DT played no position, and 5 or 6 minutes of PF would have been an immediate improvement and an investment in next year.
You are exactly right. Only the P5 teams can still play the 1,2,3,4,5 with any depth at all. Most of the 351 teams are playing a variation of a 3 or 4 guard lineup. Our buddies at VDU started 4 guards and a forward against Oklahoma.
When a senior walk-on player plays ahead of scholarship players that should tell you a lot about recruiting.
Wonder if scholarships would have been offered or signed if coaches and players knew they would not only play behind a walk-on but in some games would not play at all when the walk-on would????
Wonder if scholarships would have been offered or signed if coaches and players knew they would not only play behind a walk-on but in some games would not play at all when the walk-on would????
I thought the strength of our offense and defense was that players were versatile and played multiple positions
Other teams found that out and really liked when our 1 was playing their 4 or 5 on D. Didn't work out well for us though.
I am still trying to wrap my head around, I am sure Fan2011 will tell me otherwise, the fact that everyone was shooting lights out from three against us at home this year. I will give our guys a break and say even when opponents were guarded well the shots still went in. On the other hand there was no excuse for easy drives to the baskets night after night.
I have been saying our 3FG defense was our biggest problem all year, since the first game we played. Glad to see we agree on something.
Our defense could hardly suffer if we had 5 players on the floor who were learning it from scratch. So why not let our freshman play and learn in real games. We should improve offensively because of incoming talent combined with our already proven players and the defense will catch up. A player can only learn so much from watching on the bench. It's like being held back in the first grade for four years.
are you saying a walk-on who's been on the team for 4 years shouldn't play over a scholarship freshman even if that walk-on is currently the better player?
you play the best 5 (actually 7 or 8) that make you the best team. it's not just the best 5 offensive players. and it can't be just the best 5 perimeter players. someone has to defend inside. ideally someone protects the rim. and while being a good rebounder from the guard position is awesome, someone has to rebound a little against other teams' bigs.
if other teams don't play any big guys, sure you can have 4 guards on the floor. or if you have Mutumbo on the back row, then you can play 4 guards. but in D1 ball you need a mix that at least resembles the standard 1,2,3,4,5 line-up.
right now we have at least one spot to fill, and it needs to be a guy who can defend inside a little. someone 6'6"+.
I don't care who we play, I just want to win more games - enough games that can get UR into the NCAA tournament, maybe even a weekend game in the A10 tournament.
Just looking at possibilities, and not just for us, but...
Could you play 2 Jordan Prices, 2 Dyshawn Pierres, and a Cline?
Price is overrated. His value comes solely from his insanely high usage rate, he takes ~1/3 of his team's shots. He makes so many bad decisions though, takes tons of bad shots trying to play hero ball and commits a lot of turnovers. I would not want one of him on the court for my team, having multiple is just asking for trouble. Also, whether right or wrong Pierre would have been dismissed from our team for good, not just one semester.
I think in the switching man-to-man, the more positions a player can defend the better. Ideally everyone should be able to guard every position, that is what Mooney is getting at when he says his perfect team would be all 6'6 players. Here is what I think we have next year in terms of who can guard what:
SDJ: 1/2
TJC: 5
MW: 4/5
KF: 1/2/3
JJ: 1/2/3
JP: ?
PF: 5
Right now our guards are still on the short side, but if Buckingham and Sherod are 6'5 and athletic enough they should hopefully be able to cover 1/2/3/4.
Last edited:
With the right players, I think so. Wingspan is just as important as height, and strength is very important as well when defending. The players Mooney has recruited for 2016 and 2017 are all 6'5+ according to some sources. This is promising in that they have the potential to cover many positions on defense.
Yes we could, but we it would more likely have one guard under 6ft tall based on our recruiting.
Our best teams under Mooney had guys who could defend multiple positions like Gonzo, Butler, Smith, Martel, Harper, Garrett. That's when the switching man defense is at its best. It doesn't work well when you have major exploitable match-ups like this past year.
You had other guys on those teams that were undersized (KA was small but a good and quick defender)or not great defenders (like Geriot but he was positionally sound and in our S16 run was being subbed by Garrett for defense most of the time). But you mostly need parts that are interchangeable.
Yes, I was looking at physical size and skills, not mental skills...
Last edited:
Coach. What do you mean by "pivot"? You use it very often and I do not understand what you are talking about.
Yes, like 2011 said, check "Center" here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_positions
I assume because near the basket, you change which way you face by where the ball is.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Charlotte Game (and travel) thread - Wed 11/13 7pm ESPN+
- Latest: brooklyn brownstone
-
-
-
