Atlantic 10 recruiting update

[spiderman]

Hey, I think Blake is going to be a very good player for us, maybe even our leading scorer.
The "volume" shooter part worries me s-man. When I hear basketball analysts discuss volume shooters, that usually means they need a lot of shots to get there's. Bound to be an issue with Nick and Grant. And Gilly will need to facilitate a little more than jacking up long 3's.

maybe I misused the term volume shooter. I just meant his 40.2% from 3 in 2017/18 wasn't based on limited attempts. he shot 8 3's per game, and still shot 40%. that shows more to me than a guy shooting one 3 per game and shooting 40%. the guy shooting 40% on 8 3's per game is drawing a lot more defensive attention.

 

[Eight Legger]

I like Francis and think he will be a good player for us. He will face much better defense from longer and rangier guys than he saw at Wagner, so that may take some adjusting.

 

[spiderman]

I like Francis and think he will be a good player for us. He will face much better defense from longer and rangier guys than he saw at Wagner, so that may take some adjusting.

meh. Jacob gets looks. shooters shoot.
and Blake was 5-9 against Missouri, 4-10 against Baylor, and 4-11 against Dayton.

 

[ur2K]

The offense has a chance to be very good next year.

Any one know if Blake primarily played off the ball at Wagner?

 

[spiderman]

Any one know if Blake primarily played off the ball at Wagner?

yes, he was the shooting guard.

 

[keefusb]

First of all there is only one ball, and Francis may not get as many looks (assuming he can maintain his 40% against much better defenses than he faced last year, with longer more athletic defenders). Sherrod and Golden will be the primary offensive targets for us, and JG will get his share as well. Unless Francis proves he is an even better offensive option that our current top 3, I see his opportunities as a scorer being limited.

I hope Francis is an all A-10 caliber player for us, but I can't and won't say he is a "good" player until I see him perform in a Richmond uniform. We have had too much sunshine pumped up our backsides relative to transfers and recruits in general to beleive what we are told without seeing how they actually play in a game (not practice or scrimmages) for our program.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[97spiderfan]

The question is not Blake Francis offense. I think what he did at Wagner is pretty indicative that he will make an impact on the offensive end.

The question is on defense. How do 2 really small guards for the A-10 able to defend against other teams that will be rolling out larger players for them to defend.

Outside of Gilyard, the rest of our team are poor defenders. So Francis had better be able to play some defense, because that is the end of the court where we are decidedly not good.

 

[VT4700]

A debate that hinges on "show me another program with two transfers better than TJ and Blake" is ridiculously premature. You need post-transfer numbers to make an objective comparison.

Uh... Not when the debate started because someone gave LaSalle credit for getting a transfer who has averaged one point of game his first two years in college, and said that "lesser schools get transfers" and added we have only gotten TJ and Blake. So, that person can mention this guy who has not yet played at LaSalle, but I can't mention Blake?

 

[Eight Legger]

meh. Jacob gets looks. shooters shoot.
and Blake was 5-9 against Missouri, 4-10 against Baylor, and 4-11 against Dayton.

Jacob was a higher-level recruit. I don't doubt that Blake can shoot and will do well for us, just saying that we shouldn't expect him to put up the same numbers he did at Wagner.

 

[spiderman]

Jacob was a higher-level recruit. I don't doubt that Blake can shoot and will do well for us, just saying that we shouldn't expect him to put up the same numbers he did at Wagner.

he likely won't score as much, getting less shots. but I fully expect the same shooting percentage. I don't buy the tougher defense argument. he'll get open looks from outside and he'll knock them down. good shooters are good shooters. plus he's 2 years better and stronger.

 

[Not-A-Homer]

he likely won't score as much, getting less shots. but I fully expect the same shooting percentage. I don't buy the tougher defense argument. he'll get open looks from outside and he'll knock them down. good shooters are good shooters. plus he's 2 years better and stronger.

Agree with this comment. I like what I have seen from Francis, A LOT. A-10 defense should have zero impact on his ability to score.

The issue for Spider offense this year COULD be that the game is only played with 1 ball. The question becomes who gets less shots, and are they WILLING to accept that and be a team player? Is Francis willing to take a lesser role? What about Golden? Gilyard, and Sherod?

Maybe all will get fewer shot opportunities? How does this impact efficiency for each individual, and for the team? And, how does it impact attitudes and MORALE? Will they be able to mesh, and make it successful? Time will tell.

 

[spiderman]

I don't think it's an issue at all. we run an offense and we take the shot that's open. we're adding two very good shooters in Nick and Blake but it's not like Woj or Goose had the red light. they shot.

we run our offense but if it gets late in the shot clock, we'll still try to isolate Grant on the block or Nathan on the wing for a drive. in both cases, with very good shooters waiting for a kick.

 

[urmite]

I don't think it's an issue at all. we run an offense and we take the shot that's open. we're adding two very good shooters in Nick and Blake but it's not like Woj or Goose had the red light. they shot.

we run our offense but if it gets late in the shot clock, we'll still try to isolate Grant on the block or Nathan on the wing for a drive. in both cases, with very good shooters waiting for a kick.

If all 5 starters average 8 of 11 from 3 each game, we won’t need defense or a bench...

 

[VT4700]

Agree with this comment. I like what I have seen from Francis, A LOT. A-10 defense should have zero impact on his ability to score.

The issue for Spider offense this year COULD be that the game is only played with 1 ball. The question becomes who gets less shots, and are they WILLING to accept that and be a team player? Is Francis willing to take a lesser role? What about Golden? Gilyard, and Sherod?

Maybe all will get fewer shot opportunities? How does this impact efficiency for each individual, and for the team? And, how does it impact attitudes and MORALE? Will they be able to mesh, and make it successful? Time will tell.

All fair questions, but I think if we win enough, morale will not be a factor at all. If it ends up being Nick and Blake who take the most shots, and we win more than we lose, I think the other guys will be more than happy with that after the last two seasons. And, I think Nick and Blake will be fine taking less shots some games as well. After last year, Nick will probably just be thrilled to be out on the floor healthy, and Blake will be glad to be playing instead of sitting out. I think they and everyone else are team players, so we should be fine.

I do think we're in a pretty good spot where the same one or two guys do not have to carry us every night. One game it could be Jacob and Grant, the next game it could be Nick and Blake, and then it could be Nate and one of the other guys another game.

 

[97spiderfan]

All fair questions, but I think if we win enough, morale will not be a factor at all. If it ends up being Nick and Blake who take the most shots, and we win more than we lose, I think the other guys will be more than happy with that after the last two seasons. And, I think Nick and Blake will be fine taking less shots some games as well. After last year, Nick will probably just be thrilled to be out on the floor healthy, and Blake will be glad to be playing instead of sitting out. I think they and everyone else are team players, so we should be fine.

I do think we're in a pretty good spot where the same one or two guys do not have to carry us every night. One game it could be Jacob and Grant, the next game it could be Nick and Blake, and then it could be Nate and one of the other guys another game.

Again, can any of these guys outside Jacob play defense????? Either individually or collectively. Also, can they rebound. Making shots is not a problem for us. Wasn't the issue last year when we won 13 games.

 

[spiderman]

Again, can any of these guys outside Jacob play defense????? Either individually or collectively. Also, can they rebound. Making shots is not a problem for us. Wasn't the issue last year when we won 13 games.

I agree, defense is the concern. but scoring more still helps.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Uh... Not when the debate started because someone gave LaSalle credit for getting a transfer who has averaged one point of game his first two years in college, and said that "lesser schools get transfers" and added we have only gotten TJ and Blake. So, that person can mention this guy who has not yet played at LaSalle, but I can't mention Blake?

Not when you're asking for other examples of schools to compare their transfers to Blake. Someone could do the research and come up with a good transfer, and you could just say "How do you know he's better than Blake? Blake hasn't played for us yet!"

Blake is an unknown. He's a "null" in this equation; it's like asking someone to divide by zero. To prove an unprovable.

You know this.

I am sorry for ever posting in this thread. urfan1 was right.

 

[VT4700]

Not when you're asking for other examples of schools to compare their transfers to Blake. Someone could do the research and come up with a good transfer, and you could just say "How do you know he's better than Blake? Blake hasn't played for us yet!"

Blake is an unknown. He's a "null" in this equation; it's like asking someone to divide by zero. To prove an unprovable.

You know this.

I am sorry for ever posting in this thread. urfan1 was right.

It's all good. I see your point, but it just seems strange to me that someone can use an example of LaSalle getting their transfer and saying "lesser schools do better than us and all we got were TJ and Blake", but I should not be able to mention Blake in my reply.

You might be late getting to the thread, but if you look at where all this started, he actually included Blake when saying lesser schools do better. So, it seems pretty clear to me why I included Blake, but, no worries. All good.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

FTR, I believe Blake is a good get. But I can't know it. I am excited to see him in a Spider uniform next year.

 

[spiderman]

we don't know that Clifton Moore is a good get for LaSalle either. but I'm giving them credit for a good get.
and I'll give us credit for a good get if we land either Norris or Crabtree. for me personally, I don't need to wait 18 months to make that call. just like I personally don't need to wait until Blake suits up to consider him a good get.
to each his own.

 

[VT4700]

FTR, I believe Blake is a good get. But I can't know it. I am excited to see him in a Spider uniform next year.

Understood. Me too.

 

[MrTbone]

Compared to which teams though? My point is maybe some posters need to take a look at the teams we compete with before assuming landing TJ and Blake over the last 5-6 years is worse than what other teams have done. What exactly defines well? 1 star every year? Who does that? I have asked for examples and no one can give me any. I just keep getting responses like the one you just sent saying we do not attract transfers while not making any comparisons or providing facts to show that we are alarmingly worse at this than other schools.

You asked what you’re missing, I told you. As others have noted, you have a propensity to recast the argument with each successive post, missing perhaps the focus of the original point.

I also appreciate facts, I’ve posted on another thread that the UR transfer rate is well below the national average. So you can go look at those facts. I trust that even anecdotally you can see that not only are we historically reticent to seek/take transfers but we haven’t gotten many impact transfers. Its not really worth the ongoing debate to argue this.

 

[VT4700]

You asked what you’re missing, I told you. As others have noted, you have a propensity to recast the argument with each successive post, missing perhaps the focus of the original point.

I also appreciate facts, I’ve posted on another thread that the UR transfer rate is well below the national average. So you can go look at those facts. I trust that even anecdotally you can see that not only are we historically reticent to seek/take transfers but we haven’t gotten many impact transfers. Its not really worth the ongoing debate to argue this.

Cool. Glad to know I am the only one who recasts a debate. Certainly no one else does on here, right? Especially not with every single one of my posts, right? Glad you cleared that up for us. I will try to d0 better since clearly I am the only one that does anything wrong on here.

 

[ur2K]

The passive aggressive nonsense and playing the victim card is pretty tiring. So there’s that.

 

[SpiderDaMan]

I agree, defense is the concern. but scoring more still helps.

Defense is everything in college BB. Always has been. Do it well and win. Do it not and lose. Simple equation. Offense means almost nothing when you can't play D and when that O runs up against a decent D team your team gets crushed.

 

[spider23]

SpideDaMan, unfortunately for us, that is probably a very good point about D. Look at the national championship game, two top top defenses. Both teams probably more well known for defense. I watched TT a few times during the season, and those guys do not let up on that end of the floor. And that's coaching, with Beard having practically an entirely new team from the elite 8 run the year before and two transfers. COACHING.
I do think we will be able to score it well most games. It's that strong OOC that Lunarti is putting together where we better be able to play some D.

 

[keefusb]

Defense is everything in college BB. Always has been. Do it well and win. Do it not and lose. Simple equation.

Yes, simply look at the Final Four teams this year for confirmation.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[spiderman]

I assume if we're paying Lunardi for anything, it's not just making a tough OOC schedule. it should be an effective schedule. i.e. it won't be big name teams that we'll likely lose to. it'll be games that are winnable against teams that will end up with respectable rankings.

 

[Eight Legger]

Prepare to be underwhelmed.

 

[spiderman]

Prepare to be underwhelmed.

I am. it certainly can't match the hype.

 

[Eight Legger]

I think your premise is correct though. I just know that Mooney's proclamation about having the toughest schedule in the league will fall flat, and most likely because of the type of scheduling you just described.

Strategically trying to schedule teams you think are going to be at a certain level is nice in theory, but inevitably some of them will bomb, and then the schedule is far worse than expected.

Then we'll get the excuses about how we tried scheduling teams that were great last year, like Lipscomb and Wofford (making these up), but after we signed the deals, their coaches left and all their players transferred, etc., so woe is us.

 

[spider23]

EL, you are probably hitting the nail on the head. Us dumb fans seem to have anticipated all the excuses issues ahead of time. Including the Lunardi thing. We need some forward thinking folks in the AD and heading up the basketball program.

 

[spiderman]

that can certainly happen, Eight. there's no way to guarantee an effective schedule, with or without Lunardi. plus we don't just get to pick the teams we want to play. they have to want to play us too, and the timing has to work.

 

[spider23]

And the schedule should be better, it pretty much has to if we can substitute out Hampton, ST Francis Brooklyn, Longwood. Why have we not tried to schedule better in the past years? Sorry excuses.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'd just say that if we REALLY were serious about having the toughest OOC schedule in the league, we could. Most good P6 schools would gladly host us at their place, and many would pay us for the opportunity, too. (One way that we could get a little return on the wasted Mooney investment, plus earn some cash to buy him out at the end of the season.)

Go play games at Michigan State, Miami, Indiana, Purdue, Pitt, Auburn and then schedule some home games against the Lipscombs of the world who you expect to be pretty good. Pocket $1 million or so from the buy games, play a bunch of name teams but a few that we actually have a chance of beating, then give yourself a chance in all the home games. Have at it, Lunardi. I'd like a 15% cut and nothing more.

 

[Captain Anderson]

that can certainly happen, Eight. there's no way to guarantee an effective schedule, with or without Lunardi. plus we don't just get to pick the teams we want to play. they have to want to play us too, and the timing has to work.

I still don't understand the "value" of hiring Lunardi as a scheduling consultant unless he has personal connections within some of these power 5 schools that can help us get home and home or neutral court games. We have plenty of successful, intelligent people on this board alone that can identify that our schedule the last few years has been super soft and that we have no chance at an at large bid with those schedules. So we go and hire Lunardi, who is employed by a conference rival, to help us figure that out? Is this simply a PR move or does Joey Brackets bring real value to the equation?

 

[spiderman]

I think we're miss point on a "scheduling consultant". it's certainly not about just playing tough games. yes, that would be easy. and at the end of the day you're 15-15 best case and going nowhere.

we'll still have "win" games with High Point type teams to build our record. the OOC doesn't need to be brutal to be a highly ranked schedule.

 

[Eight Legger]

At this point, it does have to be the best in the conference or else Mooney lied to us, though. If he didn't really mean that, he shouldn't have said it.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I think we're miss point on a "scheduling consultant". it's certainly not about just playing tough games. yes, that would be easy. and at the end of the day you're 15-15 best case and going nowhere.

we'll still have "win" games with High Point type teams to build our record. the OOC doesn't need to be brutal to be a highly ranked schedule.

Just like our rival downtown did. Without a "scheduling consultant."

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

When was the last time we beat an at-large team in a scheduled OOC game?
I know we beat Cal 4 seasons ago, but that was in a consolation game of an invitational tournament. IOW, we didn't schedule them.