Brandon Jennings - 2024 Offer
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Did his DNA get spliced with Buck?
I'm sure he will turn out to be a fine player but I kinda like who we have coming in next year.
love who we have coming, but we do need 2 more ... and a PG replacing King would have made sense.
I don't love having two spots open heading into the spring, because as always there's a decent chance we lose a guy or two after the season and have even more slots to fill.
But could of course be a combination of transfers and late-signing high school guys like Tyne and Soulis.
But could of course be a combination of transfers and late-signing high school guys like Tyne and Soulis.
I feel like with Tyne and Smith we do not need a PG at all. Especially since Hunt has 1 more year and could likely also handle lead guard if needed.
Feels to me like frontcourt scoring next year is a complete unknown at this point and a real need. Walz is not striking me as a scorer and Soulis is as yet an unknown. And that’s not even figuring out who replaces Bigelow.
Feels to me like frontcourt scoring next year is a complete unknown at this point and a real need. Walz is not striking me as a scorer and Soulis is as yet an unknown. And that’s not even figuring out who replaces Bigelow.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
just read in RTD article that his mom did undergrad and her masters at VCU and is about to start a doctorate program so the Crystal Ball prediction last week may have not been a hard one.
agreed we don't HAVE to add a PG in this class. but we certainly don't need another wing.
with 2 spots to fill, I'd like a PG (or combo guard type) and a big who ideally competes to start at the 5 but can also play the 4 and hit shots ... a guy like Grace.
Not sure who else watched the VCU game last night but Brandon Jennings is having a pretty stellar freshman year given the age and experience of other players on the team. He shows crazy energy and athleticism on the court. Since his Mom has multiple VCU degrees, don't really think we ever had much of a chance from a recruiting standpoint but stil think it is going to be a bit agonizing to watch this St Chris kid at least 8 times over the next 4 year (and yes I doubt he will transfer given local connections and the wad of $$ he likely will be getting.)
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
wait, freshmen are allowed to contribute? someone should fill Moonie in on that rule too.
thats not fair 8legs. Our freshman are doing great on the scout team for a 7-10 team (5-10 vs. D1).
From the RTD writeup:
"We'd love to have 22 (offensive rebounds) every night," said VCU coach Ryan Odom.
"The key is, are we going? That's what our guys are measured on. They're graded on, are they giving the effort every time? We've had a good run here of collecting offensive rebounds, certainly."
God I would love that to be our philosophy too. It is statistically proven to be a key indicator of success.
"We'd love to have 22 (offensive rebounds) every night," said VCU coach Ryan Odom.
"The key is, are we going? That's what our guys are measured on. They're graded on, are they giving the effort every time? We've had a good run here of collecting offensive rebounds, certainly."
God I would love that to be our philosophy too. It is statistically proven to be a key indicator of success.
works for some teams. indicator for success though?
top 10 offensive rebounding teams this year include:
#2 Iona 5-12 net 298
#4 Alabama A&M 3-11 net 361
#6 Milwaukee 10-6 net 132
#7 Idaho St 3-8 net 204
#8 Eastern Kentucky 6-9 net 218
#10 North Dakota 4-12 net 282
That is not overly surprising because I bet a lot of the top teams at offensive rebounding are also really bad shooting teams, so they have lots of opportunities. Still have to like Odom's statement on how they are graded on effort and a big part of effort is going after offensive rebounds. And of course, we by system forgo a very important part of basketball that pretty much every other team values greatly. Makes zero sense, but then again so does keeping a guy employed who has won 56% of his game for 20 years. But we live in bizarro basketball world at Richmond, so down is up and up is down.
NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com
Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
www.ncaa.com
Which is to say, it's not the only indicator of success, but it is a key one.
And my own, very subjective, very biased "eyeball test" confirms that I think eschewing offensive rebounding as a team-wide, specific focus in favor of getting 5 guys back and set on defense to limit transition buckets is a misguided tradeoff. I'll suspect, without evidence, that Mooney hasn't done the analytics to prove otherwise.
And my own, very subjective, very biased "eyeball test" confirms that I think eschewing offensive rebounding as a team-wide, specific focus in favor of getting 5 guys back and set on defense to limit transition buckets is a misguided tradeoff. I'll suspect, without evidence, that Mooney hasn't done the analytics to prove otherwise.
It's crazy how people defend moon with stats. We can probably find good shooting teams with bad records too. The fact that we don't emphasize all fundamental areas that are widely considered helpful to winning is nuts. Just like how Mooney really emphasized defense a third of the way thru the season. Ok, good 👏 job moon.
If our anti-rebounding philosophy was some big secret to victory:
a) why have we never really won much of significance in two decades?
b) why haven't we become a consistent 20-game winner year in and year out?
c) why the hell does NO OTHER COACH employ the same strategy?
a) why have we never really won much of significance in two decades?
b) why haven't we become a consistent 20-game winner year in and year out?
c) why the hell does NO OTHER COACH employ the same strategy?
I'm not defending Mooney. I don't want to be 350th in offensive rebounding. I love extra possessions. and we have a couple guys who rebound well on the defensive end. I'll do anything to score more than 49 points.
I was just responding to kneepad's statement that offensive rebounding "is statistically proven to be a key indicator of success". there are many ways to win. and there are teams who don't do a lot of offensive rebounding who are very successful. and some teams who really work the glass that aren't winning. so I disagreed with the statement ... not that I wouldn't like more offensive rebounding.
but I get it ... it's crazy to back up a point with stats.
I think spiderman your stats you presented fall into the proverbial you get stats to say anything you want them to.
I also think that it defies most logical analysis to eschew offensive rebounding to prevent transition buckets, when you watch almost any basketball game played at a high level and see players doing both. But yet, here at Richmond, Mooney thinks if we do one we can't do the other well.
It never passed the smell test from the beginning and 20 years later it still is an illogical approach, employed by seemingly one coach, ours.
Last edited:
Just to be self-critical given S-man's pushback, based on the D-1 statistics going back many, many years, overall rebounding margin appears to better correlate to a better record. So if we were dominating rebound margin, I'd probably get off the soapbox, but we aren't, and we probably won't for as long as we generally deemphasize rebounding on one end of the court.
This. There are 365 teams.
But we defend "soft" "no defense" no rebound, etc etc. We can run our offense and effing enforce that guys don't let there man straight line dribble to the hole. I could tell early the mooneyspeak was all about out shooting teams this season.
Similar threads
