Can we average 90 pts/game?
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
Ah...Lou Goetz era...I believe our marketing slogan was something like "Running Like Never Before"
my memory is a little hazy, but I'm thinking the Thanksgiving - New Year's portion of our schedule was filled with "cream puffs"...D-2's and schools most fans weren't familiar with at the time...we ran up a number of triple digit games
it didn't work too well for Lou, but the high scoring strategy did play an indirect role in getting us Coach Tarrant...the rest is history
Go Spiders!
Their games are 20% longer, too. Golden State averaged 124 per game, so that would be around 99 a game for 40 minutes. They have the best players in the world and UR doesn't. We would look like Hampton-Cindy against Golden State. 90 ppg is not attainable. Sorry.
So, when comp was toughest at the end of season, and we replace two non shooters - you don't think we can bump up our scoring 4 points/half. I DO.
As long as you say “can” and not “will”. I will be close to agreeing with you.
Last edited:
Considering the word out of the UVA scrimmage was their defense suffocated us early (then we played well - which to me means UVA might have lightened up a little) - I expect Gilyard to avg. 35+ minutes over the course of the season. Gilyard avg. 36 minutes LAST SEASON and we had Buckingham and Fore to help, so I just don't see him coming out of games much at all unless we have a comfortable lead.
Every year on the board we think we will have depth because the expectations of young guys to play is off the charts. But in reality under Mooney - this never happens. Expect us to play a 7 man rotation, with an 8th guy maybe getting minutes here and there.
Every year on the board we think we will have depth because the expectations of young guys to play is off the charts. But in reality under Mooney - this never happens. Expect us to play a 7 man rotation, with an 8th guy maybe getting minutes here and there.
+1, we have not shown much depth in a long time but as a fan base, we seem to have short memories on this front.
I guess hope springs eternal.
Depth?
I expect us to play 14 every game...
If everyone is healthy, and all our opponents are DIII...
Yes, very good point on the depth. I think the last 6 years this was mostly about not having quality players. When we had Butler, Martel and Smith at the "3" position, they all played because they were good. I am guilty as charged on the depth optimism each year. This year I dont see Grant, Gilyard or Sherod coming out except for foul trouble or injury. Hope they are up to the task and hoping once again that we have 5 or 6 other guys that can contribute. Woj looks to possibly be as good as advertised and I really like the looks of Andre. We need Yates to be a player and we also have to hope both Sal and Grace can hold their own and eat minutes when needed. If not we are ind Grant Golden rolled abkls from being very very weak on the interior.
OK, I'll bite,
The answer is no. How many in the last 15 years in all of NCAA? 2. Care to guess who it was? Ah heck, I'll give it away. It's a team from VA. VMI did it 2x. No other team in CBB has done it since and none in the last 10 years. .It's been done 4x since the turn of the century. . I think it's reasonably safe to say this thread's question is moot.
Interesting tidbit. VMI was the leading average scoring team in 3 years from 2006/07-2009/10 seasons. They were 2nd in other year. Scary hun.
The answer is no. How many in the last 15 years in all of NCAA? 2. Care to guess who it was? Ah heck, I'll give it away. It's a team from VA. VMI did it 2x. No other team in CBB has done it since and none in the last 10 years. .It's been done 4x since the turn of the century. . I think it's reasonably safe to say this thread's question is moot.
Interesting tidbit. VMI was the leading average scoring team in 3 years from 2006/07-2009/10 seasons. They were 2nd in other year. Scary hun.
Last edited:
I believe if we modified the question to be about whether or not we will score more points than last season we would still get some disagreement, and we would have a more realistic question. By now, based on all kinds of data from reliable posters, we know that it is virtually impossible to score 90+ points over the course of an entire college season. It appears that "no" is the only reasonable answer to the original question. However, if we talk about "more" points, or "80-points" I believe we can still have a logical debate with reasonable support on either side.
The best reasons I have seen so far for scoring fewer points are: 1) We will have to slow it down with our new personnel, who are better suited to a half-court game, and 2) We lose too much "talent" in Buck and Khwan to replace their scoring.
The best reasons I have seen for scoring more points just may be: 1) We will see improved scoring from our 5 returning players, 2) We have brought in some excellent 3-point shooters, and can play more to our "system," and 3) Our depth will be improved, which will allow our 4 starters who return to get more rest and be more effective when they are on the court.
I lean towards the "scoring more" side of these two points of view.
The best reasons I have seen so far for scoring fewer points are: 1) We will have to slow it down with our new personnel, who are better suited to a half-court game, and 2) We lose too much "talent" in Buck and Khwan to replace their scoring.
The best reasons I have seen for scoring more points just may be: 1) We will see improved scoring from our 5 returning players, 2) We have brought in some excellent 3-point shooters, and can play more to our "system," and 3) Our depth will be improved, which will allow our 4 starters who return to get more rest and be more effective when they are on the court.
I lean towards the "scoring more" side of these two points of view.
To score more than 90 points per game we will need to play at a much, much faster pace than any Mooney team ever has. Even if we make 2s and 3s at a high percentage, we need to take a lot of shots to get past 90 points. We have never been in the top 100 in tempo under Mooney. In fact, Mooney's teams tend to be 200+ in tempo and have been 300+ more than 50% of the time. I agree with other posters that we do not have the athleticism to consistently play a fast paced game. We will 100% not average 90 or more points per game this season, even if our shooting improves.
Our 2FG% has been at an elite level over the past 4 seasons (ranked 27th, 12th, 10th and 56th in the country), and assuming it stays elite we would have to average ~60% from 3 to average 90+ points per game next season if we maintain the same pace.
Our 2FG% has been at an elite level over the past 4 seasons (ranked 27th, 12th, 10th and 56th in the country), and assuming it stays elite we would have to average ~60% from 3 to average 90+ points per game next season if we maintain the same pace.
Last edited:
Maybe we can get there if we start making 4-point shots at a higher rate. Please rerun your numbers.
where is the numbers man ? what is how many times we score every yearsfrom the OOB in past 5 years?
I mean seriously I believe slowing the pace down both offensively and defensively is the best option for Mooney to have success with this team. Objective is to shorten the game as much as possible.Like you stated I was probably over-estimating (praying) how good the newbies can be against D1 competition so where does all that offense come from? Don't see 3 players doing the trick. And secondly like Trap stated Mooney could go zone with his defense.
Yes, scoring 80 shouldn't be the goal. Holding the other guys a bit under 70 assuming the D has vastly improved is the key. Oh and outscoring the other team helps too.
I’ll be fine if we do as KenPom suggests - a slower relative tempo than we have had in the last 3 years, slightly above national average defense, and 76 points per game.Yes, scoring 80 shouldn't be the goal. Holding the other guys a bit under 70 assuming the D has vastly improved is the key. Oh and outscoring the other team helps too.
I’ll be happy if we score more points than our opponents in at least 24 of our games.
38 to 37- we win by one, and that’s good enough.
Boring, but good enough.
38 to 37- we win by one, and that’s good enough.
Boring, but good enough.
I think some here have unreasonable expectations of depth, wanting too many guys to play real minutes. the game is only 40 minutes long. our best guys should play most of those.
we went 8 deep in our best years ... 2009/10 and 2010/11. were guys #9 - #13 good those years? who knows or cares? play your top guys.
in 2010/11, 8 guys played over 8 mpg. we had 2 stars on that team who averaged double digits, and only 2 others who scored over 5 ppg.
won 29 games.
we went 8 deep in 2009/10 too. 3 guys in double digits with only 2 others scoring more than 3 ppg. won 26 games.
we may play more guys this year but we can't play them all. and we shouldn't. some solid players will sit and have to wait. kids aren't usually as good waiting these days as they were in the past, but too bad.
we went 8 deep in our best years ... 2009/10 and 2010/11. were guys #9 - #13 good those years? who knows or cares? play your top guys.
in 2010/11, 8 guys played over 8 mpg. we had 2 stars on that team who averaged double digits, and only 2 others who scored over 5 ppg.
won 29 games.
we went 8 deep in 2009/10 too. 3 guys in double digits with only 2 others scoring more than 3 ppg. won 26 games.
we may play more guys this year but we can't play them all. and we shouldn't. some solid players will sit and have to wait. kids aren't usually as good waiting these days as they were in the past, but too bad.
OK, you sticklers. My point was basically that we were averaging 80 points down the stretch. Most of the "in the know" types seem pretty optimistic (as am I) that replacing two non shooters in Fore (I see scoreless in LU scrimmage) and Buck with Woj,Yates, and Gus - should provide an uptick. Yes, the grind of the season and pace of play will impact. We were tied for 233 in scoring average per VT's link: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...tat/scoring-per-game/sort/avgPoints/count/201. BUT, Gilyard, Golden and Sherod were much more experienced in Feb/March when we scored more. Combined with having more shooters, and a year of experience, averaging 10ppg more per year seems very attainable. so 81.8 per game would be more realistic. Sorry for trying to be positive, I will go back to hanging with my #FMM friends rest of the day. Tomorrow I will be positive again.
Fezz, I don't have access to the film, but my unscientific research says in 2016-17 with Cline, we scored on 65% of BLOB plays. 2017-2018 we scored on approx 22.8% and in fact threw the ball to back court 29%.
SMan, your post gives all the more reason for Mooney to slow the down the pace. So rely on your best 8 players like Mooney's two teams you referenced. Those squads scored way less than the numbers over-zealously discussed in this thread. The 2010-11 team averaged 69.6 per game while 2009-10 came in at 69.3. Add to that UR's pace of play was 62.1 (#309) for 2011 and 62.5 for (#301) for 2010. Slow!
Go further with the 2011 team"s bench playing 27.2% (#254) of game minutes. The 2010 team came in at 24.3% (#310). So using those past Spider teams mentioned, for Mooney's team this season the max minutes played by the bench would be 55. Are there 3 A10 caliber players from the get-go for those 15 minutes each? Also with that scenario the Big 3 will play 105 minutes. Will Cayo/??? be able to deliver the remaining 40 minutes as the 4th and 5th starters?
So bottom line trying to resemble those teams (without question success wise not possible) would suggest Mooney not use an up tempo offense in trying to maximize points. I also saw where those teams ranked #35 and #54 defensively. Yikes! Zone Mooney Zone! If your still not comfortable with it, call Coach K for assistance.
Go further with the 2011 team"s bench playing 27.2% (#254) of game minutes. The 2010 team came in at 24.3% (#310). So using those past Spider teams mentioned, for Mooney's team this season the max minutes played by the bench would be 55. Are there 3 A10 caliber players from the get-go for those 15 minutes each? Also with that scenario the Big 3 will play 105 minutes. Will Cayo/??? be able to deliver the remaining 40 minutes as the 4th and 5th starters?
So bottom line trying to resemble those teams (without question success wise not possible) would suggest Mooney not use an up tempo offense in trying to maximize points. I also saw where those teams ranked #35 and #54 defensively. Yikes! Zone Mooney Zone! If your still not comfortable with it, call Coach K for assistance.
Wow, this is the "numbers" thread now! My mathematically challenged actuarial mind is really confused. Make it stop! Let's triangulate everyone!
I'm not saying we have to just play 8. if we can go deeper with little drop off, great. just saying that some people think we have to be deeper than 8 to be good, while the 2009-10 and 2010-11 teams show that's not always the case.
I won't be surprised if we have 9 guys averaging 10+ mpg this year.
I won't be surprised if we have 9 guys averaging 10+ mpg this year.
Missing the point, you are much better off if you have 10-11 players with legit talent and ready to contribute, and then you have competition in practice, and you can overcome injuries. Yes, may have transfers - as is the norm. But you cannot be the worst coach in the country at identifying and obtaining grad transfers (Kwesi and other guy in back to back years). Hopefully Yates is an improvement - would seem to be. Mooney has done a terrible job filling in gaps when you have an unexpected gap. Hopefully this is the year that turns around and Yates, Andre and Woj can plug in for Fore/Buck - we will see. But in general Mooney seems 2-3 years behind the curve. And do not use the admin excuse. JB and Tarrant went and got guys.
If those last 4 don't play, politely saying it fans will know how good they are. The jury is still out on 6-9 but I have faith in Sal, Woj, Yates as A10 players in that order, though how good?
South, here's a couple examples.
If those last 4 don't play, politely saying it fans will know how good they are. The jury is still out on 6-9 but I have faith in Sal, Woj, Yates as A10 players in that order, though how good?
In 2009-10 we went 8 deep. freshman Darien Brother played 4.7 mpg scoring 1.6 ppg. he went on to score 1,247 points. yes the team was good, but a fan shouldn't write off a guy because he doesn't play much early.
in 2010-11 we went 8 deep with Duinker #9 at 7 mpg. Derrick Williams played 4.5 mpg. Soph Greg Robbins played 4.6 mpg. The next year Williams was a starter. The year after that both Williams and Robbins were starters.
Curtis Blair averaged 3.7 ppg as a freshman. went on to score 1,630 points. saw him reffing an NBA game the other night, btw. dude looks like a linebacker. he's huge and ripped.
Justin Harper averaged 3.3 ppg as a freshman in 8.6 mpg. went on to score 1,457 points.
Mike Winiecki barely played as a freshman. scored 17.6 ppg as a senior.
who don't you think will earn time? Sal? pretty sure he will.
1 - Gilyard
2 - Sherod
3 - Golden
4 - Cayo
5 - Wojcik
6 - Johnson
7 - Yates
8 - Gustavson
9 - Koureissi
and Grace with 6-8 mpg backing up Grant.
I haven't seen enough of Bryce or Tomas, but who knows.
1 - Gilyard
2 - Sherod
3 - Golden
4 - Cayo
5 - Wojcik
6 - Johnson
7 - Yates
8 - Gustavson
9 - Koureissi
and Grace with 6-8 mpg backing up Grant.
I haven't seen enough of Bryce or Tomas, but who knows.
Our bench problems recently have not been with guys 8/9/10, it’s been the significant dropoff with the guys at 6/7.
I agree with Spider-Man that we don’t need to go past 8, but we need to be way better at spots 6-8 than we’ve been the last few years.
I agree with Spider-Man that we don’t need to go past 8, but we need to be way better at spots 6-8 than we’ve been the last few years.
