Terrible loss for the team and now the question is how does the team react. Sherod won multiple games for us last year. Without him you take out wins against STFU Davidson and GMU. 44% from 3 on 6 attempts per game is hard to replace. I suspect we get better defensively with burton but lose some offense. Can we still be as good as predicted?
Can we win without Sherod
- Thread starter ur-2005
- Start date
Absolutely, we’re deeper than we’ve ever been
hate the loss, but when a door closes a window opens, who will step up to the challenge
No doubt the team is in better shape this year than it was 2 years ago when Nick had the first ACL injury. We know that the whole 5 senior starter thing was the product of odd circumstances and now you add one more twist to the plot.
As others have said on different threads, let’s hope we get to see basketball this year and get to complain about refs or something other than injuries to key players.
As others have said on different threads, let’s hope we get to see basketball this year and get to complain about refs or something other than injuries to key players.
This may be the singular year since I’ve been following UR b-ball (2004) that we are built to overcome an injury to such a key player.
Welcome to the starting lineup Burton.
Welcome to needing to bang threes off the bench And being compared to Sherrod’s excellent shooting Crabtree.
Welcome to the starting lineup Burton.
Welcome to needing to bang threes off the bench And being compared to Sherrod’s excellent shooting Crabtree.
Clearly, the loss of Sherod hurts a team that was going to be the best, or at least one of the best, Spider teams ever. However, plenty of depth and talent, so it won't be devastating. I see a rung lower, but not total destruction by any means. Could make the difference along the lines of an Elite 8 / Final 4 to a Sweet 16.
Agreed, we have the depth, and we can replace Nick athletically. But leadership and clutch shooting will be
the huge question mark for me.
the huge question mark for me.
Said a few weeks ago to a friend, the only player we can't replace on this team is Grant. Any other loss to any of the starters (including Gilly) in my opinion we have the depth and talent to replace. Obviously, any loss like this is going to make an impact, but this is why you recruit a 13 deep roster. Injuries happen every single year and planning for them by having quality depth is imperative.
obviously we're worse without Nick. so how does this trickle down to playing time? I see two very different scenarios.
1) Burton starts at the 3. Sal then has a clear role as Nathan's backup at the 4. that in turn would clarify Grace's role as the backup 5. Weir may get chances. Goose still backs up both guard spots, but he might also backup Burton depending on Crabtree.
2) Goose starts at the 3. Burton then still backs up Nathan at the 4 as well as Goose at the 3. Sal is back to competing with Grace to backup Grant. Crabtree or Wilson backs up the guards.
either way we lose a lot of perimeter shooting. I expect both Tyler and Goose to shoot better than last year but not as Nick's level. that's a problem as our perimeter shooting is really limited to Jacob and Blake. that's not ideal for our offense.
1) Burton starts at the 3. Sal then has a clear role as Nathan's backup at the 4. that in turn would clarify Grace's role as the backup 5. Weir may get chances. Goose still backs up both guard spots, but he might also backup Burton depending on Crabtree.
2) Goose starts at the 3. Burton then still backs up Nathan at the 4 as well as Goose at the 3. Sal is back to competing with Grace to backup Grant. Crabtree or Wilson backs up the guards.
either way we lose a lot of perimeter shooting. I expect both Tyler and Goose to shoot better than last year but not as Nick's level. that's a problem as our perimeter shooting is really limited to Jacob and Blake. that's not ideal for our offense.
I'm with you on the shooting. Crabtree looks like the shooter most ready to step in and pull some big time minutes - if he can remain healthy. He has a year of watching and osmosis into our offense and defense. I like Goose's contributions and game, but he regressed shooting last year, and IMO Burton brings more of an impact. Will be interesting how this plays out.
Jury's still out on Crabtree. Dude missed a lot of time, and in the one time he's been seen in a practice video, he was standing on the sideline. Think he has a role, but I'm going to need to see some evidence that he's ready to play before I'm all in on him.
well, we're going to find out. the team doesn't have the luxury of giving up like that. it's cold, but the mindset always has to be "next man up".
roles change but the goal remains the same. this team lost a great player but we're still talented and deep. we still have a lot of experience. there's no time to hang our heads. it's time to get back to work.
I don’t disagree at al with what you say here. I also though didn’t buy into us being a top 25 team going into the season. Should we be pretty damn good? Yes. But I don’t think “simply bringing everybody back” from a team that lost to Radford and was entrenched in the bubble makes us a top 15-25 preseason team. Obviously now that will drop with the loss of Sherod, but it seemed a bit too premature for me to have us ranked there preseason
I think we saw last year this team grow and get markedly better during the year. They won 9 of their last 10. I don't think the team loses to Radford in March, like they did in November. We were on the bubble which means that we probably shooting at a 10-11 seed, which would correspond to be ranked in the Top 40 of teams.
So, a team on the rise at the end of the year, solid bubble team (likely in) with all 5 starters returning, I think that is exactly why we see us being mentioned as a Top 25 team. We are a known quantity and we are known to be quite good.
As for Sherod, I think most people look at our team and see Sherod, probably as our 4th best player, so honestly don't think we will see our "rankings" diminish that much with his injury. Although, I know there are games this year when we are going to miss him.
But, this is sports, and you have to have a next man up mentality, because injuries can and do happen without warning.
So, a team on the rise at the end of the year, solid bubble team (likely in) with all 5 starters returning, I think that is exactly why we see us being mentioned as a Top 25 team. We are a known quantity and we are known to be quite good.
As for Sherod, I think most people look at our team and see Sherod, probably as our 4th best player, so honestly don't think we will see our "rankings" diminish that much with his injury. Although, I know there are games this year when we are going to miss him.
But, this is sports, and you have to have a next man up mentality, because injuries can and do happen without warning.
The question here is: Has Chris Mooney showed you over the past decade that he has a capable next man up when an injury happens?
Honestly when Francis went down, Gus and Jake W stepped in and won at Rhodi and played pretty good, we went on from there and played pretty darn competitive. Now that gave Gus and Jake more confidence when Blake came back.
I think depending on situation, we may go with a smaller quicker lineup with Golden sitting and Cayo and Burton playing 4s and either Gus or Crabtree playing the 3 and then Blake and Gilly at guards. We will run more, shoot more, and play pressure D. One key is Burton staying out of foul trouble which he got into at times last year. Sal was probably the fasted foul contributor of all. Note this is a lineup strategy, not saying Golden does not start.
I’m just not going to get my hopes up until Mooney proves it to me. Since 2012 I’ve been getting my hopes up and every year we get caught with our pants down. I’m going to keep modest expectations this year as I’d be thrilled to just make the tournament and win even one game. That would be a huge success to me and I’d be thrilled, but it seems that for most people that would be a disappointment
We have potentially 3 good options to step in for Nick. Crabtree (if healthy) is probably the most similar player for a 1-1 replacement, if he goes Goose or Burton - that makes a better defensive team. I'd like to see Burton get the nod and just tell him to be disruptive on defense, rebound and get to the rim.
Pre-season rankings are just something for the sports writers to put out there to get fans talking, so I wouldn’t be concerned about them either. Of course, folks are going to point out that if your team is in the conversation at the beginning of the season, then it can help at the end if the team is on the bubble. That could be more important this year because who knows how many games will be played.
In any case, losing Nick doesn’t help the team, but it doesn’t mean the season is over before it starts either. I think the team may actually be better on the defensive end, which will help offset the loss on the offensive side. Definitely puts the “got to get Burton more minutes” narrative to bed before it got started.
My heart goes out to Nick. He is a big loss, but this team has about as much depth and any Spider team in the past. Last year Nick played 29.6 minutes a game. Burton averaged 14.1 and might get 16 minutes of Nick's to bring his minutes up to 30 a game. BTW, I expect Burton to be playing at a higher level this year and might be one of the best on the team.
I could also see Cayo picking up 3 or 4 more minutes from last year. Assuming everyone else plays at least the same amount of minutes as last year it only leaves about 10 minutes to fill by some high quality guys coming off the bench. This is still going to be a very good team.
I could also see Cayo picking up 3 or 4 more minutes from last year. Assuming everyone else plays at least the same amount of minutes as last year it only leaves about 10 minutes to fill by some high quality guys coming off the bench. This is still going to be a very good team.
True point. I will say he does this year finally have a roster with depth, but yes, historically speaking, his poor recruiting has lead to a real depth issue, so when we lose a key player to injury, it really ends up hurting us.
BTW: after this year, I will again have real concerns about depth because Mooney seems to be reverting to Mooney with his recruitment for this big 5 man class.
any team graduating 5 starters will have question marks. the only guy we've seen in the last 3 classes is Burton. I don't think there's any likely misses with the other 7 guys though, so I don't see a depth issue next year. but I do wonder where the points will come from. not sure if we have big time scorers coming up to replace the buckets in this senior class.
I will add something here that I already said over on the "Minutes" thread because this conversation is even more on point.
I am not worried about filling Nick's minutes. We have a good enough number of options that we will fill those minutes with solid players. What I am worried about is replacing the role.
None of our options (save maybe Crabtree) is really a "shooter" (and Crabtree is the least tested of the options). How important to us was having a knock down shooter in that spot? For example, did Gilyard and/or Blake get a little extra room on drives because Nick's guy was instructed to not leave him open on the 3 line - - - even to help on dribble penetration? Room that now isn't there any more?
How do we adapt to Nick's absence and does it hurt others etc. We will be a different team. Maybe better in some ways (defense? athleticism?) but especially offensively. What's the impact beyond just fewer 3 balls going down. And this brings Moon man's coaching to the forefront. Can he adjust on the fly so that we are really just different offensively with our capable replacements or is all we are able to do is put a new man in the old role and then talk about "what could have been" when the replacement shoots 30% from 3 instead of 43% and gets even more looks because he isn't as respected.
Where Nick's minutes go should depend on what other changes to system etc. we have to make to offset his loss. Now the first option will be (as it should be) just plugging in Burton. If he can shoot 36-38% we are probably good to go. He'll add on defense and do some other things better on offense and that's good enough that we don't have to change much. But if he shoots 30%, we will need to make some scheme/system changes to accommodate getting our best 5 on the floor and maintain our offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency (effective FG% and turnover prevention especially) were our real strengths last year and I do worry that they suffer even with the minutes all replaced by highly capable guys.
So, yeah, I worry about that. But here is what I actually think happens - - - - Burton's a star, eats up all the minutes he can handle AND Gus takes a nice step forward. Both shoot it acceptably well enough and we are a more dynamic team Crabtree ends up not much of factor, but by the end of the year is maybe a little more ready. we play basically 6 guys with some big man fill in minutes from somewhere (Grace I amagine). We are better defensively, not quite as good offensively and . . . everybody take a seat . . . we rise all the way up to almost average rebounding!! This is the area I think we can improve on with a nominal effort (and was true with or without Nick, but even more likely with Burton)
I am not worried about filling Nick's minutes. We have a good enough number of options that we will fill those minutes with solid players. What I am worried about is replacing the role.
None of our options (save maybe Crabtree) is really a "shooter" (and Crabtree is the least tested of the options). How important to us was having a knock down shooter in that spot? For example, did Gilyard and/or Blake get a little extra room on drives because Nick's guy was instructed to not leave him open on the 3 line - - - even to help on dribble penetration? Room that now isn't there any more?
How do we adapt to Nick's absence and does it hurt others etc. We will be a different team. Maybe better in some ways (defense? athleticism?) but especially offensively. What's the impact beyond just fewer 3 balls going down. And this brings Moon man's coaching to the forefront. Can he adjust on the fly so that we are really just different offensively with our capable replacements or is all we are able to do is put a new man in the old role and then talk about "what could have been" when the replacement shoots 30% from 3 instead of 43% and gets even more looks because he isn't as respected.
Where Nick's minutes go should depend on what other changes to system etc. we have to make to offset his loss. Now the first option will be (as it should be) just plugging in Burton. If he can shoot 36-38% we are probably good to go. He'll add on defense and do some other things better on offense and that's good enough that we don't have to change much. But if he shoots 30%, we will need to make some scheme/system changes to accommodate getting our best 5 on the floor and maintain our offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency (effective FG% and turnover prevention especially) were our real strengths last year and I do worry that they suffer even with the minutes all replaced by highly capable guys.
So, yeah, I worry about that. But here is what I actually think happens - - - - Burton's a star, eats up all the minutes he can handle AND Gus takes a nice step forward. Both shoot it acceptably well enough and we are a more dynamic team Crabtree ends up not much of factor, but by the end of the year is maybe a little more ready. we play basically 6 guys with some big man fill in minutes from somewhere (Grace I amagine). We are better defensively, not quite as good offensively and . . . everybody take a seat . . . we rise all the way up to almost average rebounding!! This is the area I think we can improve on with a nominal effort (and was true with or without Nick, but even more likely with Burton)
I like the optimism about Burton and Gus. That would be great if those guys have break out years. But I do have a fear that in the games vs the really good teams - we could be lacking perimeter fire power to keep defenses from packing it in , and loading up on Blake and Jacob. Nick was not just good, he was no. 10 in the entire country in 3pt %, and he never seemed to miss a clutch shot (probably a little revisionist thinking on my part), so that is a worry.
www.ncaa.com
NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current individual 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
Not trying to find a loophole, but is there a minimum participation for that list?I like the optimism about Burton and Gus. That would be great if those guys have break out years. But I do have a fear that in the games vs the really good teams - we could be lacking perimeter fire power to keep defenses from packing it in , and loading up on Blake and Jacob. Nick was not just good, he was no. 10 in the entire country in 3pt %, and he never seemed to miss a clutch shot (probably a little revisionist thinking on my part), so that is a worry.
NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current individual Stats | NCAA.com
Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
Seems Like some are missing like Hagedorn of South Dakota...
Interesting that Nick apparently almost missed the cutoff. He had the 3rd fewest attempts and 5th fewest makes on anyone on this list! And here I thought he was getting up a good number per night. Half as many as the top gunners it
I think we define depth differently. You seem to see it as having who can come off the bench and give you minutes, I see it as having 10 guys who can all meaningfully compete for starting jobs. Two of his three signings (Dread and Randolph) seem to profile more as bench additions. They have "potential" but certainly way more questions marks than say a guy like Jason Nelson. To use an old Mooney phrase, he is back to recruiting diamonds in the rough, hoping they grow into high D-1 level talent. That is a strategy that has burned him and us so many times.
You point above though I think says that while we view depth differently, we both have concerns about the incoming talent and its ability to replace the scoring that we are losing.
to me, Randolph looks like he might be the most offensively talented guy in our last 4 classes. he's the one I could see leading the team in scoring.
Dread's more of a question due to less opportunity at Gonzaga, but I think there's a lot to be excited about there too.
Dread's more of a question due to less opportunity at Gonzaga, but I think there's a lot to be excited about there too.
He averaged 5 points a game his last year and only other offers were by JMU and East Carolina, literally two of the worst basketball programs in D-1.
He may end up being a great player, but literally nothing in his high school career or the colleges that were looking at him, indicated that right now. And, this is from a guy that plays at a very high H.S. program and who has a well known brother playing at Penn State, so it's not like he is be overlooked by other coaches. Literally, probably a significant percentage of D-1 programs have probably seen him play in person as Gonzaga has a multitude of high D-1 talent, and Moondog, ECU, and JMU were the only ones who saw fit to offer. So, yeah, lots of questions marks there. We've seen this type of recruit by Mooney before. Maybe this kids buck the trend, but there is a trend for a reason.
In my view, there are two ways to be successful at recruiting. (1) Win battles to sign talent that's clearly at or above your level and (2) correctly identify (and sign) "lesser" recruits who impact your team either because (a) you correctly identified their talent level as higher than common perception or (b) you correctly identified that their talent level is a better fit with your systems etc. than others (thus the player is in fact "better" than other similar players - - for you). Some (Coach Calipari for example) get bye with mostly all just (1) above; while others (think Monson and Few at Gonzaga for the 10-15 years they built the program up, but not so much the last 5 years or so) thrive more on (2 above). Many obviously do some of both and I think to really consistently be good (outside of Top 10ish programs) you need to have some of both. But its all a batting average kind of thing. Nobody hits 1.000 on either, much less both!
I'd say Moon has been more successful at 1 than 2 which is I think counter intuitive to what most might think. As with any coach, you don't win them all, but the players who have become real good multi-year impact players for us, were predominantly "projectable" type 1's (at least that's what I feel like - - - I haven't gone back and done a statistical analysis). And I think his batting average on these guys working out is probably pretty good compared to similar schools/coaches. For sure we have done well in this area with the smallish point guards. So I don't think hit rate on Type 1's is a problem.
The problem is two-fold. Not enough type 1's signed and not enough "hits" on type 2's. To be successful over the long haul, you need 2 impact players per year. While perfect symmetry isn't really required, it sure helps and getting two a year on average is all but required to maintain consistent success. For a school like us to get 2 a year, we will need to sign at least 2 type 1's (who won't all work out) and hit on enough type 2's to offset any shortcomings (either in numbers or "hit rate") of type 1's. So if the hit rate on type 1's is 75%, we need at least a 25% hit rate on type 2's (assuming we are actually getting 2 type 1's and 2 type 2's a year signed). But if we only average 1.5 type 1's and keep the same 75% hit rate, we'll sign 2.5 type 2's and need the hit rate to be 35% to get to 2 impact players on average. And the later example has sorta been us. Not enough Type 1's and not enough success with type 2's. Certainly there are years that are exceptions and ways after the fact (transfers) to plug the holes. And you can certainly end up with a good run (like last year and this year) through one or two good recruiting classes and some transfers etc. But CONSISTENT LONG TERM success is going to require upping our batting averages in recruiting and doing so year in and year out.
Some looked at the recent class(es) as a sign we have turned the corner on at least the number of type 1's. Time will tell, is that an exception or have we gotten better at that for long haul. As noted above, there is work to be done with the class that's being formed right now (and certainly time to get it done). I don't know that I see even that same optimistic slant to the problem with Type 2's. We need to get some hits here with our lesser recruits. So far, what we have seen is a lack of hitting on these guys - - - often because instead of being perhaps more talented than the common perception they are in fact less talented than the common perception.
I am going to optimistically hope we have turned a little corner with type 1's, but wonder how we make necessary improvements with type 2's???.
I'd say Moon has been more successful at 1 than 2 which is I think counter intuitive to what most might think. As with any coach, you don't win them all, but the players who have become real good multi-year impact players for us, were predominantly "projectable" type 1's (at least that's what I feel like - - - I haven't gone back and done a statistical analysis). And I think his batting average on these guys working out is probably pretty good compared to similar schools/coaches. For sure we have done well in this area with the smallish point guards. So I don't think hit rate on Type 1's is a problem.
The problem is two-fold. Not enough type 1's signed and not enough "hits" on type 2's. To be successful over the long haul, you need 2 impact players per year. While perfect symmetry isn't really required, it sure helps and getting two a year on average is all but required to maintain consistent success. For a school like us to get 2 a year, we will need to sign at least 2 type 1's (who won't all work out) and hit on enough type 2's to offset any shortcomings (either in numbers or "hit rate") of type 1's. So if the hit rate on type 1's is 75%, we need at least a 25% hit rate on type 2's (assuming we are actually getting 2 type 1's and 2 type 2's a year signed). But if we only average 1.5 type 1's and keep the same 75% hit rate, we'll sign 2.5 type 2's and need the hit rate to be 35% to get to 2 impact players on average. And the later example has sorta been us. Not enough Type 1's and not enough success with type 2's. Certainly there are years that are exceptions and ways after the fact (transfers) to plug the holes. And you can certainly end up with a good run (like last year and this year) through one or two good recruiting classes and some transfers etc. But CONSISTENT LONG TERM success is going to require upping our batting averages in recruiting and doing so year in and year out.
Some looked at the recent class(es) as a sign we have turned the corner on at least the number of type 1's. Time will tell, is that an exception or have we gotten better at that for long haul. As noted above, there is work to be done with the class that's being formed right now (and certainly time to get it done). I don't know that I see even that same optimistic slant to the problem with Type 2's. We need to get some hits here with our lesser recruits. So far, what we have seen is a lack of hitting on these guys - - - often because instead of being perhaps more talented than the common perception they are in fact less talented than the common perception.
I am going to optimistically hope we have turned a little corner with type 1's, but wonder how we make necessary improvements with type 2's???.
we didn't beat out monsters for Grant or Jacob and they're two of our best ever. Wagner was Blake's only offer. pretty short list for Nathan too.
there's tons of talent out there to find and develop. I'd love to beat out Duke for Paul Atkinson too. it would be fun, but it's not going to happen.
there's tons of talent out there to find and develop. I'd love to beat out Duke for Paul Atkinson too. it would be fun, but it's not going to happen.
Just to be clear, I don't think we need to beat out Duke or the like for anyone ever. But we do need to win recruiting wars for guys who solidly (comfortably?) project to be the level of player we want our team to be. Duke stays a Top 5 team because they recruit kids who project to be Top 5 team talent. And then they win their share of those battles. They aren't making it work with diamonds in the rough (which for them might be Top 75 players) as their core recruiting base. They sign kids who everyone thinks can and will be Top 10 team talent.
So, if we want to be a team that is Top 10%-20% of mid - majors, consistent Top 50 and sometimes better team, we need to beat out the middle of the P6 and most the other mid majors for kids who project to be good players at that level (and thus will tend to have lists is mostly made up of that kind of school). I think its very hard to do it with diamonds in the rough as the core. That's a high risk endeavor for sure (see our 5 seasons before last for evidence). It can de done (see Gonzaga circa 1998-2010 or so). But even Gonzaga realized its not the best path to continued success and was able to parlay the diamond in the rough theory to simply winning their share of players who everyone knows are Top 10 level players.
So, if we want to be a team that is Top 10%-20% of mid - majors, consistent Top 50 and sometimes better team, we need to beat out the middle of the P6 and most the other mid majors for kids who project to be good players at that level (and thus will tend to have lists is mostly made up of that kind of school). I think its very hard to do it with diamonds in the rough as the core. That's a high risk endeavor for sure (see our 5 seasons before last for evidence). It can de done (see Gonzaga circa 1998-2010 or so). But even Gonzaga realized its not the best path to continued success and was able to parlay the diamond in the rough theory to simply winning their share of players who everyone knows are Top 10 level players.
Similar threads
