Final Roster Spot

[spider23]

Curious as to what we think will happen with this final spot. As crowded as the roster seems to be getting, I do think we could use a legit PF type. I know, we can debate how they are used in our offense, but contrary to popular belief in some camps - we do need a guy to play D and rebound. We have seen Justin Harper - in his final season - probably play the role as well and ideally as we could ask - he developed a great post up game after going to big man school in Boston. And add that to his nice 3pt shot he was the perfect hybrid. Cayo was strictly a post up and slasher guy, rarely taking or making an outside shot. Again, most importantly in my book is a competent D and rebounding guy. I forgot about him, but Nweke at Columbia (SF mentioned him) is they type I would like to add.

I know we have folks that say another 3 pt shooter, and I can agree that still may be a need - right now we are counting on improvement, or return to form from new and returning guys.

Someone mentioned we are one sprained ankle from lacking PG depth.

Curious as to the staff's current plan is for the last spot - if anything?

 

[SFspidur]

I suspect we're done, but would love an athletic PF.

 

[SpiderDad75]

Curious as to what we think will happen with this final spot. As crowded as the roster seems to be getting, I do think we could use a legit PF type. I know, we can debate how they are used in our offense, but contrary to popular belief in some camps - we do need a guy to play D and rebound. We have seen Justin Harper - in his final season - probably play the role as well and ideally as we could ask - he developed a great post up game after going to big man school in Boston. And add that to his nice 3pt shot he was the perfect hybrid. Cayo was strictly a post up and slasher guy, rarely taking or making an outside shot. Again, most importantly in my book is a competent D and rebounding guy. I forgot about him, but Nweke at Columbia (SF mentioned him) is they type I would like to add.

I know we have folks that say another 3 pt shooter, and I can agree that still may be a need - right now we are counting on improvement, or return to form from new and returning guys.

Someone mentioned we are one sprained ankle from lacking PG depth.

Curious as to the staff's current plan is for the last spot - if anything?

I really don’t think we need a PG at this point. Jayson Dji and Goose are all capable with Dji and Jayson being the best 2 options imo

 

[SpiderDad75]

I suspect we're done, but would love an athletic PF.

If we were going to use it…this is the best option I think

 

[spider23]

Some names:

1. Nweke - Columbia
2. Carr - Delaware
3. Chatman - Ill State

 

[97spiderfan]

Think we are really short on depth in the front court, so I voted for a PF. Another shooter would be a close second considering our offense is predicated on spacing and finding open shooters.

I think if we find neither than Mooney is going to have to tweak our offense, because our personnel while not great shooters all are really good at getting to the hoop.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm still worried about shooting. The game is a three-point shooting game now, no way around it. We need to be more capable there than we are right now.

 

[Not-A-Homer]

Think we are really short on depth in the front court, so I voted for a PF. Another shooter would be a close second considering our offense is predicated on spacing and finding open shooters.

I think if we find neither than Mooney is going to have to tweak our offense, because our personnel while not great shooters all are really good at getting to the hoop.

100% spot on. Next year's team (as of now) is not set up to be a great (or even good) 3-point shooting team. Everyone knows that in the past, Mooney's offense works best with good 3-point shooters.

It seems obvious that maximum success next year will most likely will come from a style of play (offense) modified to the strengths of the team. Can a coach not known for his ability to make minor adjustments be able to implement a major adjustment? Time will tell, I suspect that the odds are not in his favor.

The best news in my book is that the players entering UR from the portal are far superior to the players exiting from the portal. This would be great news in a normal year. However, the graduation losses from last year does not make this a normal year. Improvement is always good. Will it be enough is the question? Again, time will tell. Seems it is too early to celebrate just yet.

 

[CarolinaSpider]

Would enjoy a PF that can drive and rebound like Cayo, but has the ability to take
the 2 pt jumper inside of 15 ft. Cayo would have been an absolute beast if he had a
good short jumper.

 

[VT4700]

I'm still worried about shooting. The game is a three-point shooting game now, no way around it. We need to be more capable there than we are right now.

Agree. I don't know why there is so much want for a "4" or "PF" type that pretty much doesn't exist anymore. And, if we get that type, where is the playing time for him when we need shooters? I'm not sure we can go find a solid 3 point guy now. I would love to, but a transfer looking for playing time might have much better options than us right now. As of now, we need Goose and Grace to be in the 33-35% range if they get the playing time we expect. Tyler needs to match last year (36+), but we will need better than 31% over his final 32 games. I am high on Bigelow, and think he can be the other guy in the 35% or better range. The other guys are unproven, but maybe Nelson can be a threat out there. Maybe a lot of "ifs" there, but I think the potential is there.

 

[spiderman]

Nweke's the top choice but I don't know if I really want a non-shooter at the 4 like Nweke next to Quinn who doesn't have range and with guys like Goose and Dji who haven't shown perimeter proficiency. not everyone needs to be a shooter ... but someone out there should be besides Burton.

we haven't been mentioned with Abercrombie (nobody has to my knowledge), but I'd like a shooter with size and he might fit the bill.

 

[97spiderfan]

It seems obvious that maximum success next year will most likely will come from a style of play (offense) modified to the strengths of the team. Can a coach not known for his ability to make minor adjustments be able to implement a major adjustment? Time will tell, I suspect that the odds are not in his favor.

Right, I'm trying to be optimistic but Mooney is not a guy good at making adjustments, we know this.

I kind of see our personnel developing to be close to the team 15-16 team, with Deion, Trey, TA, TJ, and SDJ. That team massively underperformed despite the big 3 of TA, TJ, and SDJ, mainly due to lack of depth and the other two starters having poor seasons and were poor shooters which made for an ill fit for our offensive plan. But that was a big (tall) team that was not a great shooting team and most of our scorers were at their best not as stand alone shooters but guys who scored off of penetration.

I think we clearly have a lot more depth on this years team, but we certainly don't have a Big 3, like we did then.

 

[VT4700]

Would enjoy a PF that can drive and rebound like Cayo, but has the ability to take
the 2 pt jumper inside of 15 ft. Cayo would have been an absolute beast if he had a
good short jumper.

I think power conference schools would like that too. Loved Nate, but he wasn't a great rebounder. If there were a guy transferring that could drive, rebound, and shoot, he would probably expect a ton of playing time. I'm not saying don't try to get that guy, but if we go after that type now, wouldn't he realize or get told by other teams after him that we just got Quinn, Grace is back, we just got Bigelow, we have a solid 8 man rotation now, and have Walz coming in as another big. We have already filled 2 needs. I think Quinn and Bigelow are great fits. I just don't see a path to a lot of playing time for another transfer right now.

 

[VT4700]

100% spot on. Next year's team (as of now) is not set up to be a great (or even good) 3-point shooting team. Everyone knows that in the past, Mooney's offense works best with good 3-point shooters.

It seems obvious that maximum success next year will most likely will come from a style of play (offense) modified to the strengths of the team. Can a coach not known for his ability to make minor adjustments be able to implement a major adjustment? Time will tell, I suspect that the odds are not in his favor.

The best news in my book is that the players entering UR from the portal are far superior to the players exiting from the portal. This would be great news in a normal year. However, the graduation losses from last year does not make this a normal year. Improvement is always good. Will it be enough is the question? Again, time will tell. Seems it is too early to celebrate just yet.

I think we made a major adjustment with Cayo. Our style of play is not really suited for a Cayo type. Not many team's styles are. The game has changed. Either you are a big or you can shoot the 3. Do both and you might be NBA bound. Nate was kind of in that in between range. Not really a big, but couldn't shoot the 3. It is really impressive what he did at his size. He improved dramatically each year and turned himself into a solid attack the basket guy from down low. Last year, when we often struggled to hit the 3, we went to Nate more and more. Seems like a pretty good adjustment. This will probably get my share of attacks, but I see plenty of adjustments made when I watch us play.

 

[fan2011]

Some thought about Richmond 3pt shooting:

1) We don't know how many of the freshmen/sophomores are good shooters. We could have a decent number of shooters already.
2) Mooney's teams tend to be much, much better from 2 than from 3.
3) Mooney's teams tend to shoot fewer 3's than the D1 average.

Not sure why people think Mooney's offense is so predicated around having good 3pt shooters, seems to me like there has always been a large focus on high percentage 2s.

 

[VT4700]

I hear you, but being good from 3, and having multiple threats out there, makes our 2 point game that much better.

 

[Eight Legger]

There's a reason why teams like Mason and Auburn have adopted the strategy of only taking layups/dunks or three-pointers. The analytics say that if you make X percentage of those shots, it's better than mostly taking jumpers and a few threes.

Now of course it's all dependent upon how well you do all of those things, but most teams have enough guys who can make threes that if you don't, you are behind.

If you shoot 40% from two and I shoot 30% from three and we both take 10 shots, I win. That's basically the theory in a nutshell.

 

[fan2011]

I hear you, but being good from 3, and having multiple threats out there, makes our 2 point game that much better.

That is an interesting theory, but doesn't show up in our stats. Our 2FG% and 3FG% are about as uncorrelated as possible, R^2 = 0.0003.

 

[VT4700]

Teams are making more and more 3s every year. Teams that do not keep up will have a hard time winning consistently.

 

[fan2011]

Teams are making more and more 3s every year. Teams that do not keep up will have a hard time winning consistently.

This hasn't really shown up in D1 data yet. The R^2 between 3FG made and offensive efficiency is 0.07.

 

[Not-A-Homer]

Teams are making more and more 3s every year. Teams that do not keep up will have a hard time winning consistently.

I think that this is correct, AND this is why I said that it is much too early to be celebrating next year's roster. Time will tell if there is enough outside firepower to keep it from being a "hard time winning consistently" sort of season.

I suspect that Connor Crabtree has a real opportunity (and will get a chance to be) the team's second biggest outside threat. Can, or will he be able to step up in a big way is a million dollar question.

 

[Eight Legger]

The caveat here is that in general, a D1 player is more likely to make a three-pointer if he is open. So if by adding some talent inside the three-point line that forces defenses to collapse more and leave guys like Goose, Burton, Bigelow and Crabtree with a little breathing room outside it, that might have the same effect that we are seeking and help increase all of their 3-pt percentages.

 

[spiderman]

If you shoot 40% from two and I shoot 30% from three and we both take 10 shots, I win. That's basically the theory in a nutshell.

nobody shoots only 40% from 2.
if we expect 50% from 2, then the breakeven from 3 is 33%.
guys shooting less than 33% shouldn't be shooting from 3.

 

[97spiderfan]

Not sure why people think Mooney's offense is so predicated around having good 3pt shooters, seems to me like there has always been a large focus on high percentage 2s.

Because literally every time we lose, Mooney's classic response is we need to shoot better from 3. Moondog has conditioned us.

 

[VT4700]

The caveat here is that in general, a D1 player is more likely to make a three-pointer if he is open. So if by adding some talent inside the three-point line that forces defenses to collapse more and leave guys like Goose, Burton, Bigelow and Crabtree with a little breathing room outside it, that might have the same effect that we are seeking and help increase all of their 3-pt percentages.

Well said. An inside threat makes it better for the 3 point shooters, and also if guys can hit the 3, it makes it that much better for the inside guys..Have both and you dramatically improve your chances to win consistently.

 

[spider23]

I think the pandemic shut down year, one reason we were so successful was when we started posting up both Golden and Cayo, little two man high low action, etc. When they were scoring inside Nick, Gilly and Francis were getting wide open looks from 3. That worked well. Yes, would work even better if that 4 can step out and hit a 15 footer, but I don't see any 4's other than Grace having the post up game that Nate did - it puts a lot of pressure on the D.

 

[urmite]

nobody shoots only 40% from 2.
if we expect 50% from 2, then the breakeven from 3 is 33%.
guys shooting less than 33% shouldn't be shooting from 3.

I do.

I shoot 40% from 2 points and from 2 feet...

However my 27.3% from 50 feet usually helps...

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

back to final roster spot - if a transfer, as noted, it's not going to be a big minutes guy at this point, bc UR doesn't have big minutes to offer at the spots discussed/any spots really. So if there is a guy who can provide great reserve minutes as an interior body or as a lengthy defender with a little more bulk (Cayo 225lbs vs new transfer 200lbs) that can be something useful. I'd only want that guy for 1 year though, not to eat a roster spot for more than that. As said, who guards another team's 2nd big forward - think 2nd Murray brother or the 6'8" 2nd forward from Providence who lit it up from all over the court? Not sure UR has a forward who can guard that on its roster. Tough ask and very niche role so who knows. My other preference is also for another shooter of some sort, don't care about position..

 

[VT4700]

Good post. I will add that I'm just not that worried about who will guard an opponent's second big guy because there just aren't a lot of teams that play that way now. If we run into a bad matchup in the NCAA tourney, hey, who cares if that's our biggest worry, right? 1. This means we got to the dance, so we must have done something right with our roster. 2. We might have the right matchup, and not have to worry about this anyway. I'm more focused on our A-10 opponents. And, instead of worrying about how we match up with others, we can reverse that and say how do teams match up with us if we don't have 2 bigs out there.

 

[Long Island Spiders]

Good post. I will add that I'm just not that worried about who will guard an opponent's second big guy because there just aren't a lot of teams that play that way now. If we run into a bad matchup in the NCAA tourney, hey, who cares if that's the least of our problems, right? I'm more focused on our A-10 opponents. And, instead of worrying about how we match up with others, we can reverse that and say how do teams match up with us if we don't have 2 bigs out there.

Hmmm we were consistently worried this year as to who would guard the other teams best player who was usually either a 2 or 3. Goose was the one who took on this responsibility often. But we were worried usually given the size and athleticism of this type of player.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

Good post. I will add that I'm just not that worried about who will guard an opponent's second big guy because there just aren't a lot of teams that play that way now. If we run into a bad matchup in the NCAA tourney, hey, who cares if that's our biggest worry, right? 1. This means we got to the dance, so we must have done something right with our roster. 2. We might have the right matchup, and not have to worry about this anyway. I'm more focused on our A-10 opponents. And, instead of worrying about how we match up with others, we can reverse that and say how do teams match up with us if we don't have 2 bigs out there.

There are a TON of teams that could pull an ATHLETIC 6'5" ish guy off the bench who would give us nightmares inside! It doesn't take a 6'8" / 6'9" power forward type guy to give us problems inside because we don't have the athleticism to effectively control an athlete of that size. The A10 has a number of these athletes and they're getting more with Loyola Chicago coming in.
Heres my starting lineup:
Quinn
Bryce Golden
Burton
DJi at point
and whoever can shoot the damn ball!
That'd have been perhaps a better front court than we had last year which we need because of our relative inexperience in the backcourt.
We need to find another Bryce Golden type player... cuz we really don't him brownstone.
Ps. Loyola is going to absolutely own us for years to come because of their interior strength until we improve our interior defense.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

There are a TON of teams that could pull an ATHLETIC 6'5" ish guy off the bench who would give us nightmares inside! It doesn't take a 6'8" / 6'9" power forward type guy to give us problems inside because we don't have the athleticism to effectively control an athlete of that size. The A10 has a number of these athletes and they're getting more with Loyola Chicago coming in.
Heres my starting lineup:
Quinn
Bryce Golden
Burton
DJi at point
and whoever can shoot the ball!
That'd have been perhaps a better front court than we had last year which we need because of our relative inexperience.
We need to find another Bryce Golden type player.
Ps. Loyola is going to absolutely own us for years to come because of their interior strength until we improve our interior defens

And with that potential size at 1 and 2 I bring back a little of that match up zone

 

[VT4700]

There are a TON of teams that could pull an ATHLETIC 6'5" ish guy off the bench who would give us nightmares inside! It doesn't take a 6'8" / 6'9" power forward type guy to give us problems inside because we don't have the athleticism to effectively control an athlete of that size. The A10 has a number of these athletes and they're getting more with Loyola Chicago coming in.
Heres my starting lineup:
Quinn
Bryce Golden
Burton
DJi at point
and whoever can shoot the damn ball!
That'd have been perhaps a better front court than we had last year which we need because of our relative inexperience in the backcourt.
We need to find another Bryce Golden type player.
Ps. Loyola is going to absolutely own us for years to come because of their interior strength until we improve our interior defense.

So, 2 shooters max on the floor? Yikes. Loyola was 15th in the country from 3 last year, and made 9 a game.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

So, 2 shooters max on the floor? Yikes. Loyola was 15th in the country from 3 last year, and made 9 a game.

Bryce was 34% from 3, not great but keeps teams honest, Burton, and "someone who can shoot the damn ball" is already more than 2. And you're assuming Dji cant shoot effectively (and you may be right idk). The more effective we can score inside we dont need four shooters. And that I think is why Loyola was so good outside because they are effective inside - you made my point. And I'll add that is why Providence beat us because they were so effective inside. And I'm absolutely fine with MFG coming in as a stretch 4 off the bench.

 

[VT4700]

LoL. I did? Or, did you make mine? 😀 Providence was 16-32 from 2, and 12-22 from 3. 12-22 from 3 equals 18-22 from 2. We were 20-31 from 2 and 1-22 from 3. But, fine, if you want to say the 2 point game was the difference, go right ahead. If we just would have had another big out there, right? Lol.

 

[VT4700]

There are a TON of teams that could pull an ATHLETIC 6'5" ish guy off the bench who would give us nightmares inside! It doesn't take a 6'8" / 6'9" power forward type guy to give us problems inside because we don't have the athleticism to effectively control an athlete of that size. The A10 has a number of these athletes and they're getting more with Loyola Chicago coming in.
Heres my starting lineup:
Quinn
Bryce Golden
Burton
DJi at point
and whoever can shoot the damn ball!
That'd have been perhaps a better front court than we had last year which we need because of our relative inexperience in the backcourt.
We need to find another Bryce Golden type player.
Ps. Loyola is going to absolutely own us for years to come because of their interior strength until we improve our interior defense.

Are you mixing Loyola with someone else? They started 3 guards last year, and finished 180th in rebounding. None of their top 7 was over 6'7, but we are supposed to worry and change our whole lineup and approach around because they might have a 6'5 athletic guy off the bench?

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

Your starting Spider lineup has Bryce Golden in it? Gotcha.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

And I understand the take about many teams running essentially 4 guards/wings out there but Bigelow is 6'7" 200. Which is Burton minus 15 lbs of muscle. Grace is tall but not what I'd call physical. A reserve big who can give 8-10m per game with some measure of physicality - I'd say it will be needed at least a few times next year. Saying it would only happen in a 2nd round NCAA game is not realistic. Many teams have multiple physical frontcourt players.

Playing a Davidson type team? Sure throw Burton and Bigelow at the forwards and it's okay to match up. Teams that want to play physical ball? Not ideal defensively.

 

[VT4700]

Hmmm we were consistently worried this year as to who would guard the other teams best player who was usually either a 2 or 3. Goose was the one who took on this responsibility often. But we were worried usually given the size and athleticism of this type of player.

We were? I thought Goose did great, and is an outstanding defender.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

Your starting Spider lineup has Bryce Golden in it? Gotcha.

I was just saying... And later went to say we need a Bryce Golden type. Re read. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.