Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's called coaching.Here is a great video of Nathan Cayo. It is amazing how much he improved from his freshman year. Fun to watch.
It's called coaching.
I agree for the short term.they're developing and only sophomores. the recruiting in the classes above that left us with very little in the senior and junior classes was the problem. we were forced to start two freshmen a lot this year who while promising, shouldn't have been in that position. and depth wasn't there.
the roster issues look to me to be in the past. but I know some will disagree.
if we add Tate to Burton in the current class, that will be 4 straight good recruiting classes. let's see who we get.I agree for the short term.
However, there is still a part of me that worries that Mooney will fall into a recruiting lull again, based on the past 8 years of recruiting.
Yes, that Verbinksus, Schneider, AJ Ford class of two years ago is tearing it up.if we add Tate to Burton in the current class, that will be 4 straight good recruiting classes. let's see who we get.
Do you mean the Gilyard, Cayo class?Yes, that Verbinksus, Schneider, AJ Ford class of two years ago is tearing it up.
yeah, I'm not suggesting we're hitting 100%.Do you mean the Gilyard, Cayo class?
Half empty, Half full...
Love to see a complete Glass...
yeah, I'm not suggesting we're hitting 100%.
Gilyard was a homerun. Cayo was a single that turned into a triple in year 2. and we added Francis to that group.
Ford and Schneider were misses. I won't write off Verbinskis yet.
if we add Tate to Burton in the current class, that will be 4 straight good recruiting classes. let's see who we get.
Actually, I’m the one who said that.97, you are on the record of saying you need 2 good players each class in order to get your 8 man rotation. I think s-man was saying we had a few classes in a row that met that criteria.
Golden/Sherod/Buckingham, then Gilyard/Cayo, then Wojcik/Gustavson/Kouressi. Hopefully Burton fits into this category as well.
You can’t really use that math. Three misses in one year means you can’t really miss on guys in any other year.The Gilyard and Cayo class should get an A. I guess some people expect every recruit to be a starter. The math does not work that way for any school.
You can’t really use that math. Three misses in one year means you can’t really miss on guys in any other year.
60% miss rate means you have 5-6 capable players on a 13 man roster. That’s not gonna do it.
If you only hit on 40% of recruits, that means you have 5.2 capable scholarship athletes (.4 x 13).I give it an A because of the production we got from them as sophomores. I will take my chances with Jacob and Nick and the misses, and see what the next few years gives us. Not sure how you get 5-6 capable players. Why wouldn't 2 a year mean consistently 8?
That is why I said half, 2 up, 2 down, one still to come.yeah, I'm not suggesting we're hitting 100%.
Gilyard was a homerun. Cayo was a single that turned into a triple in year 2. and we added Francis to that group.
Ford and Schneider were misses. I won't write off Verbinskis yet.
You sound as if you think we shouldn’t give 20 scholarships at a time to get 8 players...If you only hit on 40% of recruits, that means you have 5.2 capable scholarship athletes (.4 x 13).
Your math presumes that we we will get 2 every year but not if it takes us 5 offers every year to get those 2.
I’m just spitballing here...but why don’t we just offer 25?You sound as if you think we shouldn’t give 20 scholarships at a time to get 8 players...
If you only hit on 40% of recruits, that means you have 5.2 capable scholarship athletes (.4 x 13).
Your math presumes that we we will get 2 every year but not if it takes us 5 offers every year to get those 2.
I won't write off Verbinskis yet.
I’m the one who has said you need two per classI hear you, but I am only focusing on the 2. Not saying what will happen if we hit 40%, or who we miss on. Others have said if you get 2 good ones a year, that is pretty good, and I agree with that. If they turn out to be Jacob and Nate, a pretty good class becomes real good.
I’m the one who has said you need two per class
But my theory is you have 3.25 scholarships per year to do that with, so youbhave to be averaging 60%. If it’s 5 scholarships you have to get at least 3 and maybe a fourth. That’s a good “class.” We can’t survive on a 40% hit rate, it’s really that simple.
I know you're focused on just the 2 guys in that class who are definitely quality players but you can’t look at it in a vacuum.
You youngsters and your new age math...[ending my argument]I see your math about the scholarships, but didn't 2 of they guys leave and open up 2 scholarships? So, that is better than going 2 out of 5 and having 3 guys never play. Using your math related to scholarships, by opening up the 2 scholarships, we could say we hit on 2 of 3. I do see your point, but I still give us an A for Jacob and Nate.
I see your math about the scholarships, but didn't 2 of they guys leave and open up 2 scholarships? So, that is better than going 2 out of 5 and having 3 guys never play. Using your math related to scholarships, by opening up the 2 scholarships, we could say we hit on 2 of 3. I do see your point, but I still give us an A for Jacob and Nate.
Our greatest player of the Mooney era, Kevin Anderson, only had interest from Georgia, Murray St, Marshall, Purple and us. At least we beat out Madison on that one.
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/44984/kevin-anderson
Actually not that many I think. We lost a lot of games that weren’t close.At times we don’t think enough about free throws. An example is how much we
discuss our 3 pt. percentage in another thread.
How many games could we have won if we had been better at the free throw line
last year?
Actually not that many I think. We lost a lot of games that weren’t close.
But I agree that I’d love to see us improve our FT shooting. Seems like an easier opportunity for improvement than improving from 3.
Yes definitely true on some games and particularly true where we missed front ends. I generally don’t recall thinking too often “if we’d only shot better from the line” in games we lost last year. I definitely recall feeling that way three seasons ago though.You are correct in that we lost plenty that weren't close, but when you lose 20 games, you will also likely have a few that were. We lost our 1st game by 5 and went 6-16 at the line, we lost to VCU by 3 and went 8-19 from the line, lost to Duquesne by 6 and went 10-18. It is not just the misses costing 1 point, because sometimes a miss is a front end of a 1 and 1 and cost 2 points.
It really comes down to Grant and Nate. They took 166 and 156 FTs for a combined 322, while the rest of the team took a combined 230. If we can just get each of them to 70%, that would go a long toward making us a good FT shooting team.
Grant (65.7%) was 109-166.
Nate (57.7%) was 90-156.
A million times "like". It drove me nuts that Trey Davis had the same form for 4 years. Kudos to Nate for putting in the effort to address it.Article in Times dispatch say Cayo completing changing his free throw style. Hopes to significantly improve shooting percentage. Says he had a high percent in high school.