Interesting thread and I think the whole tone of the thread indicates the problem.
The question was/is - - How good is the starting Five? While a few have mentioned defense, most all the discussion here centers on offense and how good they are/can be etc. or how they don't all fit together etc. . . . on offense. Again, not exclusively, but its clear from reading this thread that "how good" to most people requires an assessment of offense first and foremost. Our problem and this groups problems are FAR FAR more defensive than offensive and its absolutely not just a height problem either and its not the system either. We could play a better system that might cover up shortcomings better etc. but the problem is that not one of our guys is a particularly good individual defender and several are simply not good individually at all. Some seem to lack the lateral quickness and/or footwork to be good, some seem to lack any sort of understanding of what they have to do, and some, at times, seem to lack the the "want to" needed to be a good individual defender. You can't cover up for 5 guys who are all below avg. as individual defenders. JG for example, is super quick and looks good on defense when he can use his quickness etc. to stalk steals etc. but he is still below avg. as an individual defender.
Its clear the Starting Five aren't very good right now and the proof is in the record (and even more in how they have looked a lot of the time). There are a number of things contributing to that (inexperience, height, shooting, fatigue, coaching etc.) and all are valid, but the biggest problem BY A WIDE MARGIN is the inability as individual defenders. The offense will actually get better as soon as (if?) we get better on defense. Transition baskets (whether layups or wide open threes as a team gets its defense set in transition etc.) are an important part of offense. It is substantially harder to score after a made basket than after a turnover or a defensive rebound. Some teams offense (VCU of the past few years an example) is almost completely dependent on their defense and if they stink on defense, they will almost by default stink on offense too. We aren't as dependant, but I guarantee our shooting percentages go up once we start making the other team miss more!
The problem is what can be done about the defense? Will they get better and how much better? Yes, experience will help - - but only so much. Depth would help too, but even less. Different systems MIGHT help, but it would only help COVER UP the shortcomings, not correct them. There are only two things that can really help - - - one is simply to get different players who are better defenders. Not easy and we certainly don't know if we have any coming save maybe more time for Nathan (who is probably already our best individual defender and absolutely the one who might actually be a good defender some day). So, the individual players must get better. Coaches need to recognize each players problems and what can be done etc. for that player and the the players must embrace the work needed. Will those things happen? We don't know. But what scares the hell out of me is our track record for developing guys to become more than they are when we get them. Every player will improve some over time, so its not a matter of pointing to a list of guys who were better as Seniors than Freshman because they darn well better be, its have we been able to take guys and not just make them a little better at what they do etc. but really transform them. I can't cite the example of this at UR but I think it needs to be the model!
I will use Mychal Bridges and Villanova as an example of what needs to be our model. Out of high school (and for reference, I saw him play probably 60-70 games in high school), he was not equipped to play at all much less contribute at that level. He redshirted as a freshman (and not because Nova had so much depth, but because he would have been totally overwhelmed) and there was a lot written about "he's a reach", "he'll never play here", etc. etc. He's now a lottery pick in the NBA draft next year. He didn't get a little bit better, he's a totally different guy. The Nova coaches knew exactly what he had to do, sold him on it, laid it all out for him, set unbelievably high expectations for him and then stood there with him, hour after hour after hour helping him. And he embraced it and worked CRAZY HARD because the coaches sold him on what he could do and wouldn't accept less or, more importantly, let him accept less. This was never done, by the way by benching him after he made mistakes when he first started playing etc. Jay Wright NEVER benches his young guys for mistakes. NEVER. Interestingly, he does bench his leaders when they screw up! It was the same story for others at Nova. Nova has the highest winning percentage in college basketball the last 7 years (i think that is the correct period) with no one and done NBA guys, very few "stud" recruits at all ( I don't think they have had a top 25 recruiting class in that run). They have done it by understanding what kind of kids they can get and what they can do with them and then turning them into MORE than anyone could have imagined. They make every player that comes through there a substantially better player than most anyone thought they would be - - and its not just that they can recruit diamonds in the rough and watch them turn out better - - - they make whoever they get better players with their coaching. I am convinced the entire key there isn't recruiting, or their systems or the game day X and O's, its their player development program, They make players better - - - in many cases, a lot better!
For us to have sustained success, we need to follow this model. We can't count on getting recruits that are great or even great fits. We need to be able to make the players we do get better (and sometimes much better) and that I just haven't seen Are we going to be a Top 10 team - - - no. But its the same model a McKillop uses for his sustained success and he sustained it as they moved up a level etc. Its something that stays with the program as kids come and go. We made the sweet 16 because we got very lucky to get KA and Harp at the same time and haven't sustained that all because we haven't been able to get players that good since. Given the challenges for Richmond basketball, we can't build our program on what the biggest baddest teams do (i.e. out recruiting your peers etc.) because we just wont win that battle often enough. We need to base the program on an ability to identify kids who can be made better and make them better. Jay Wright actually changed his recruiting philosophy to recruit less blue chippers because he felt like he could develop lesser players more and building a program on four year guys and not NBA bound guys was what he and his staff were good at and they had "lost their way" when they stooped looking for those kind of kids and just took the best kids they could get.
This to me is how we have to do it. But, I am not sure this is the coach for that!
