ADVERTISEMENT

Jacob Gilyard - 2017 Signee

Initial thoughts:

1. No big time offers, but still a nice list of mid-majors who had offered this guy.
2. Mooney's track record with small point guards is really good, agree that I see some Kendall Anthony in him.
3. We are now officially full at the guard position, the remaining slots have to go to big men prospects.

Welcome aboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo
Does anyone know what the scholarship allocation looks like for the next two years? Do we have 1 remaining for this class so we can have 1 remaining in 2018? The balance, or lack thereof, of the scholarship redistribution worries me a bit.
 
spider23 said:
Loved the looks of that video. I'm on board with the "we really need a nice big guy recruit" crowd, but we also need a guy like this. He reminds me of the guard out of Memphis that ended up going to Florida. Big time talent it appears. Very nice!
Click to expand...
Chris Chiozza and you are right! OSC
 
MacSpider said:
Thank you anyway, I never mess with anything you started.
Click to expand...
Heh...only moderators can edit others' posts, so I assume it was 05. Unless he's quietly hired on some other folks at six-figure salaries to help out.
 
Here is a little extra read about Richmond's latest commit. I found it to be good reading, check it out for yourself..




Barstow’s Gilyard, Olathe South’s Ingram and Future Soldier Derry selected as U.S. Army High School Top Performers
HS-TP-0115.jpg

January 2015 – Each month Kansas City Sports & Fitness Magazine teams up with the U.S. Army
to honor High School Top Performers.This month we visited the Barstow School, Olathe South and the Grandview Recruiting Center to honor three Top Performers in the Kansas City metro.

Jacob Gilyard / The Barstow School / Student-Athlete

The Barstow boys basketball team started a freshman at point guard last year, typically not a recipe for success. But Jacob Gilyard led the Knights to 27 wins and the state championship game in Missouri Class 3.

After a season of starting experience, Gilyard earned U.S. Army Top Performer honors by propelling Barstow to a great start in 2014-15. The Knights have played a brutal schedule and stand 6-1, the only loss coming to the top-ranked team in Kansas Class 6-A, Lawrence, in triple overtime.

“He’s light years ahead of where most kids are as sophomores,” said Barstow coach Billy Thomas. “He’s shot the ball well. He’s distributed the ball, defended. He’s done everything you ask a point guard to do. Without question I think he’s one of the best in the area.”

Gilyard deflected praise to his coach and teammates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulla1
SF, yes I'm guilty, I thought it was a great idea and I was certain you would not object
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFspidur
love this verbal. needed a true PG on the roster when SDJ graduates. Gilyard's highlights focus on his shooting, but he considers himself a pass first PG who makes his teammates better.
I disagree with what I feel is O'Connor's implication with his tweet that Gilyard's the 3rd guard in our class. Godwin and Schneider have guard skills, but they're pretty big. could be forwards for us.
I think we'll only go for one more in this class leaving one for B Golden (hopefully). obviously we're after a big forward. love the level of the ones we're involved with. heck of a class so far with one piece missing. love how this roster is coming together for the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderK
97spiderfan said:
Initial thoughts:

1. No big time offers, but still a nice list of mid-majors who had offered this guy.
2. Mooney's track record with small point guards is really good, agree that I see some Kendall Anthony in him.
3. We are now officially full at the guard position, the remaining slots have to go to big men prospects.

Welcome aboard.
Click to expand...
Agree with numbers 2 and 3. I hear your concern in regards to number 1. I do feel good about this guy, he passes the eye test, mentions in one of the interviews I believe that Vanderbilt was among the teams recruiting him hard, and Wichita State was in the picture. I am guilty about being positive about recruits until they prove they can't play at this level, but I like this pick up. While it sounds like Monte will play a bit of PG, I think he is a guy that is just a basketball player, it doesn't matter what position he plays, he will make an impact wherever he plays on the floor. Now let's go and get one more stud in this class.
 
KA had offers from App State, Furman, Wofford. K0 had offers from South Alabama, Lipscomb, and Colgate. SDJ had offers from South Alabama and Akron.
 
PhillySpider said:
What kind of lists did KA, KO or SDJ have?
Click to expand...
yeah, it seems like a very similar situation. heck of a player but small listed at 5'9". a lot of teams aren't offering 5'9" guys no matter how good they are, just like they didn't offer K0. CM's had success with these players. not many P5 teams have.
 
I think this is a good signing, height aside. We've had guys of this size be successful here though.

I don't see a logjam at PG or even at 2G. I really only think of SDJ and Khwan as PGs and SDJ graduates, so there's a hole to fill. I think of DMB, Jesse, and Julius as 2G, although Julius was playing more of a small forward on the Europe trip. We have some guys who can probably play down or up a spot depending on our needs.

We have to get a big(ger) guy with our final spot though, just not enough depth after this year at 4/5.
 
maybe not a logjam, but we'll have a slew of guys who don't play the traditional frontcourt.
Gilyard - 5'9"
Khwan - 6'0"
JJ - 6'3"
Jesse - 6'3"
DMB - 6'4"
Nick - 6'4"
Bryce - 6'4"
Marquis - 6'5"

only big guys will be Solly (6'7"), Grant (6'9"), and Paul (6'10).
this next recruit needs to be a good one, as he'll likely have a role right away unless Marquis is playing some 4.
 
spiderman said:
maybe not a logjam, but we'll have a slew of guys who don't play the traditional frontcourt.
Gilyard - 5'9"
Khwan - 6'0"
JJ - 6'3"
Jesse - 6'3"
DMB - 6'4"
Nick - 6'4"
Bryce - 6'4"
Marquis - 6'5"

only big guys will be Solly (6'7"), Grant (6'9"), and Paul (6'10).
this next recruit needs to be a good one, as he'll likely have a role right away unless Marquis is playing some 4.
Click to expand...

Solly may be more of a 3 than a 4. While Bryce & Marquis could both be an inch taller - won't know for sure until on the roster.

Either we a 4/5 recruit or two for next season, or we add 1 or 2 Abakah types for next season.
 
Bryce is 6'6"; Marquis is 6'6"; Nick is 6'5". We are doing just fine. OSC
 
What seems evident is that we are recruiting guys who feel comfortable playing up or down a spot pretty regularly. The fact that we have so many guys that aren't clearly identifiable as a PG/SG/SF is a strong indication of this.

I do think we need a guy who is more at the 6'8"+ range, but it may be we aren't so worried about that any more, we just want the best players available. We're obviously having some trouble reeling in those bigger type guys. There are fewer of them to go around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulla1
Ulla1 said:
Bryce is 6'6"; Marquis is 6'6"; Nick is 6'5". We are doing just fine. OSC
Click to expand...
right. because we're in the habit of listing guys BELOW their actual height. we'd be the only school in the country to do that.

Solly is a 3 but will play 4 here because he's big enough and strong enough and we have a ton of other options at the 3.
Bryce and Marquis won't have the muscle as freshmen to defend inside. they're perimeter players.
 
Ulla1 said:
Bryce is 6'6"; Marquis is 6'6"; Nick is 6'5". We are doing just fine. OSC
Click to expand...

I'm almost 6'3 and have been around Nick several times, so if Nick is 6'5, so am I.

And clearly, we need to recruit some big men. That isn't even debateable at this point.
 
MrTbone said:
What seems evident is that we are recruiting guys who feel comfortable playing up or down a spot pretty regularly. The fact that we have so many guys that aren't clearly identifiable as a PG/SG/SF is a strong indication of this.

I do think we need a guy who is more at the 6'8"+ range, but it may be we aren't so worried about that any more, we just want the best players available. We're obviously having some trouble reeling in those bigger type guys. There are fewer of them to go around.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you might be on to something. With nearly every player offered for the next couple of years being 6'8 and below, it would seem to indicate that Mooney is looking to play at least 4, and possibly all 5 mid size guys.

As most of us agree, this COULD work if you have exceptional shooting, good defenders, athleticism, and a few guys who can hold their own while playing a position up. Rebounding is largely about positioning, quickness, and desire.

I would like to see him put 5 really good basketball players on the floor.
 
Not-A-Homer said:
I suspect that you might be on to something. With nearly every player offered for the next couple of years being 6'8 and below, it would seem to indicate that Mooney is looking to play at least 4, and possibly all 5 mid size guys.

As most of us agree, this COULD work if you have exceptional shooting, good defenders, athleticism, and a few guys who can hold their own while playing a position up. Rebounding is largely about positioning, quickness, and desire.

I would like to see him put 5 really good basketball players on the floor.
Click to expand...
I think there has been a lot of discussion looking at how well Dayton did with nobody taller then 6'6" and at times Davidson will play with maybe a 6'8" type as tallest
player and rest are guards and SF types. But they all can shoot. If you are playing a big fast team and you have an off night then you might struggle, but you go with what works best for your system. I also remember Davidson playing UNC a few years ago and were undersized, but their shooting and low turnover, kept the game real close.
If we have quick, highly skilled ball handling team where all 5 guys can shoot from anywhere, then I think it would be kind of exciting to watch and we would be competitive.

Go back to Tarrant against Navy and David Robinson where Springer and Woolfolk were the tallest players for us at 6'8" and 6'6". That team was pretty good and held their own.
 
CarolinaSpider said:
I think there has been a lot of discussion looking at how well Dayton did with nobody taller then 6'6" and at times Davidson will play with maybe a 6'8" type as tallest
player and rest are guards and SF types. But they all can shoot. If you are playing a big fast team and you have an off night then you might struggle, but you go with what works best for your system. I also remember Davidson playing UNC a few years ago and were undersized, but their shooting and low turnover, kept the game real close.
If we have quick, highly skilled ball handling team where all 5 guys can shoot from anywhere, then I think it would be kind of exciting to watch and we would be competitive.

Go back to Tarrant against Navy and David Robinson where Springer and Woolfolk were the tallest players for us at 6'8" and 6'6". That team was pretty good and held their own.
Click to expand...
Amen. Davidson also took Duke into the last 1:03 all tied up a couple years ago with a small lineup - at Cameron.
 
It can and does work on occasion, but those seem to be the rare exceptions. Obviously we are going after some talented guys with size and ideally we will land one. I guess my thought is that we may be going smaller out of necessity rather than by design. And that's okay to me, I'd rather get a talented 6'4" guy who will help us than take a shot on a 6'10" guy who will most likely never play for us just because we "need size."
 
sometimes size matters. desire's great, but there's physics involved. our next commitment has to be a bigger guy, and based on our targets it will be.
 
Mooney's best teams have had big men who are good passers playing And distributing at the top of the key. We need to recruit another one of those
 
CarolinaSpider said:
I think there has been a lot of discussion looking at how well Dayton did with nobody taller then 6'6" and at times Davidson will play with maybe a 6'8" type as tallest
player and rest are guards and SF types. But they all can shoot. If you are playing a big fast team and you have an off night then you might struggle, but you go with what works best for your system. I also remember Davidson playing UNC a few years ago and were undersized, but their shooting and low turnover, kept the game real close.
If we have quick, highly skilled ball handling team where all 5 guys can shoot from anywhere, then I think it would be kind of exciting to watch and we would be competitive.

Go back to Tarrant against Navy and David Robinson where Springer and Woolfolk were the tallest players for us at 6'8" and 6'6". That team was pretty good and held their own.
Click to expand...
Woolfolk was 6'3 maybe 6'4 240lbs- I remember Tarrant being asked one time what if he was 6'6 or 6'7. His reply-"we wouldn't have him". David Robinson I believe said that Woolfolk was the most physical player he ever went up against even though he was 6 inches shorter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UR80sfan

Please help support our players

Replies
2
Views
476
UR Basketball Board
UR80sfan
UR80sfan
SFspidur

William Harper - 2025 Offer

Replies
2
Views
871
UR Basketball Board
SFspidur
SFspidur
mojo-spider

Richmond 82 George Washington 74 - King and Company Subdue Revolutionaries!

Replies
5
Views
520
UR Basketball Board
SpiderGuy
S
Gallipoli

Jordan King vs. Jacob Gilyard

Replies
29
Views
1K
UR Basketball Board
Gallipoli
Gallipoli
SFspidur

Bryson McGlothin - 2024 Signee

Replies
105
Views
9K
UR Basketball Board
urfan1
urfan1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back