ADVERTISEMENT

Jake Wojcik - 2018 Signee

kneepadmckinney said:
Like Sal, got all-league in a league that appears to have a lot of D-1 talent in it, including kids going to Georgetown, Utah, and Cincy. That's not nuthin.

My gut is this one will end up being sneaky good.
Click to expand...

Sal's league is the toughest I have seen. Multiple 5* and a bunch of 4* recruits in there.
 
Maybe I'm off base here, but I would have liked to have thought that our best shooter, who played guard in high school, Nick Sherod, would be our starting shooting guard. For me there is also the chance/likelihood that we essentially play a 3 guard lineup most, if not all, of the time anyway. Basically, the hole in our lineup is not at shooting guard in my mind. Not that Mooney's teams have gone all in on the traditional assignments for a 1 - 5 lineup.
 
mcspider said:
Maybe I'm off base here, but I would have liked to have thought that our best shooter, who played guard in high school, Nick Sherod, would be our starting shooting guard. For me there is also the chance/likelihood that we essentially play a 3 guard lineup most, if not all, of the time anyway. Basically, the hole in our lineup is not at shooting guard in my mind. Not that Mooney's teams have gone all in on the traditional assignments for a 1 - 5 lineup.
Click to expand...

We have two holes in our lineup. Our last two commits point clearly to one of those being filled with another guard. The dream is that we can fill our last scholarship with someone who can compete for the starting 4, but the odds are against it at this point. Really hope Sal is ready despite the slight build.
 
My counter is that we were playing four guards to fill the 1-4 spots. At the very least all 4 played guard in high school. We lose two of those guards, leaving us with two starting guards. The idea of trying to get two forwards to fill the two vacant spots seems, dare I say it, logical.
 
mcspider said:
My counter is that we were playing four guards to fill the 1-4 spots. At the very least all 4 played guard in high school. We lose two of those guards, leaving us with two starting guards. The idea of trying to get two forwards to fill the two vacant spots seems, dare I say it, logical.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. Before this signing we had 3 players smaller than Sherod on the active roster next year (Gilyard, Johnson and Gustavson) and 6 players bigger than Sherod. If Sherod is going to be a 3 then we *might* need more guards, if he is going to be a 2 we probably have the right ratio now. We should not be trying to build a 4 guard roster on purpose, I think we should go for a 3/4 type player.

Current roster is...
Guards (1/2): Gilyard, Johnson, Wojcik, Gustavson
Wings (2/3/4): Sherod, Schneider, Verbinskis
Forwards (3/4/5): Golden, Cayo, Sal, Ford

We have 1 transfer redshirt and 1 spot open.
 
Last edited:
I like that listing of the roster. I would love to see another recruit end up in that Forwards group. We are better off with Sherod playing the 2 or the 3, not the 4. I think next season begins with Gilyard, Johnson, Sherod, Cayo, Golden as the starting lineup. But I hope someone else comes in and earns a starting nod in place of either Johnson or Cayo.
 
Sherod doesn't have the ball handling skills to be a college guard. He is a small forward. I expect the incoming freshman to play a lot of time at the 2 guard position. If JJ is starting for us, that will not be a good sign. Hopefully, this Wojcik kid can play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderPride, Spider2020 and Not-A-Homer
mcspider said:
My counter is that we were playing four guards to fill the 1-4 spots. At the very least all 4 played guard in high school. We lose two of those guards, leaving us with two starting guards. The idea of trying to get two forwards to fill the two vacant spots seems, dare I say it, logical.
Click to expand...

Actually it really is not as logical as it may seem. College basketball has changed. The days of needing to start a true 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or even 2 G, 2 F, and a C are gone. Ask any AAU coach and they will tell you that they and college coaches stopped worrying about having all 5 guys have actual positions several years ago.

No question starting 4 guards was tough for us last year, but replacing Khwan with someone 6-4 and replacing Buck with someone 6'6 or 6'7 is more than adequate.
 
fan2011 said:
Current roster is...
Guards (1/2): Gilyard, Johnson, Wojcik, Gustavson
Wings (2/3/4): Sherod, Schneider, Verbinskis
Forwards (3/4/5): Golden, Cayo, Sal, Ford

We have 1 transfer redshirt and 1 spot open.
Click to expand...

Replace JJ with Francis and that is the following year's roster. Things are looking good the next few years.
 
VT4700 said:
Actually it really is not as logical as it may seem. College basketball has changed. The days of needing to start a true 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or even 2 G, 2 F, and a C are gone. Ask any AAU coach and they will tell you that they and college coaches stopped worrying about having all 5 guys have actual positions several years ago.

No question starting 4 guards was tough for us last year, but replacing Khwan with someone 6-4 and replacing Buck with someone 6'6 or 6'7 is more than adequate.
Click to expand...
Coaches may worry less about playing traditional 1-5 roles, but it hasn't changed the desire to have height/length at the 3/4/5 spots.

We tend to conflate these things. In UR's case, we have presumed that we can have an effective defense with 4 guys 6'4" or shorter because it's ok to play 4 guards. That has proven untrue.

Height for height sake isn't a great approach, but ignoring the value of height is equally problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ur2K and nathanw19
MrTbone said:
Coaches may worry less about playing traditional 1-5 roles, but it hasn't changed the desire to have height/length at the 3/4/5 spots.

We tend to conflate these things. In UR's case, we have presumed that we can have an effective defense with 4 guys 6'4" or shorter because it's ok to play 4 guards. That has proven untrue.

Height for height sake isn't a great approach, but ignoring the value of height is equally problematic.
Click to expand...

No question about it. Need height, but don't have to have a true 4 and a true 5 out there together.
 
mcspider said:
I like that listing of the roster. I would love to see another recruit end up in that Forwards group. We are better off with Sherod playing the 2 or the 3, not the 4. I think next season begins with Gilyard, Johnson, Sherod, Cayo, Golden as the starting lineup. But I hope someone else comes in and earns a starting nod in place of either Johnson or Cayo.
Click to expand...
I think it'll be tough to keep Sal out of the starting lineup for very long. His length will bring something special to this team I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MooreHall73 and VT4700
mcspider said:
I like that listing of the roster. I would love to see another recruit end up in that Forwards group. We are better off with Sherod playing the 2 or the 3, not the 4. I think next season begins with Gilyard, Johnson, Sherod, Cayo, Golden as the starting lineup. But I hope someone else comes in and earns a starting nod in place of either Johnson or Cayo.
Click to expand...
Think that you are exactly right regarding the early starting lineup. Problem is that this lineup is likely not good enough to win a majority of their games. If next year's team doesn't get BIG impact performances from Sal, Wojcik, and/or whomever else, it will be another long tough season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keefusb
To be honest, Mooney should ask Nick where he wants to play. I think Nick is comfortable at the 3 and can play some limited 2. From the 3 he can take advantage of his scoring ability from anywhere on the floor and do a little rebounding. I don’t want to see him get bogged down with too much ball handling responsibility or overwhelmed down in the paint guarding bigs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700 and MrTbone
Nick is a very natural SF/wing for us. I don’t like having him play down low in spite of his ability to score from a variety of places. He seems better on the move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderK
We lost Khwan, clearly a guard, and also lost Buck, who was either a guard or a forward, depending on how much height a team had (clearly a forward for us these past two seasons). Now we get commitments from a guard from Finland and this latest guard.

Depending on how ready these guys are, we may actually improve offensively. However, it is very unlikely that our defense is improved (and it could be significantly less effective, if that is even possible). I believe that these additions really will "force our hand" into having to try out some alternative zone Ds, including a 2-3 zone. If we stick with our schemes from last season, we could be giving up 80-points per game.

I hope we spend some time watching old UR Beilein defensive tape. Or, alternatively, get some UVA tape and start with that. At least we now have two important pieces for our 2018-2019 puzzle, and we are in MUCH better shape than we were 2-4 weeks ago, when the loss of KF and Buck had everyone believing that the sky was falling.

Nice work by our coaches to plug two big holes with guys who can certainly be strong outside shooters
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaSpider and AnnapSpider
Oldie, we have some excellent potential to be a high scoring team, however we did lose a solid 23 points per game. Still looks like our offense will be ahead of our defense again this year.

By the way, goofiest thing I saw us do on defense last year was when Nick was playing the 5 spot in the middle of our “zone”. No knock on Nick whatsoever, just wonder who the heck thought of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Spideroldie said:
We lost Khwan, clearly a guard, and also lost Buck, who was either a guard or a forward, depending on how much height a team had (clearly a forward for us these past two seasons). Now we get commitments from a guard from Finland and this latest guard.

Depending on how ready these guys are, we may actually improve offensively. However, it is very unlikely that our defense is improved (and it could be significantly less effective, if that is even possible). I believe that these additions really will "force our hand" into having to try out some alternative zone Ds, including a 2-3 zone. If we stick with our schemes from last season, we could be giving up 80-points per game.

I hope we spend some time watching old UR Beilein defensive tape. Or, alternatively, get some UVA tape and start with that. At least we now have two important pieces for our 2018-2019 puzzle, and we are in MUCH better shape than we were 2-4 weeks ago, when the loss of KF and Buck had everyone believing that the sky was falling.

Nice work by our coaches to plug two big holes with guys who can certainly be strong outside shooters
Click to expand...

Statistically, it would be very hard for our defense to get worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderK
MountainSpider said:
I think our plan is to stink up the OOC getting Jake and Sal up to speed and then finish in the top 4 in A10. Honestly would not surprise me at all if that happened.
Click to expand...

If we're going to have to win the league tournament to get to the NCAAs every year, then why don't we just go back to the CAA where we can have a better chance. Seriously.....
 
Or Patriot League, MEAC, whatever. My point is that if the out of conference schedule is basically going to kill us (just following up on Mountain's comment) then the only option for a NCAA bid is to win the conference tournament. And if that's going to be the case, we should be in any league where we will have a better chance to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we got just as many at-large bids while in the CAA as we have in the A10
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger and coachfezz
The thing we need to realize is we lost two players that combined had a SDJ type of production. It usually takes a year to learn the Mooney system. Grant Golden and Jacob Gilyard are A-10 level talent. We usually find CAA level type of talent and coach them up. Losing two players that gained experience starting with TJ Cline and SDJ is really going to show this year. We more than likely will win about 14 game next year. That's the best case scenario I don't why anyone thinks we will be much better. Let's not forget that Buckingham and Fore were able to generate numerous points at the foul line. I am preparing myself for losing to some team on our home floor. Like Jacksonville State.
 
Gospiders06 said:
The thing we need to realize is we lost two players that combined had a SDJ type of production. It usually takes a year to learn the Mooney system. Grant Golden and Jacob Gilyard are A-10 level talent. We usually find CAA level type of talent and coach them up. Losing two players that gained experience starting with TJ Cline and SDJ is really going to show this year. We more than likely will win about 14 game next year. That's the best case scenario I don't why anyone thinks we will be much better. Let's not forget that Buckingham and Fore were able to generate numerous points at the foul line. I am preparing myself for losing to some team on our home floor. Like Jacksonville State.
Click to expand...
Go, I totally understand what you are saying but I refuse to believe that conclusion. I speak from experience as a high school coach who lost good players from one year to the next and the additions did more to make us better than what we ever could have imagine!! I grant you all the stars must align, I will give them that chance and hold out....call me naive, I'm good with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
gcarter52 said:
Answer my question, are we the only sub-p5 team or p5 team to have gone through a drought has us
Click to expand...

There are 43 teams that have never made the tournament, so they obviously have much longer drought than us. In total 186 schools have made the NCAAs since we last got a bid, which is ~53% of schools.

For P5 schools, there is Penn State, Washington, Washington State, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Boston College, DePaul, Rutgers and possibly others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcarter52
SpiderRick said:
Or Patriot League, MEAC, whatever. My point is that if the out of conference schedule is basically going to kill us (just following up on Mountain's comment) then the only option for a NCAA bid is to win the conference tournament. And if that's going to be the case, we should be in any league where we will have a better chance to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we got just as many at-large bids while in the CAA as we have in the A10
Click to expand...

86 was our only at large in the CAA, and we have had 2 in the A-10 and were the first team out a few years ago. The CAA is a 1 bid league now, while the A-10 still gets multiple teams in. No way is anyone in our program only focused on the conference tourney, and we should assume playing well enough to be in the at large talk should always be the goal.
 
VT4700 said:
86 was our only at large in the CAA, and we have had 2 in the A-10 and were the first team out a few years ago. The CAA is a 1 bid league now, while the A-10 still gets multiple teams in. No way is anyone in our program only focused on the conference tourney, and we should assume playing well enough to be in the at large talk should always be the goal.
Click to expand...



I think you maybe talk like one of our coaches ! Welcome ! We ALL like the winning best yes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderRick
Woe-jick

Just make the “c” silent and then it’s pretty much how it looks.
 
SpiderRick said:
If we're going to have to win the league tournament to get to the NCAAs every year, then why don't we just go back to the CAA where we can have a better chance. Seriously.....
Click to expand...
Winning the League Tournament IS a great way to get into the NCAA tournament!
 
fan2011 said:
There are 43 teams that have never made the tournament, so they obviously have much longer drought than us. In total 186 schools have made the NCAAs since we last got a bid, which is ~53% of schools.

For P5 schools, there is Penn State, Washington, Washington State, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Boston College, DePaul, Rutgers and possibly others.
Click to expand...
Thanks Fan, that is what I'm talking about!!
 
gcarter52 said:
Go, I totally understand what you are saying but I refuse to believe that conclusion. I speak from experience as a high school coach who lost good players from one year to the next and the additions did more to make us better than what we ever could have imagine!! I grant you all the stars must align, I will give them that chance and hold out....call me naive, I'm good with it.
Click to expand...
The difference is that you probably were a good coach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

spider23

OT: When NIL goes wrong

Replies
61
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
Gallipoli
Gallipoli
UR80sfan

Neal Quinn dramatic improvement

Replies
3
Views
385
UR Basketball Board
spider fan
spider fan
V

Next year

Replies
139
Views
9K
UR Basketball Board
brooklyn brownstone
B
mojo-spider

Richmond 66 Davidson 63 - Spiders Out Last Wildcats!

Replies
2
Views
560
UR Basketball Board
Gallipoli
Gallipoli
7

Expect to win

Replies
14
Views
947
UR Basketball Board
gcarter52
gcarter52
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back