ADVERTISEMENT

Jonathan Beagle - Albany Transfer - Commit

Eight Legger said:
View embedded media


Offensive rebounding?!?!?!?! 🙏🙏🙏
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was just looking into that too. He averaged 2.7 offensive rebounds per game in both seasons at Albany.

For comparison, Quinn averaged 1.5 ORPG in '22-'23 and and 0.96 ORPG this year. Could be a much welcomed change of pace, but I'd assume our play style might cause those numbers to drop.
 
Here's hoping against hope that we might... actually... think about... offensive rebounding? Mooney ... changing... philosophy?!? Aaaaahh!
 
There’s no chance CM changes his entire philosophy just because this guy has some good OReb stats. As much as I’d love to see it, it’s just not in our DNA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
SpiderLaw said:
I like seeing 9.5 rpg in addition to 12.5 points. Can play the 4.
Click to expand...
? he's not a 4. he shot 1-7 from 3 on the year. he's a true 5. not a rim protector though with only 8 blocks on the season.

nice get. desperately needed to add a big, and there aren't many out there. should be open competition for the starting spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MDspider8
MrTbone said:
There’s no chance CM changes his entire philosophy just because this guy has some good OReb stats. As much as I’d love to see it, it’s just not in our DNA.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My hope against hope was that the philosophy is changing, which led us to prioritize this guy. Pipe dream, I know.
 
spider23 said:
Well waiting for sman to point out Burton's rebounding stats.
Click to expand...
lol.
yes, my working theory is that some guys are born rebounders while others aren't. Beagle has that in him. Mooney doesn't stop good rebounders like Burton and Bigelow from rebounding. Mooney's problem too often is that he doesn't have rebounders on the floor or even on the roster.

I think both of our bigs now are good on the boards ... Soulis TBD. let's add Manon to add some rebounding from the wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WCUR11, plydogg, VT4700 and 3 others
spiderman said:
lol.
yes, my working theory is that some guys are born rebounders while others aren't. Beagle has that in him. Mooney doesn't stop good rebounders like Burton and Bigelow from rebounding. Mooney's problem too often is that he doesn't have rebounders on the floor or even on the roster.

I think both of our bigs now are good on the boards ... Soulis TBD. let's add Manon to add some rebounding from the wing.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. We finished what last or next to last in the country last year in offensive rebounding. We finish in the sub 300's nearly every year. This is not because we don't have good natural born rebounders, rather because Mooney's system completely de-emphasizes offensive rebounding. And that does translate in my opinion over to the defensive end of things as well because if you giving up your aggression on the boards .

If what you were saying was the case, Mooney would literally be the worst recruiter in the country when it comes to rebounding and also the worst coach to develop rebounders as well.

It's his dumb system of abhorring offensive rebounds to prevent fast breaks, something that nearly every other team in the country has figured out how to both go after offensive rebounds and also get back to prevent the break. Why Mooney can't figure out how to walk and chew gum is beyond me.

I
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
97spiderfan said:
Completely disagree.
Click to expand...
you're disagreeing with stats?

Bigelow had the 6th most rebounds in the entire league last year.
Burton had the 6th most in 2022-23.
despite Mooney's preference to get back.

rebounders rebound. Mooney recruits for other skillsets ... to a fault. but when you add a guy like Beagle, you add rebounding.
 
97spiderfan said:
Completely disagree. We finished what last or next to last in the country last year in offensive rebounding. We finish in the sub 300's nearly every year. This is not because we don't have good natural born rebounders, rather because Mooney's system completely de-emphasizes offensive rebounding. And that does translate in my opinion over to the defensive end of things as well because if you giving up your aggression on the boards .

If what you were saying was the case, Mooney would literally be the worst recruiter in the country when it comes to rebounding and also the worst coach to develop rebounders as well.

It's his dumb system of abhorring offensive rebounds to prevent fast breaks, something that nearly every other team in the country has figured out how to both go after offensive rebounds and also get back to prevent the break. Why Mooney can't figure out how to walk and chew gum is beyond me.

I
Click to expand...
what were you saying? 3rd in league in def rebounding... keep trying

Team Defensive Rebounds​

Team Defensive Rebounds
IndexTeamGNo.AVG/G
1George Washington3288727.7
2Loyola Chicago3389627.2
3Richmond3389327.1
4Rhode Island3284626.4
5VCU3899326.1
6George Mason3282925.9
7Saint Joseph's3590025.7
8Dayton3384225.5
9Davidson3281425.4
10Saint Louis3587625.0
11UMass3177224.9
12La Salle3380624.4
13Duquesne3789924.3
14Fordham3379524.1
15St. Bonaventure3376723.2
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
spiderman said:
you're disagreeing with stats?

Bigelow had the 6th most rebounds in the entire league last year.
Burton had the 6th most in 2022-23.
despite Mooney's preference to get back.

rebounders rebound. Mooney recruits for other skillsets ... to a fault. but when you add a guy like Beagle, you add rebounding.
Click to expand...
imagine now if they were allowed to crash the offensive glass nonstop. we could lead the league in rebounding with these great rebounders.

i guess there would have to be some kind of unlikely event for that to happen, like the moon (or a giant cutout of Moon's head) crossing in front of the sun.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: GKiller and spiderman
TJ, Grant, and Quinn did not have high athletic ability. Had they attacked the offensive glass against much more athletic A-10 bigs, maybe they get 1 extra offensive rebound a game? We often play multiple 6 foot guards and I also don't want them to crash the boards and not get back on defense. You play and coach to your strengths, not weaknesses. Trying to focus on offensive rebounding and getting maybe 2 or 3 more a game ( which might or might not lead to extra points) is just not worth the risk of giving up multiple open 3s and layups on the other end.

And, we are not the only team that uses this strategy. Over the last 3 years, we have rebounded offensively better than teams like Villanova, Dayton, and Syracuse. Also, it's not like the strategy is guaranteed to fail. The last 5 years, we are 100-57. And, no, every other team has not figured out how to crash the boards and get back on defense. If so, wouldn't we have the worst record out there? And, no, 97, if those teams have really figured it out, they would be able to crash the boards and not give up transition baskets. That's not happening. You seriously don't think most teams give up numerous transition baskets? Do ever watch other games and see how many easy transition baskets teams get? Iowa was averaging over 83 points a game, got 4 more offensive rebounds than we did when we played, but we held them to 63 and beat them. If you don't think our strategy helped here, that's just finding yet another reason, right or wrong, to crap on our coach.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UR80sfan
VT4700 said:
TJ, Grant, and Quinn did not have high athletic ability. Had they attacked the offensive glass against much more athletic A-10 bigs, maybe they get 1 extra offensive rebound a game? We often play multiple 6 foot guards and I also don't want them to crash the boards and not get back on defense. You play and coach to your strengths, not weaknesses. Trying to focus on offensive rebounding and getting maybe 2 or 3 more a game ( which might or might not lead to extra points) is just not worth the risk of giving up multiple open 3s and layups on the other end.

And, we are not the only team that uses this strategy. Over the last 3 years, we have rebounded offensively better than teams like Villanova, Dayton, and Syracuse. Also, it's not like the strategy is guaranteed to fail. The last 5 years, we are 100-57. And, no, every other team has not figured out how to crash the boards and get back on defense. If so, wouldn't we have the worst record out there? And, no, 97, if those teams have really figured it out, they would be able to crash the boards and not give up transition baskets. That's not happening. You seriously don't think most teams give up numerous transition baskets? Do ever watch other games and see how many easy transition baskets teams get? Iowa was averaging over 83 points a game, got 4 more offensive rebounds than we did when we played, but we held them to 63 and beat them. If you don't think our strategy helped here, that's just finding yet another reason, right or wrong, to crap on our coach.
Click to expand...
I watch a lot of basketball and find that most teams can both crash the boards and get back on defense, otherwise it would just be fast break after fast break but it isn't. It is not an "either-or" proposition, except for us. Also think that if you send 2 guys back after a shot and the other 2-3 contest it, the other team is successfully prevented from running the fast break. The other team obviously isn't going to run out all 5 of their guys to run the break because they will have to actually box out out our players. Having all 5 players back is simply overkill. This is why we are one of the very few teams that employ the strategy we do.

Also think it is a very soft way to play ball, we are not going to contest a very important part of the game, we are in fact going to make it very easy on the other team to defensively rebound. Why would you want to make an aspect of the game very very easy for your opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Anderson, mr.spider, urfan1 and 2 others
No, most teams cannot crash the boards and get back on defense. Just because it is not fast break after fast break doesn't mean numerous transition points are not given up when you crash the boards. It is a give or take. To think anyone could be great at both is just not being realistic. And, you make something easier for an opponent because you make something else harder for them. This would be like saying double the big every possession but make sure you guard every 3 point guy out there.
 
LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster said:
what were you saying? 3rd in league in def rebounding... keep trying

Team Defensive Rebounds​

Team Defensive Rebounds
IndexTeamGNo.AVG/G
1George Washington3288727.7
2Loyola Chicago3389627.2
3Richmond3389327.1
4Rhode Island3284626.4
5VCU3899326.1
6George Mason3282925.9
7Saint Joseph's3590025.7
8Dayton3384225.5
9Davidson3281425.4
10Saint Louis3587625.0
11UMass3177224.9
12La Salle3380624.4
13Duquesne3789924.3
14Fordham3379524.1
15St. Bonaventure3376723.2
Click to expand...
Is your reading comprehension impaired or something? I was talking about offensive rebounding and bleeding over into all rebounding. We were last in the league in both total rebounding and offensive rebounding, which kind of exactly is what I SAID.

Combined Team Rebounds​

Combined Team Rebounds
IndexTeamGReboundsAVG/G
1UMass31118838.3
2Fordham33122537.1
3George Washington32118036.9
4Rhode Island32117836.8
5Loyola Chicago33121336.8
6George Mason32115236.0
7Saint Joseph's35125335.8
8VCU38133635.2
9Duquesne37128834.8
10Davidson32110934.7
11La Salle33114234.6
12Saint Louis35118633.9
13Dayton33110733.5
14St. Bonaventure33108732.9
15Richmond33108132.8

Team Offensive Rebounds​

Offensive Rebounds
IndexTeamGNo.AVG/G
1UMass3141613.4
2Fordham3343013.0
3Duquesne3738910.5
4Rhode Island3233210.4
5La Salle3333610.2
6George Mason3232310.1
7Saint Joseph's3535310.1
8St. Bonaventure333209.7
9Loyola Chicago333179.6
10Davidson322959.2
11George Washington322939.2
12VCU383439.0
13Saint Louis353108.9
14Dayton332658.0
15Richmond331885.7

Rebounding Margin​

 
  • Like
Reactions: Long Island Spiders, PASpider, Captain Anderson and 2 others
our lack of offensive rebounding is obviously a component in total rebounding. it clearly doesn't bleed into our defensive rebounding if we're 3rd best in the league in defensive rebounding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
Uh, no 97, you said "that does translate over to the defensive end". We were 46th in the country in defensive rebounding this year. Accusing someone else of reading comprehension issues when you can't correctly comprehend what you just wrote???
 
Yes, let's look at those A-10 offensive rebounding numbers and whine more about that. Makes sense. Why rebound like we do and go 15-3 and win the regular season title when you can be top 5 in offensive rebounding and finish 6-12 like LaSalle, RI, and Fordham? LOL, but these 6-12 teams do such a good job of getting offensive boards and getting back in transition, right? A guaranteed winning strategy. LOL.
 
I'm pretty sure when 97 said "that does translate over to the defensive end" he meant the defensive end of the floor and the ability to get back on defense.

All that being said, me personally, I would prefer if we made more of an effort on offensive rebounding. If we can win consistently while punting that part of the game for the most part, then fine. However I feel like in the long run we would be better off by incorporating more effort into offensive rebounding. Do I mean having all 5 guys crashing the offensive glass, no. But I liked the idea of having a couple guys go for the offensive rebounds while the others are moving back on D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.spider, ur2K and Eight Legger
mcspider said:
I'm pretty sure when 97 said "that does translate over to the defensive end" he meant the defensive end of the floor and the ability to get back on defense.

All that being said, me personally, I would prefer if we made more of an effort on offensive rebounding. If we can win consistently while punting that part of the game for the most part, then fine. However I feel like in the long run we would be better off by incorporating more effort into offensive rebounding. Do I mean having all 5 guys crashing the offensive glass, no. But I liked the idea of having a couple guys go for the offensive rebounds while the others are moving back on D.
Click to expand...
No...97 said it will translate over to the defensive end because you "are giving up aggression on the boards". How could he mean just playing defense when we have been mostly real good on defense the last several years? We've all been wrong on here....he should just admit that instead of accusing someone else of reading comprehension issues. And, like sman said, Tyler and Bigs got some offensive boards here, but how often do you really think Quinn, Grant, and TJ would get them?
 
Last edited:
You guys seem to assume we would get a lot of offensive boards if we crashed, we would score at a high rate on the ones we got, we would never foul going for an offensive board and we would never give up transition baskets going for them. If that were all true, sure, let's crash the boards.
 
Many of us just would like to see SOME effort spent on trying for offensive rebounds. It doesn't feel sustainable to put up a shot and then have everyone run away from the basket. It's a great strategy if you are going to shoot 100%, and this year it worked very well because King was unconscious for all but about five games. But in a normal season with non-superhuman shooters, a bunch of those shots he made this year are misses, we don't get three points AND we don't get a rebound, and the other team gets possession and probably scores half the time. Look at how many games we won that essentially were one-possession games under 30-45 seconds. It could have completely shifted the outcome of those games.

Don't get me wrong, I loved how this season went (until the end), but if we are being honest, we had some good fortune and won almost all the close games we played. Normal law of averages probably would have us closer to 12-6 than 15-3.
 
Eight Legger said:
Many of us just would like to see SOME effort spent on trying for offensive rebounds. It doesn't feel sustainable to put up a shot and then have everyone run away from the basket. It's a great strategy if you are going to shoot 100%, and this year it worked very well because King was unconscious for all but about five games. But in a normal season with non-superhuman shooters, a bunch of those shots he made this year are misses, we don't get three points AND we don't get a rebound, and the other team gets possession and probably scores half the time. Look at how many games we won that essentially were one-possession games under 30-45 seconds. It could have completely shifted the outcome of those games.

Don't get me wrong, I loved how this season went (until the end), but if we are being honest, we had some good fortune and won almost all the close games we played. Normal law of averages probably would have us closer to 12-6 than 15-3.
Click to expand...
But, isn't it just as reasonable to say what if we crashed the boards and gave up 5-10 extra transition points a game vs. how many we would have gotten with offensive rebounds? Then, what would our record have been? You are arguing against what did happen by saying, "yes, but....".
 
Yeah, that is reasonable for sure. It just feels less likely that we would give up that many more transition points.

What if we just had our center and one forward always crashing the offensive boards? I assume the other team is going to send at least two guys, too. So then you're looking at 3 on 3, which is not an advantage either way. Right now we are saying that in order to stop transition buckets, we need to have one or two more defenders back at all times than the offense has guys on the move. That seems excessive to me.
 
I hear you, and I think maybe we do that a little more with a different, more athletic center. But, proably not a lot mote because we have proved we can win titles and dance games the way we play. Many will disagree with that and bring up the tourney drought, but we have had two 24 win seasons and a 23 win season the past 5 years. And, Quinn, Grant, and TJ just weren't gonna get many offensive boards., and I wouldn't want to risk foul trouble having them try.
 
Last edited:
agreed. unless the ball bounces towards Quinn, he's not reacting to it to chase it down. sending him to the glass from above the foul line I think would lead to trouble. our centers are often not in good position to rebound on that end.

Walz did seem to go to the offensive boards more than Quinn in less minutes. I expect the same with Beagle. but with our typical positioning with the offense we run, I don't think we'll reap great rewards crashing the glass offensively.
 
Additional factors in low offensive rebounding numbers are that we take relatively few shots at the rim (38th lowest) and when we do we are pretty efficient (72nd best). These are smaller factors, but we just don’t have someone under the rim when we miss as often as other teams due to our shot selection and efficiency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderman
VT4700 said:
I hear you, and I think maybe we do that a little more with a different, more athletic center. But, proably not a lot mote because we have proved we can win titles and dance games the way we play. Many will disagree with that and bring up the tourney drought, but we have had two 24 win seasons and a 23 win season the past 5 years. And, Quinn, Grant, and TJ just weren't gonna get many offensive boards., and I wouldn't want to risk foul trouble having them try.
Click to expand...
I would prefer if we were 290th in OR than 362. Just not sure the best way to achieve that. And this season we were 74th in preventing OR, that certainly helps.

I think people see the two teams playing tonight as 6th & 13th in OR and want us to achieve that. But I think there are more factors than that to get to the level of the teams tonight.
 
290 would have been 2.4 more OR per game. Scoring on half of those gives is an extra 2-3 points. Don't thiink changing things to try for 290 would be worth it.
 
I tried to watch St Mary's play as much as I could this past year. They play a high post 4 out offense like us, but were 21st in OR category this past year. I did not see them get crushed with fast breaks. It appeared they often sent the shooter and one other for the OR, the other 3 backed up at least to midcourt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Anderson, 97spiderfan and kneepadmckinney
urfan1 said:
I tried to watch St Mary's play as much as I could this past year. They play a high post 4 out offense like us, but were 21st in OR category this past year. I did not see them get crushed with fast breaks. It appeared they often sent the shooter and one other for the OR, the other 3 backed up at least to midcourt.
Click to expand...
their center got 126.
Neal got 32.
 
Watching Alabama disregard the mid range to great success makes me want to adopt that policy of shooting at the rim or from 3 only. Even VT pointed out the inefficiency of the mid range game earlier this year, but UR doubled down on it with Quinn’s push shots, Bigelow’s fadeaway 16 footers and Hunt’s mid range preferences. Dji shot so efficiently this year bc tho he was not a frequent shooter from 3, he made enough (until end of year slump dropped him to poor), and the rest of his shots were largely high % at the rim (65% on 2s.)

Hope the staff pays attention and stops with the 15 footers from our big guys. We now have 3 bigs to rotate in - attack the basket, attack the glass on both ends and play them all 20mpg if Soulis and Walz can make 3s regularly. I do think with a trio of big guys you can look at getting more boards while not giving up transition points. I agree that we have reached the nadir on offensive rebounding for seemingly no reason - we can be 200th and still not give up transition points. I do think Quinn being somewhat slow and not a great rebounder contributed to this decline. But I also think Walz CAN offensive rebound (more athletic and physical) and so can Beagle so we can move up and get a few more and a few more 2nd chance opportunities next year.

Lastly, DLo has to be more frequent shooting open 3s, bc he’s not a great at the rim guy. 44% on 2s and 38% on 3s but 2/3 of his shots were 2s - need to flip that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1 and VT4700
Also - getting 2 or 3 more off rebounds a game can be vital points in close games - and we played a good number of close games this past year. Many went our way but I’d have loved 3 more points vs Saint Joe’s late in the game in A10 tourney. It’s not a number to be dismissed as statistical noise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Another interesting note, Beagle's offensive rebounding % last season was 9.7, Walz's was nearly identical at 9.6. That is the % of missed shots on offense where the player gets the offensive rebound when they are on the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kneepadmckinney, urfan1 and VT4700
urfan1 said:
I tried to watch St Mary's play as much as I could this past year. They play a high post 4 out offense like us, but were 21st in OR category this past year. I did not see them get crushed with fast breaks. It appeared they often sent the shooter and one other for the OR, the other 3 backed up at least to midcourt.
Click to expand...
They have rarely been good at offensive rebounding. Could have been who they had on the roster this year (Saxen), because under Randy Bennett from 2015-2023 they finished 180, 304, 251, 302, 194, 321, 264, 274, 128. Saxen averaged 3 and 3.7 OR the past 2 years, giving them their best OR numbers under Bennett. I don't think Quinn could have ever come close to that.
 
97spiderfan said:
Is your reading comprehension impaired or something? I was talking about offensive rebounding and bleeding over into all rebounding. We were last in the league in both total rebounding and offensive rebounding, which kind of exactly is what I SAID.

Combined Team Rebounds​

Combined Team Rebounds
IndexTeamGReboundsAVG/G
1UMass31118838.3
2Fordham33122537.1
3George Washington32118036.9
4Rhode Island32117836.8
5Loyola Chicago33121336.8
6George Mason32115236.0
7Saint Joseph's35125335.8
8VCU38133635.2
9Duquesne37128834.8
10Davidson32110934.7
11La Salle33114234.6
12Saint Louis35118633.9
13Dayton33110733.5
14St. Bonaventure33108732.9
15Richmond33108132.8

Team Offensive Rebounds​

Offensive Rebounds
IndexTeamGNo.AVG/G
1UMass3141613.4
2Fordham3343013.0
3Duquesne3738910.5
4Rhode Island3233210.4
5La Salle3333610.2
6George Mason3232310.1
7Saint Joseph's3535310.1
8St. Bonaventure333209.7
9Loyola Chicago333179.6
10Davidson322959.2
11George Washington322939.2
12VCU383439.0
13Saint Louis353108.9
14Dayton332658.0
15Richmond331885.7

Rebounding Margin​

Click to expand...

Ironically, the 22nd best team in the net was next to least on this list.

If our lack of offensive rebounding, "bleeds into other rebounding" and the only other rebound is defensive, what are talking about?
 
spiderman said:
you're disagreeing with stats?

Bigelow had the 6th most rebounds in the entire league last year.
Burton had the 6th most in 2022-23.
despite Mooney's preference to get back.

rebounders rebound. Mooney recruits for other skillsets ... to a fault. but when you add a guy like Beagle, you add rebounding.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can categorically say that CM lets rebounders rebound. TJ, GG and even Quinn were acceptable rebounders but the system is predicated on the 5/C getting back on D, presumably due to the perception/reality that they are slow and need the extra time so we aren’t at a man deficit.

So while CM may “let” certain guys rebound on O, there are definitely guys that are coached to retreat, particularly when they aren’t on the block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
So the coaching staff lands a great 6 10 center and instead of complimenting them on job well done, some of the always negative people on this board do the opposite and bitch about the coach. Nice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back