Why would we want to keep Nick's minutes under 28? The young guys will play whether Nick plays 27 or 35 minutes. There is not a scenario out there where it would be better for Nick to play less minutes. And, yes, we will be much better this year. Jacob, Nick, and Grant will all be even better this year, and they will have much better fits around them this year.
Khwan
- Thread starter Ulla1
- Start date
I agree VT. we play to win. we don't limit Nick's time in any way to "see what we have" in someone else. Nick plays as much as he should play, whatever that number of minutes is.
same with Julius. I believe he'll be in the top 8, so he's in the rotation. I don't play a freshman over him just because the freshman will be here longer. if the freshman is better than him, sure. but best guys play.
I don't understand any other thinking. how do we hope to keep guys here if we don't play them senior year even if they're better than younger guys coming up? that's a horrible message.
same with Julius. I believe he'll be in the top 8, so he's in the rotation. I don't play a freshman over him just because the freshman will be here longer. if the freshman is better than him, sure. but best guys play.
I don't understand any other thinking. how do we hope to keep guys here if we don't play them senior year even if they're better than younger guys coming up? that's a horrible message.
What kind of message do you send to your team if you don't play the players that give you the best chance to win, regardless of their class?
100% correct. Mack is a quality coach. May not be this year, be he will be contending for the NCAA title at Louisville very soon.
Mooney will try to win this year - his contract in limbo will make him do that. But by doing so - the result will likely be that we don't get the underclassmen minutes they need to be ready for next year, when we really need to make a push for the NCAA, especially when you factor in Francis will be eligible after his RS transfer year. I am not saying bench Sherod - just that sometimes you need to manage for the future and maybe not give him 34+ minutes, which he will likely get this year because Khwan and Buckingham are gone (I expect Gilyard to be around 38 minutes in A10 play with some games where he plays all 40). And unfortunately Johnson's time should be cut. Last year he got about 16 minutes a game, maybe he gets that to the start the season in OOC play while some of the frosh are still coming up to speed, but by 10 play he should be in the single digits.
I just have little faith in Mooney and staff developing players in practice alone - the best players for Mooney have developed and gotten better when they play right away and each year. He rarely has a player that plays little to no minutes 1-2 years, and then becomes a contributor when graduations happen or transfers happen. Other coaches are able to mix those guys in - but so far not Mooney.
Look at the team this year - we are counting on Sherod, Grant, and Gilyard. Golden - Medical RS and hardly practiced last year straight to 30 minutes. Sherod - straight to 21 minutes and then 31 minutes last year. Gilyard started at 36 minutes. We just rarely see guys develop unless they get minutes and can play through their mistakes and get experience in games. Otherwise - they guys typically get lost and just become cheerleaders on the bench.
I just have little faith in Mooney and staff developing players in practice alone - the best players for Mooney have developed and gotten better when they play right away and each year. He rarely has a player that plays little to no minutes 1-2 years, and then becomes a contributor when graduations happen or transfers happen. Other coaches are able to mix those guys in - but so far not Mooney.
Look at the team this year - we are counting on Sherod, Grant, and Gilyard. Golden - Medical RS and hardly practiced last year straight to 30 minutes. Sherod - straight to 21 minutes and then 31 minutes last year. Gilyard started at 36 minutes. We just rarely see guys develop unless they get minutes and can play through their mistakes and get experience in games. Otherwise - they guys typically get lost and just become cheerleaders on the bench.
the guys who got minutes early and developed ... they got those minutes because they proved in practice they deserved those minutes. they were good. they earned it. no charity. they didn't play over better players just to help them develop.
the guys who didn't get early minutes and didn't develop? there's a reason for that too.
you just don't give out minutes to hope it helps in the future. you've been pushing this concept a long time now. it's not they way to run a team.
the guys who didn't get early minutes and didn't develop? there's a reason for that too.
you just don't give out minutes to hope it helps in the future. you've been pushing this concept a long time now. it's not they way to run a team.
I don't think it's one or the other.
Sure, best guys play most of the time, as it should be. But this is a college program, where you have to continually worry about succession plans, and there is plenty of opportunity, both in the course of a single game and the course of the season, to get guys some experience. Mooney is objectively BAD at doing this. 18 point games in the final 3 minutes, put in somebody other than TJ Cline and Shawn'dre. Maybe Friendshuh could have benefitted from those 80-90 minutes his freshman year? How about getting Solly a few minutes here or there to let him get more comfortable with the offense and defense instead of burying him in the doghouse. Put a guy in for a 3-4 minute span from the 10 minute mark through the under-8 timeout in the first half to give starters a quick breather so they are fresh down the stretch of the game. Same with the under 12 in the second half.
This stuff happens every year, and remains one of my biggest gripes with Mooney. And I don't think I would be confused with the FMM.
Sure, best guys play most of the time, as it should be. But this is a college program, where you have to continually worry about succession plans, and there is plenty of opportunity, both in the course of a single game and the course of the season, to get guys some experience. Mooney is objectively BAD at doing this. 18 point games in the final 3 minutes, put in somebody other than TJ Cline and Shawn'dre. Maybe Friendshuh could have benefitted from those 80-90 minutes his freshman year? How about getting Solly a few minutes here or there to let him get more comfortable with the offense and defense instead of burying him in the doghouse. Put a guy in for a 3-4 minute span from the 10 minute mark through the under-8 timeout in the first half to give starters a quick breather so they are fresh down the stretch of the game. Same with the under 12 in the second half.
This stuff happens every year, and remains one of my biggest gripes with Mooney. And I don't think I would be confused with the FMM.
I'm not looking to only play 5 guys. of course other guys get time. the guys that show in practice that they deserve it. I want to see the young guys as much as anyone. but I'm not sitting a guy who's better just because he's an upperclassman, like Trap suggests. I'll sit that upperclassman if the young guy is better though.
playing time is the carrot. these young guys should be killing themselves in practice to earn that carrot.
playing time is the carrot. these young guys should be killing themselves in practice to earn that carrot.
re: How about getting Solly a few minutes here or there to let him get more comfortable with the offense and defense instead of burying him in the doghouse.
Knee Mac, you and I are very simpatico, but The guy practiced for a year and he started on day 1. he was awful. when he started we were at our worst. yes he was buried in the doghouse, but when DMB had his issues, his chance to reclaim some PT was there.
He decided to let his father send him to France.... at the time same, we were: bringing in a brand new point guard, integrating DMB and NS into different roles, wondering what GG could bring us and living without KF. No question we got off to a awful start, so if you were coach, how much experimenting would you do?
Knee Mac, you and I are very simpatico, but The guy practiced for a year and he started on day 1. he was awful. when he started we were at our worst. yes he was buried in the doghouse, but when DMB had his issues, his chance to reclaim some PT was there.
He decided to let his father send him to France.... at the time same, we were: bringing in a brand new point guard, integrating DMB and NS into different roles, wondering what GG could bring us and living without KF. No question we got off to a awful start, so if you were coach, how much experimenting would you do?
Last edited:
Solly certainly got chances early. and he had a year and a half to get used to the offense and defense. I'm not sure what everyone thinks goes on in practices. It's not layup lines. they actually work on this stuff. and they can and do make decisions based on what they see in these practices. it's not like "ok, he's not doing well with this in practices but maybe it'll click in real games".
I agree it does not have to be one way or the other, but you need to find minutes for some guys to develop and get them ready. I think this is a reason Davidson and McKillop always find a way to be near the top because outside of their main 2-3 guy - he always finds a way to develop someone who got little to no minutes early on for maybe Frosh/Soph year to become a solid role player/contributor to support the main guys. We always seem to lack that.
And with Mooney - his back to back NCAA teams in my opinion were more the result of him having the "bare cupboard" which forced KA, Gonzo, Butler, Harper, Geriot, etc to play significant minutes early in their careers with no fear because there was no one behind them that could take over. This allowed them to develop on the court - then when they were juniors, seniors - we made back to back NCAA tourneys. We are almost in that situation again with the current roster - but at least 1-2 years away (again) from making a legit NCAA run and I am not sure Mooney makes it that long.
And with Mooney - his back to back NCAA teams in my opinion were more the result of him having the "bare cupboard" which forced KA, Gonzo, Butler, Harper, Geriot, etc to play significant minutes early in their careers with no fear because there was no one behind them that could take over. This allowed them to develop on the court - then when they were juniors, seniors - we made back to back NCAA tourneys. We are almost in that situation again with the current roster - but at least 1-2 years away (again) from making a legit NCAA run and I am not sure Mooney makes it that long.
All fair retorts. I would argue that in this day and age of transfers, you do have to pay attention more to "personnel management" than maybe you did in the past. So while I absolutely subscribe to "earn your PT in practice", I do think you need to be flexible enough to give players a taste of the carrot every once in a while, instead of just dangling it. They have to feel like the effort they are putting in is being noticed.
Also, that sounded dirtier than I intended.
Also, that sounded dirtier than I intended.
Using the word "dangling" will always make it sound dirty. Kind of like "moist".
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Why shouldn't we count on those 3? They are stars. Should we count on unproven others instead just to make sure enough young guys get plenty of minutes? Grant went from redshirt to a star. Isn't that developing at a great pace? Nick from 21 to 31 minutes. Isn't that developing at a great pace? Are you really getting on our coach for having guys become stars too soon? Are you saying you would give a coach more credit at developing guys if their minutes went from 5 to 10 to 15 to 30 minutes instead of developing into stars early? Why? How does that make sense?
But, if you also need to see that to prove anything, Terry Allen and Shawdre only played 13 minutes as a freshman. Is that developing enough? Ced averaged only 16 mpg as a freshman. Garrett only 6, Harp only 8, and a few others saw minutes increase dramatically later in their careers. So, saying Mooney cannot develop players is simply not close to accurate.
Why play Paul 80-90 minutes his freshman year if they would not have been productive minutes and he would have hurt the team?
Did you not see what Solly gave us this past season? Did you really want and hope for more of that?
Put in who for a 3-4 minute span in the 1st half? So, take out our best players, put in some young reserves. and go from maybe 2 ahead to 6 down midway through the 1st half just to give some young guys who are otherwise undeserving some minutes? And then do it again in the 2nd half? Who does this? If they deserve minutes, they will get them. If not, why hurt your team just to give young guys minutes? You are asking Mooney to do things very few if any other coaches would do, and getting on him for not doing this, even though most of the other 300+ coaches don't do this either. Shouldn't you be getting on them also?
Let’s not forget those “stars” won 12 games. I think they’re good players but alone they aren’t going to vault us multiple games over .500. Several someones will need to come out of the woodwork for the team to be appreciably better.
I agree, but I feel a lot better about having good fits this year with our 3 scorers instead of trying to win with 5 double figure scorers and less fits last year. Having 5 double figure scorers sounds good, but not when your 3 best players do not get as many shots as they should as a result. This team is going to surprise a lot of people this year.
Chemistry is a huge factor in the success of any team. DMB was not the same player last year,
that he was his freshman year. Looking at him on the court he seemed less aggressive and not into
the game at points. He affected our team chemistry and other than JJ we had no affective replacement.
Kwan was 110% effort all the time and his effort will be greatly missed on both ends of the court. So
chemistry was not all there till the second half of the season. We need to find the 2-3 players that
will fill in and provide the bond that will allow this team to be effective. Who that will be, I have no clue,
but I hope the coaching staff does.
that he was his freshman year. Looking at him on the court he seemed less aggressive and not into
the game at points. He affected our team chemistry and other than JJ we had no affective replacement.
Kwan was 110% effort all the time and his effort will be greatly missed on both ends of the court. So
chemistry was not all there till the second half of the season. We need to find the 2-3 players that
will fill in and provide the bond that will allow this team to be effective. Who that will be, I have no clue,
but I hope the coaching staff does.
Here are the surprises that you and others will be touting. "Look how far this team came in just 1-year" "We won 50% more games than last year" "We had another winning season" "Just think what this team will be next year" "Mooney's greatest coaching job" "We finished 5th in the mighty A-10" "We were just a couple of plays away from an NCAA bid THIS YEAR" and on and on and on ...
Don't be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. Consider that there is nowhere to go but up following a 12-win season. Evaluate the weak (built in wins) schedule. Assess the mediocre 18-15 (give or take a couple of wins & losses) overall record. Consider how weak the A-10 conference is. Don't ignore that this was another year that Mooney failed to make the tournament, etc. ...
This coach is pretty good at applying the lipstick. The question is - what is the overall quality of the bacon being produced?
We shouldn't forget that Khwan Fore had some good reasons for choosing to leave this program. And it had nothing to do with "being closer to home."
Khwan did have a good reason for leaving the program: Jacob Gilyard. He knew how good Jacob was, knew we needed better shooting on the floor, and knew as a result his playing time would be reduced. It was a lot easier for him mentally to go to another program and play reduced minutes instead of stay here and watch his minutes reduce dramatically.
Nice try putting words in my mouth, but when have I ever said any of that? People have jumped all over me on here for saying we will be much better this year, have asked me to be specific, and I have consistently responded with saying I think we will finish above .500 in the A-10 and compete for a top 4 spot. I am sure some on here will disagree, but I think if we can get a top 4 spot in a 14 team conference, that would be pretty successful.
Buck can be replaced. He was a good player at times, and was good at a few things, but was not above average at anything. Shooting? No. Ball handling? No. A guy his size really needs to be good at shooting and ball handling to be a more special player. He brought some good defense at times, but that can be replaced. Look at the numerous guys that transfer from non BCS to BCS every year. If he were as good as some of you think, wouldn't a lot of better programs have gone after him after we let him go?
I agree Khwan was all effort all the time, and I liked Khwan, but, the reality is we have Jacob, and Khwan is just not an ideal shooting guard.Teams never respected his shot, which clogged up the lane when he was out there. He would be best suited as a guy off the bench playing about 15 minutes a game. I don't think he was a good fit with Jacob, and I think we can get some better fits out there this year, and definitely next year with Francis.
Buck has baggage according to most accounts, I think that’s why he didn’t have a lot of suitors. I don’t think it’s due to his play. Lots of guys with his numbers and worse had multiple P5 offers.
T, that’s your opinion. VT’s analysis is based on the facts; Buck ended up at UCSB.
"not above average at anything."
VA Player of the year ('15 and '17)
All Met Player of the year ('15)
A10 Rookie of the year ('17)
Leading rebounder on the team ('18)
Only player in A10 to average at least 12P/7R/3A ('18)
"not above average at anything"
#facts
And there are lots of guys with numbers worse than Buck who transferred within or up to P5 schools. It’s reasonable to think that where he ended up isn’t strictly about coaches feeling like he can’t play.
Never let the facts get in the way of your narrative.Fake news!
Bakersfield...not Santa Barbara.
Good Lord! Santa Barbara is pretty; Bakersfield is a redneck oil field community. Wow!Fake news!
Bakersfield...not Santa Barbara.
When you have to use high school days as your argument, you really do not have much of an argument. 12, 7, and 3? Not that exciting to me. Kind of "average", really. Rookie of the year means nothing if you don't improve on that. Not that hard to look at stats and say "only player" to have this. Grant was only A-10 guy with over 15, 6, 2, and at least 1 block. Jacob the only A-10 guy with over 10 ppg, 2 steals, and less than 2 TOs. We could do this with several A-10 players, and the bottom line is 12, 7, and 3 can and will be easily replaced.
