Would you have considered AJ English a big time transfer?
are you comparing Zach Laput to Charley Oakley or Ben Wallace?
rutgerswire.usatoday.com
My point is you need to look at more than division to dismiss “big time commitment “.are you comparing Zach Laput to Charley Oakley or Ben Wallace?
conference POY is different than national POY. those 2 and English were physical freaks. grades may have kept them out of D1 ... not talent.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict Laput doesn't have the career of these guys.
he's an ok commitment. "big time commitment" is a stretch. as of 2 weeks ago he was getting calls from Rutgers (assistant ... not head coach) but no offer or offer to visit.
"He is at Northeastern and Quinnipiac this weekend on unofficial visits."
What is Zach Laput hearing from Rutgers basketball in the transfer portal? What other schools are involved?
Zach Laput updates his recruitment including interest from Rutgers basketball.
And Jack Gohlke ended up at Oakland. How did that turn out? If Laput is a perfect fit for Davidson, maybe starts and helps them win basketball games, why wouldn't that be a big time commitment? My goodness, to get on SF for simply saying big time commitment? I think just about every transfer that could have a positive impact on your team is a big time commitment. I bet FDU is glad they started 3 D2 transfers in 2023. All they did was make the dance and beat #1 seed Purdue with them.
fair enough. so literally every transfer is "big time". got it.
How many games do you think we would have won last year without King, Hunt, and Harris? Or, Quinn and Bigs? Like Laput, I don't think they had a lot of power conference interest in the portal ( which is all some of you focus on for some reason). We needed all 5 of them to win 23 games and the A-10. Like SF said, I guess it depends on your definition of big time.
Well, going back to the original topic, every commitment is not a 2 time D2 all American and two time conference player of the year who shot 45% from 3 and 87% at the line. You don't have to think that is a key get for Davidson, but I do. Didn't pretty much everyone consider Roche a big time commit when we got him? I'm still real glad we have him and hope he is healthy enough to be a key piece next season. And we need shooters, so I think Becht would be a big time get for us....sorry if that opinion bothers you and you feel otherwise.
we've been excited about every commitment we've ever gotten. there's always upside. some turn out better than others. but we're always excited, just like I'm sure Davidson is now.
That misspelling is foreshadowing of his status there, therefore he needs to come here.
I think Kobe Brea is still in the portal with his 49.8% from 3.
I assume you met made vs shot. For counter-reference, Roche made 110 3's his first year at Citadel, a D-1 school, we have seen how that has transferred to an A-10 level of athlete. The jump from D-2 athletes to A-10 athletes has gotta be even greater.
Roche is 75-206 (36.4%) from 3 his 2 years with us. I would take another shooter like that here. I hear you about defense and athleticism, but you can never have too many shooters, and I think we could find roles for both of them.
So Francis 36.3%, Gilyard 36.7%, and Sherod 43.8% weren’t too many shooters in 2020?
Combined 6.5 of 16.8 per game I believe…
I would argue we haven't found a role for Roche yet. If Roche isn't bombing 3's he is a liability and there were very few games last year where he was. Not sure adding another guy with a similar skill set when we haven't figured out how to use Roche's yet (or possibly Roche's just doesn't translate enough at an A-10 school) is a good thing.
I agree in one regard and disagree in another.
Roche was 52-135 (38.5%) from 3 in 18 minutes a game 2 years ago. Our issues that year were not because of him. Last year, he got plenty of open looks and was just off before his injury put him out for the year. I would absolutely take shooters like Roche and Becht.
