ADVERTISEMENT

Matt Becht - Southern NH Transfer - Visit ~4/13

Two-time All-American and two-time conference POY? That’s pretty darn solid.

And the question of how Davidson can take a grad transfer without having any grad programs appears once again.
 
Two-time All-American and two-time conference POY? That’s pretty darn solid.

And the question of how Davidson can take a grad transfer without having any grad programs appears once again.
yeah was wondering about the grad student complexity - odd ..
 
some kids just look for the best basketball opportunity. don't worry about an extra degree. just take classes they're interested in.

watched highlights. kid can shoot. hoop is the same size in D2. but he's not real athletic. Roche level recruit at best, and I'll take a healthy Roche. but if Davidson system gets him looks, he can be effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Would you have considered AJ English a big time transfer?
Oakley? Wallace?
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."

 
  • Like
Reactions: PASpider
If you told me they got a transfer from one of the power conferences or an all league player from a lower division I program, I would call that a major 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."

My point is you need to look at more than division to dismiss “big time commitment “.

Not that this recruit is or many D2 players are…


And I will admit, I don’t know if grades push you down to D2 regardless of talent anymore, or for the last 2 decades…
 
Sorry, didn't realize that Laput sucks. Guess Becht must be worse. He should probably focus on his Simon Says skills then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider23
nobody's saying Laput sucks. just that your "big time commitment" comment is an exaggeration. he recently visited Northeastern and Quinnipiac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PASpider
Two-time All-American and two-time conference POY? That’s pretty darn solid.

And the question of how Davidson can take a grad transfer without having any grad programs appears once again.

It would be interesting to see how Davidson is doing this. If enrolling for undergrad is allowed that is 1 thing, but I thought the grad rule specifically said u had to enroll in a full time grad program. Maybe there is some loophole if coming from a d2/3 vs. coming from another d1. Or more likely there are essentially no eligibility rules any longer so schools just do what they want.

anyway we still have a shot at Ben Wallace!
 
nobody's saying Laput sucks. just that your "big time commitment" comment is an exaggeration. he recently visited Northeastern and Quinnipiac.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Section9.RowD
I guess my definition of "big-time" is different than others'.

Davidson fans seem thrilled to get him, and I would be too. (Their concerns are about Davidson generally getting involved with one-year guys and the grammar of his announcement tweet, which frankly is better than our athletic PR folks'.)
 
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.
 
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.
I get it. every commitment is a big time commitment.
 
I get it. every commitment is a big time commitment.
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
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.

hard to know who was offering Laput. he does say some good programs were reaching out. but he visited Quinnipiac and Northeastern. I've got high standards for the term "big time". to me a big time recruit probably isn't visiting those schools. (in my humble opinion ... as I would have loved to be recruited by any D1 school!)
 
Season 9 Smh GIF by The Office
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philaspidur
Just after commenting that I hadn’t heard anything about other visits for Becht, turns out he’s at Oakland right now. But his name was spelled wrong in the tweet about it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MDspider8
This guy would be a great addition. He shot approximately 120 3s last year. Jordan King had 84. Let that sink in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
This guy would be a great addition. He shot approximately 120 3s last year. Jordan King had 84. Let that sink in.
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.

My question is can he defend at this level, can he create his own shot at the level?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderman
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.

My question is can he defend at this level, can he create his own shot at the level?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
doubt we'd play them together, but yes we have a lot of holes and we need shooting.
plus we don't know how long Roche is out until. supposedley late 2024 at the earliest.

I assume the coaching staff is comfortable with his athleticism or we wouldn't have invited him to visit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider23 and VT4700
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…


Actually I would take any shooter that is 40 for 40…

40% for 40 makes…
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
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.
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.
 
yeah, I'd love for us to coordinate some sets around his skill, or otherwise just focus a bit more on getting him open looks (emphasis on open.) He seems to be a designated end-of-shot clock guy (King was the other half of that last year) which are generally bad shots.
 
as well as our offense works, it doesn't allow Roche the freedom to work for open shots like I remember from his Citadel highlights. maybe it would work more with inside/out sets. we may or may not do more of that with Walz/Beagle. I'm not betting on it though.

as for being a "liability", I've never felt that. I think he plays pretty good defense with high effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
I think with Roche, we all know the issue. He's waaaaaaay too one-dimensional, and because of that it degrades his one dimension because it makes him easy to guard. He simply has to figure out a way to be at least an adequate threat to dribble drive. So far he hasn't shown that. Reminds me of Marshall Wood in that regard--both were really sub-par ball handlers.

FWIW, Becht looks like he can handle, and more importantly, is willing to put the ball on the floor to get himself open.
 
I think with Roche, we all know the issue. He's waaaaaaay too one-dimensional, and because of that it degrades his one dimension because it makes him easy to guard. He simply has to figure out a way to be at least an adequate threat to dribble drive. So far he hasn't shown that. Reminds me of Marshall Wood in that regard--both were really sub-par ball handlers.

FWIW, Becht looks like he can handle, and more importantly, is willing to put the ball on the floor to get himself open.
I agree in one regard and disagree in another.

Agree that he needs to utilize the dribble more effectively.
Disagree on dribble-drive.

I think he needs to be able to use the dribble to get more open on 3s. Pump-fake, one dribble to the side, drill a 3. Curl around a screen, fake a 3 and dribble into space for his 3PA. That kind of thing.

The guy from Oakland is my model for optimal use of Roche. That guy never took any 2s and shot an extremely high volume of 3s, from a variety of looks. It was immensely effective because he got a wide variety of looks and they knew what he wanted to do and still had issues stopping it. And it really widens the court when you have a guy who has that kind of gravity to draw his own and help defenders to him at the 3 point line and beyond.

Any 2s Roche takes should be layups off back cuts. I want zero part of any 12-18 foot jumpers, except in emergency situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderman
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT