Shooter instead of PG? I was thinking 6'5" PG that makes 45% from 3...
Next year team will be better than expected by this board
- Thread starter UR80sfan
- Start date
His parents came from Mali, but I believe he was born in the U.S. Raised in Harlem.
Thanks!
That's helpful for someone who can't always tell Katmandu from Timbuktu...
Idk but hoping 1 of the reasons Wilson transferred is he saw Nelson in practice all year & figured he was a guy who would play immediately.
Unless I am missing something, looks to me like our 2nd shortest player is 6’4 next year. We might have pretty good size next year, and a lot of options at the 2,3, and 4.
Nelson certainly looks like and seems to fit the mold of many of our 6' or under guards. If he's as good as advertised, I'd expect over 25 mins and maybe over 30 mins a game. Will he be plug and play?
Last edited:
He plays locally. I’ve seen him a couple times. Not that strong of a league and still didn’t dominate. He will most likely be a three year benchwarmer.
Not counting on that, was just listing out the roster as it stood at point in time.
John marshall has a heck of a program. Seeing we got someone from that program. Makes me a bit optimistic. I usually don't get too optimistic.
No surprises here, but JOC highlighting the fact that we're likely to ease up on the OOC scheduling next year.
richmond.com
Spiders' scheduling approach likely to downshift a gear after this season's gauntlet
Of Richmond's 13 nonconference opponents, only four finished with losing records, and UR played only six of the 13 at home.
Honestly, as it turned out, our OOC schedule was not that great. We could schedule those same level of teams next year and it wouldn't be that hard of a schedule. We simply underachieved against it this year.
Next year's record will depend on 3 things.
1) Returning players - right now, no news is good news - but we need the core of Burton, Grace, and Goose. I am not saying this is a superstar trio, just saying we need their experience and skills to compete next season. Losing just one of them hurt us (some more than others of course).
2) Schedule - I don't think last year was a "gauntlet" but if it was, then expect a much lighter slate this season as noted by JOC. The goal will likely be get to 8 wins or more in OOC.
3) Transfers - we need to score an impact transfer. And by impact, I mean someone who can come in, probably start and give us 25 solid minutes or more a night.
I didn't mention young guys like Nelson, Dread, Bailey, Randolph, etc because given the history of Mooney and players who are predominantly on the bench one season and then we have a big exodus the next, they don't usually produce much in my mind. Not saying these kids can't be good for us in the future - but we are probably looking at them having their ups and downs next season and playing more like frosh. Best case scenario with the young guys returning - they get minutes in OOC, and maybe by mid A10 season - they are starting to play better with less mistakes and more consistency.
But I think if we take care of top 3 on this list - no reason we can't get to 16-18 wins overall, and a 6--8 seed in A10.
1) Returning players - right now, no news is good news - but we need the core of Burton, Grace, and Goose. I am not saying this is a superstar trio, just saying we need their experience and skills to compete next season. Losing just one of them hurt us (some more than others of course).
2) Schedule - I don't think last year was a "gauntlet" but if it was, then expect a much lighter slate this season as noted by JOC. The goal will likely be get to 8 wins or more in OOC.
3) Transfers - we need to score an impact transfer. And by impact, I mean someone who can come in, probably start and give us 25 solid minutes or more a night.
I didn't mention young guys like Nelson, Dread, Bailey, Randolph, etc because given the history of Mooney and players who are predominantly on the bench one season and then we have a big exodus the next, they don't usually produce much in my mind. Not saying these kids can't be good for us in the future - but we are probably looking at them having their ups and downs next season and playing more like frosh. Best case scenario with the young guys returning - they get minutes in OOC, and maybe by mid A10 season - they are starting to play better with less mistakes and more consistency.
But I think if we take care of top 3 on this list - no reason we can't get to 16-18 wins overall, and a 6--8 seed in A10.
Yeah, it ranked 94th according to KenPom. It's one of our stronger ones over the past decade or so, but not a killer.
Other recent OOC SOS ranking:
2020–21: 54th
2019–20: 211th
2018–19: 338th
2017–18: 34th
2016–17: 214th
2015–16: 98th
2014–15: 177th
2013–14: 169th
2012–13: 245th
2011–12: 143rd
2010–11: 124th
2009–10: 95th
Other recent OOC SOS ranking:
2020–21: 54th
2019–20: 211th
2018–19: 338th
2017–18: 34th
2016–17: 214th
2015–16: 98th
2014–15: 177th
2013–14: 169th
2012–13: 245th
2011–12: 143rd
2010–11: 124th
2009–10: 95th
We were 146 according to NCAA's own sos metric. Kenpom uses a little different method with sos, and factors in O and D efficiency in sos too - AdjEM (adjusted efficiency margin). seems valid but whether his way is actually better that's over my head. His numbers are looked at but you still have to defer first to the NCAA own methodology, and that put us @ 146.
https://bracketologists.com/team/richmond-spiders
Correct. The only team we played in the OOC schedule that made the NCAA was Georgia State, which was a 16 seed. Our OOC schedule was the biggest paper tiger in the world.
If we are going to deliberately downgrade from that, expect a lot of cupcakes. I don't think playing a cupcake schedule does a team any good, it does pad a coaches won-loss record though, for what that is worth.
we've had some guys with strong years when given their first chances like Gilyard, Anthony, and Golden (when he came back healthy). biggest issue is often opportunity. those guys played a lot right away.
between graduation and the 2 transfers (so far), a few guys will play major minutes that haven't before. we just don't know if it'll be guys that sat last year or if it'll be incoming transfers.
we tried to create a tough but winnable schedule. teams we scheduled didn't live up to expecations. that's not controllable.
point is the experienced lineup we had last year deserved an attempted stronger schedule than what we think we have for next season. next year's team might be stronger than we know when the roster is finalized, but give them a chance to gel.
I think it was a real good schedule. I guess it depends on how you look at it. Our 1st OOC game, and our last 2, were against teams ranked 194, 285, and 336 by Kenpom, so those can be called easy. But, really, those were the only 3 "cupcakes" we had when most teams out there seem to play 5, 6, or even more. We did not end up with any top 25 juggernauts, but the 10 OOC games from our 2nd game thru our 11th were all against teams 128 (NC St) or better, with 6 in the top 100 and only 1 of those 6 at home. Sure, maybe no great teams on there, and many of these seemed only average, but all of these teams are good enough to beat you, unlike cupcakes, if you don't play well. We didn't play well in a few of them and lost some games, so that is on us, but, overall, I think a real solid schedule.
I have no problem attempting to schedule teams we think will be easier than the ones we thought would have been harder last year. But I do think it's important to address the narrative that we DID play some incredibly tough OOC this year, when in fact we didn't. It seemed like it would be a good schedule, and it's certainly not the fault of the staff that it didn't end up that way. But now that we realize it didn't turn out to be a difficult batch of games, let's just say that.
Losing to a team like Maryland or NC State next year wouldn't be the end of the world, but this year, the Maryland, Utah State and Drake losses pretty much torpedoed our chances at an at-large because none of them ended up being much more than slightly above average teams.
Losing to a team like Maryland or NC State next year wouldn't be the end of the world, but this year, the Maryland, Utah State and Drake losses pretty much torpedoed our chances at an at-large because none of them ended up being much more than slightly above average teams.
maybe it wasn't a smart schedule though?
it might be better statistically to schedule 3 monsters (hoping to win 1), and a bunch of "wins" than to schedule a bunch of solid teams not ranked high who can beat you.
it might be better statistically to schedule 3 monsters (hoping to win 1), and a bunch of "wins" than to schedule a bunch of solid teams not ranked high who can beat you.
Last edited:
Again, our schedule looked good on paper at the beginning of the year. But objectively, every single team we thought was going to be good underperformed most of them pretty significantly.
NC State was the worst team in the A-10.
Maryland fired their coach mid season.
Drake ended up playing in the CBI.
Northern Iowa, Utah State, and Mississippi State were OK, they all made the NIT. Utah State was barely a .500 squad though.
You could have reasonably expected maybe even 1/2 to 2/3 of these teams to underperform but they ALL did. None of them made the NCAA's, none of them were frankly even that close to the NCAA's.
You can pull out of the metrics you want but the committee has eyes and can look at that mish-mash of mediocracy and say well Richmond tried to schedule tough but it sure didn't pan out that way.
So, Mooney is going to go light on the scheduling this year so he can pad his record, but honestly, he could just run back this same schedule and achieve the same thing. I have a feeling we are going to be dumpster diving in the MEAC, Big South and CAA though.
My point exactly Spiderman - guys who play right away - like Anthony, Gilyard, and Golden - usually fare well. But in fairness - they played a lot because those teams were not very good, especially in Gilyard and Golden example. But we rarely produce someone off the bench, and when their time to step up into minutes - they fill in. Not asking them to be all league players, but be productive. Grace has the best shot at that next year.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Matt, Dji and Marcus have a chance to do it this year.
hopeflully Nelson's one of those that plays well right away.
1. I agree Burton, Goose, and Grace all coming back would be huge for us. I think a good season will come down to how we shoot the 3, and if we can have multiple guys on the floor knocking them down. These 3 guys could actually go a long way toward providing that, but we will also need Nelson and a few others to show they can shoot it. Goose was only a couple made 3s from being at 35%, so if he can improve just a little and be consistent there, that would be huge when you add in his defense.
2. I think a schedule just a little less strong than last year would work. Maybe 8 home games instead of 6, and trade a couple of the top 100 type teams for top 150-200 type teams, but nothing more dramatic than that. You still want to play enough good teams to get ready for conference play, and to know better what we have out there.
3. I think it is pretty clear what we could use in the transfer route. A guy who can knock down 3s, and a big who can provide some rebounding and defense, preferably with some decent offensive production, either backing up Grace, or playing alongside him. If we get into some matchups where the opponents have a couple bigs down low, we don't want Burton battling down there and getting into foul trouble so we definitely need another big for that.
I think if the young guys show they are ready, they will play. I think all of them will get a chance, and we certainly need a couple of them to produce.
This might seem silly to a lot of people, but my goal next year would be 20 wins and a top 4 A-10 finish. I don't care who we lose each year, and who we have coming back each year, I think the goal should always be a top four finish in the A-10. Not saying I expect that every year, but it certainly should be a goal going into each season.
It must be the off season, agreeing more with 4700 
. Point 3 above, agree - we really need a shooter. I would love to see us get two big guys in the portal. At present, thinking Walz is a project and not counting on much for next year. Ideally we get a center like Quinn or Stephens, or similar - big skilled guys that can score - they score in different ways but points are points. For another big, would love to see a tough, athletic rebounding PF type. I do think Grace has shown he can play either spot and a three man big man rotation would be ideal - and hopefully allow us to not "back down" and play not to foul. Yes, you play not to foul in general - but our bigs avoid tough defense at this expense.
. Point 3 above, agree - we really need a shooter. I would love to see us get two big guys in the portal. At present, thinking Walz is a project and not counting on much for next year. Ideally we get a center like Quinn or Stephens, or similar - big skilled guys that can score - they score in different ways but points are points. For another big, would love to see a tough, athletic rebounding PF type. I do think Grace has shown he can play either spot and a three man big man rotation would be ideal - and hopefully allow us to not "back down" and play not to foul. Yes, you play not to foul in general - but our bigs avoid tough defense at this expense.
I never have understood the "rarely produce someone off the bench" talk. There are examples after examples of this happening. Jacob and Grant started for 5 years, and Nick started a lot too, so that limits a couple starting spots, but even with them we have plenty of examples of this happening. Nate started 2 games as a freshman and developed big time. Tyler started 1 game his freshman year, and Andre only had 6 starts that same year. Before them, we had ShawnDre, Khwan, Terry Allen, Kendall Anthony, and before them, we had Ced, Brothers, Garrett, and Harper. I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but this seems like a pretty decent list here.
20 wins doesn't mean anything anymore. And 20 wins doesn't earn us a NCAA bid so once again, you are thinking small in your goals for the program. NCAA should be the goal EVERY year. Hit the transfer portal hard and get 3 difference makers here that can mix with what we have coming back to put us in position for a bid.
Its not starting - its playing time in general.
Cayo developed and got better - but he also played his frosh year. He was 7th in minutes, getting 12 a game, but towards the end of that season he had games of 15, 24, and even 34 minutes. So he was playing or better way to say it - Mooney was able to find him minutes.
Burton - same as Cayo - got about 14 minutes a night as a frosh, but towards end of season, was seeing increased minutes towards end of year.
This is the difference between rebuilding and reloading. This is the reason we struggled and fell into an NCAA abyss following our back to back appearances. We had a senior laden team, that dominated minutes and then they graduated and we could never get back on track. I am not naive to think we will just have next man step up and be good right away. But we need players to step up - make improvements the next year to keep us competitive and discussion for NIT following an NCAA year with lots of graduation to keep the ball rolling for current player development, and recruiting transfers and HS kids. No one wants to see you made the NCAA and then the next few years your just battling to make .500.
Cayo developed and got better - but he also played his frosh year. He was 7th in minutes, getting 12 a game, but towards the end of that season he had games of 15, 24, and even 34 minutes. So he was playing or better way to say it - Mooney was able to find him minutes.
Burton - same as Cayo - got about 14 minutes a night as a frosh, but towards end of season, was seeing increased minutes towards end of year.
This is the difference between rebuilding and reloading. This is the reason we struggled and fell into an NCAA abyss following our back to back appearances. We had a senior laden team, that dominated minutes and then they graduated and we could never get back on track. I am not naive to think we will just have next man step up and be good right away. But we need players to step up - make improvements the next year to keep us competitive and discussion for NIT following an NCAA year with lots of graduation to keep the ball rolling for current player development, and recruiting transfers and HS kids. No one wants to see you made the NCAA and then the next few years your just battling to make .500.
Similar threads
