Won't most teams try to get the best 15 they can get every year? When have we ever recruited guys just to have them around? Haven't we always felt at the time when recruiting them they could help us? And, we can just disagree about 2022. We had to beat out teams for those guys then, just like we do now. Couldn't we just as easily give 2022 more credit because we didn't have money to throw at those guys like we do now?
Roster 25-26
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
I don't think we are on opposite sides here. I was responding to 17's claim that it's not worth trying to sign good players to be the 14th or 15th guys on the roster. I just think we should always try to sign the best 15 we can, that's all. I think you have been saying the same thing.
I just don't see any freshman here getting a shot to play early when we have 15 man rosters and most have experience. the portal era crushed freshman playing time opportunities.
I think we do have to pay everyone good money. not sure why you think freshmen aren't getting NIL. you have to be competitive with the market. with revenue sharing now the numbers just go up.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Eventually some program will announce that this is their official policy, so why not us. Be on the cutting edge of something for once.
Not with Moon. remember he doubled down on the 4-5 year hs guys approach.
And I don't see adding a 10th transfer gives that guy a chance to play either. What transfers are even gonna want to be the 7th or 8th guy you add in the portal?
I think in an all-portal roster, you could comfortably go with fewer than a full 15 man team.
no freshman learning curve. no developmental big men or PGs. more NIL per player.
Last edited:
Since Mooney only goes to the dance every 7 years or so and he's going to be here until he decides not, we should roll out the intramural champion for 5 or 6 years as our A10 entrant. In the meantime we escrow 3m each year and in year 6 or 7 we take the 15/18m and buy Duke's team for one year. Of course since Mooney is the coach there's still the possibility of going 18 and 13 and missing the dance.
You’re unbelievable. There is literally no point in having a conversation with you on anything unless I have a concrete black or white position on something without you jokingly name calling. I’m done trying
I'm talking just for UR. the big boys can go after the instant impact freshmen that we can't land anyway.
You are forgetting, we are in the middle of Moon's long game and emphasis on HS recruiting. Does make sense to pick up the more finished and known product via portal. But think there is a place for both - but yes takes longer to develop HS players now and then you can finally get them in and you lose them.
SDSU (sorry
) is going to have 9 players they recruited out of HS on their roster next season. 9. Again, its having a coach and staff that can sell the program and culture. They hit the portal hard to fill in spots, but difference is they do let guys play and develop. They had two freshman recruits that I felt like were similar to our two - and by that probably mean relative to the other players on the team. Not as developed and experienced, but with more raw potential. They averaged 13 and 18 minutes. Those guys played against Houston, and Oregon, and UNC (bad game) and top of the MW. And they did not transfer. If Moon is going to this new paradigm of relying on HS recruits - why the hell didn't he play our two. At least wait another month into the season to have discussion. Makes no sense. Anything that other succesfull programs are doing , he seems to do opposite. And Bobby Black and Hardt eat it up as some type of smart mover. Crazy town.
No way this is happening at UR. First and foremost UR is an institution of higher learning. You at least have to try to have four year student athletes.
This is fortunate because the chance Mooney and staff could put an A10 contender together via all portal recruits is minuscule. The 1 year impact player hit rate is one player in three years. One player might have gotten you somewhere in the past, but no longer as all the best teams are putting a full team together. In addition, Mooney can’t adapt his system to take advantage of whatever strengths a team may have.
Whatever strategy is being implemented is very well hidden. All I see is kicking the can further down the road.
I suggested something pretty much identical like a year ago. I think it makes sense. I know we’re coming off of a bad year now, but I think our staff are better portal recruiters than high school recruiters. Plus with transfers, we don’t have to focus on just guys with 1 year eligibility but 2 or 3 year guys left so they can still learn the system. They’re more proven on the college level and have more tape to see how they perform in college so our staff has more confidence in ways they can fit a role here. There’s a lot of variability and uncertainty with high school recruits, particularly the ones we recruit who don’t have other good offers. Still, I don’t think we should stop high school recruiting all together, but I want us to concentrate our efforts on guys who have other comparable or high offers. Perhaps limit the amount of high school recruits to no more than 2 a year. Especially if we’re going to get into this pattern of redshirting anyway.
Our high school recruiting is atrocious, so I'm in favor of doing much less of it.
HS recruiting is infinitely harder than portal recruiting. Way more players and way less context to what those players are doing etc. I’d agree with Moon on this ( and not much else) that the opportunity for a UR type program may be more at the HS level. Simply by emphasizing and focusing on it we may have a chance to get a leg up as opposed to those who are portal focused . There is no way for us to ever have a leg up in the portal.
Genuinely asking here, but in what ways do you think we should emphasize and focus on it more than we have already? I think we have enough data from the past 4 years of many high school recruiting misses. Transfer misses too but more transfer success than high school success. I agree with you that it’s harder and a big reason is trying to accurately predict how their skill level will translate to the college level and fit our system. Recruiting transfers at least gives us a more complete picture on what they can bring here. Allows us to be more selective with identifying and bringing someone to fit an immediate need.
High school runs the issue of the players not being developmentally ready and redshirt. So their contributions may be 2-3 years down the road. It’s okay to have that make up a percentage of the roster but not too many. I’m not 100% set with this, but I’ll even go as far to say that I think we should focus the vast majority of our efforts on transfers who are looking to go up a level after having success at a lower mid major instead of recruits who are transferring down a level after not doing well in P5. When was the last time we had a P5 transfer make a meaningful impact? Marshall Wood from VT is the closest I can think of.
I agree. So why do more of it? Just go buy a few proven commodities from the portal every year.
Here's my updated look at the squad, now that I think we have the roster set for next season:
Projected bench: Thomas, Beagle, Roumoglou, Tanner, McGlothin/Robinson
I do like the transfer class we brought in. Johnston should provide shooting and MUCH needed playmaking to the guard room. Daughtry should be the physical, rebounding F that we needed so badly last year. Lopez seems like he can be a capable shooter and isolation scorer when we need it. Thomas is maybe the biggest wild card but should be a really capable bench guard for us at a minimum.
Unfortunately, I don't these additions are enough to overcome our existing shortcomings to vault us into A10 contention. I don't mean to harp on the guy, but I don't think Tyne is is an A10 caliber starting guard. He's a below average shooter, doesn't playmake, and his size makes him a defensive liability. Walz has his moments, but he hasn't been a consistent threat to be that dominant C that every successful Mooney team has. I'm hopeful that AP can be more successful if leaned on less, but his lack of shooting was a real let down last year and didn't do enough else on the court to make up for it. Beagle struggled with turnovers all year and lost minutes to Soulis and D'entremont down the stretch. We didn't get the Tanner breakout we were hoping for and while he rebounded well to end the year, his shot hasn't shown up. A lot of improvement is needed from this group to be competitive next year.
I see this as an average to slightly below average A10 roster, something like #8-#12 in conference. Would love to be proven wrong, but after last year's debacle, it's really hard to be optimistic for much more than that.
- True Guards (Can play the 1 or 2):
- Johnston
- Thomas
- Tyne
- Argabright
- Harper
- Mooney (walk-on roster spot)
- Wings (Can play the 2 or 3):
- Lopez
- Tanner
- Richardson
- Forwards (Can play the 3 or 4):
- Daughtry (primary 4 man)
- Roumoglou
- McGlothin
- Robinson
- Centers (mostly 5, could play some 4):
- Walz
- Beagle
Projected bench: Thomas, Beagle, Roumoglou, Tanner, McGlothin/Robinson
I do like the transfer class we brought in. Johnston should provide shooting and MUCH needed playmaking to the guard room. Daughtry should be the physical, rebounding F that we needed so badly last year. Lopez seems like he can be a capable shooter and isolation scorer when we need it. Thomas is maybe the biggest wild card but should be a really capable bench guard for us at a minimum.
Unfortunately, I don't these additions are enough to overcome our existing shortcomings to vault us into A10 contention. I don't mean to harp on the guy, but I don't think Tyne is is an A10 caliber starting guard. He's a below average shooter, doesn't playmake, and his size makes him a defensive liability. Walz has his moments, but he hasn't been a consistent threat to be that dominant C that every successful Mooney team has. I'm hopeful that AP can be more successful if leaned on less, but his lack of shooting was a real let down last year and didn't do enough else on the court to make up for it. Beagle struggled with turnovers all year and lost minutes to Soulis and D'entremont down the stretch. We didn't get the Tanner breakout we were hoping for and while he rebounded well to end the year, his shot hasn't shown up. A lot of improvement is needed from this group to be competitive next year.
I see this as an average to slightly below average A10 roster, something like #8-#12 in conference. Would love to be proven wrong, but after last year's debacle, it's really hard to be optimistic for much more than that.
Really hoping we see a freshman step up and get some major minutes at the 1/2 over Tyne. That is the biggest need in the roster right now in my view.
I hope Tyne will mature into the guard position like Gilly did his last two years. I hope this team figures out a better defensive rotation at times then last year. Also I wish Tanner or AP or both improve their shooting like Bigelow did his last year. If we can shoot and score better, then it will take a lot of pressure off the defense.
Gilyard was already an elite shooter and stealer, and a good passer when he was a freshmen. He eventually became an NBA starter, so obviously improved over the course of his career at Richmond, but was already lightyears beyond Tyne his freshmen year.
I bet 2 out of 3 freshman redshirt. Argabright is most likely to push for time but only a guess. No way Harper is a 1, he should be in the 2/3 group.
I was a little surprised we were as heavy in portal as we were. Not a bad thing, except if you're 1 of the 5 fresh or redshirt freshman it could be. It leads me to believe they are not ready but we'll see.
Yeah, completely agree. Gilly was way better than Tyne his first two years. Tyne is way behind all of our great guards, SDJ, Ced, KA, K zero, and Gilly. I best equate him to Khwan Fore. Super athletic but lacking in shooting/passing needed to be a great PG.
The one benefit of the doubt I will give Tyne is that he literally had no one to pass it to last year in our offense. So, I'm sure that both hindered his development and put additional pressure on him to try to make plays because we surrounded him with ZERO playmakers.
I think this is everywhere because of the portal. Any program at our level or above is raiding lower mid majors of their established talent. But yeah, its Mooney so he is gonna redshirt even if within the portal era, redshirting is getting outdated.
The most interesting thing to watch, to me anyway, is how we implement Daughtry. He is not a typical Mooney player, but he IS the kind of player many of us have been clamoring for. Will Mooney use him in a way that allows him to do what he does best, and if so, how will that fit in with the rest of the Mooney strategy? Or will he try to get him to adapt to Mooneyball the way he did with Beagle, to the detriment of Beagle's productivity?
If you had to place your bets on 1) force fit into Mooney Sys or 2) “allows him to do what he does best…”I guess if you were a betting man, where would your chips be placed?
💯
As much as I’d love for Tyne to hit his potential, it’s unlikely he gets close to the kind of production we had with Jacob.
What kind of jump do u think Tyne could make? He has gotten a lot of minutes over 2 years. The results are 59-218 (27.1%) from 3, he doesn't get to the line much, only 73 assists with 68 turnovers, and he is 5'10 at best. I was thinking the key to our season was to get a whole new guard group in here. Looking at the roster now, I can see Tyne getting some rotation minutes, but I don't think him starting and getting even close to the 31 mpg he played last year is a key to our success.
Not sure what you mean. Are you talking let Daughtry be Daughtry by not take many 3s and rebound? Didn't Mooney allow Nate to do what Nate does best? What are you thinking we might do with Daughtry? And how did Mooney hurt Beagle's production? I kind of felt Beagle hurt Beagle's production. Not trying to be difficult here...I guess I just need you to be more specific because I am not sure what you mean here.
Tyne is a bench guy I think, can provide a spark but if he’s our starting PG we’re going to struggle.
I’ve said it before every time that Tyne is mentioned and his place in rotation. I’ll say it again - based upon the way Mooney operates and the Moon loyalty factor, Tyne will start and get plenty of minutes. Until proven otherwise, I’m sticking with that belief. Get used to Tyne time.
True but I thought Gilly made a big jump offensively his Junior year, showing lot more confidence in his outside shot.
Tyne is behind Gilly’s pace of development and does not have the court savvy Gilly had. I also think Gilly had more teammates who could score from his assists vs Tyne.
