Tyler is ready to have a monster year, and has talked about defense a lot this off season. He can guard an athletic forward and we can still have Grace in the game. There just aren't many, if any, teams out there who have 5 athletic scorers you need to worry about.
Secret Scrimmage
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
I think instead of us worrying about who Grace will guard, and catering to the other team, maybe Dayton needs to ask who can guard Grace when he drains a huge 3, and davidson can ask who can guard Grace when he drives inside for a huge "and 1". 
Have you watched Tyler’s defense at all? He should be guarding the guy with limited athletic prowess.
I’m guessing we start seeing more zone this year to address some of the concerns you all correctly highlighted.
I can get with this somewhat. TBs defense hasn’t been great but I do think it’s a want to with him. He’s athletic enough for sure. I’m hoping he worked on his lateral quickness. Your last statement may not be wrong.😀
If we are confident in our defense from our guards and worried about Tyler and Grace, I would say our defense was great in 2020 with Nick, Nate, and Grant, with Grace and Tyler off the bench. I don't think Nick, Nate, and Grant was the most athletic group out there, and I see very little drop off with having Tyler, Grace, and Quinn out there, with Bigelow off the bench. And, Goose has already proved he can guard a bigger athletic scorer. So, no, we should not assume Grace will always be up against a mismatch out there.
Last edited:
Here is what Sman said to me in earlier posts from a few months ago:
You said to me: " you think we are still recruiting Bizjack for this one spot"? And, you also said, "and you want to recruit over him (Smith) in the same class for this one spot"? And, finally, this: "This last current spot isn't for Bizjack. We had one guard spot to fill. It's gone."
All 3 of those comments were directed at me. All 3 were proven wrong, and yet, you get on here today, and say I was the one wrong???? That is just awful, man.
You said to me: " you think we are still recruiting Bizjack for this one spot"? And, you also said, "and you want to recruit over him (Smith) in the same class for this one spot"? And, finally, this: "This last current spot isn't for Bizjack. We had one guard spot to fill. It's gone."
All 3 of those comments were directed at me. All 3 were proven wrong, and yet, you get on here today, and say I was the one wrong???? That is just awful, man.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
yes .. "for this one spot". I didn't believe we'd commit to a 14th guy, not knowing for sure Burton or Crabtree were leaving. but apparently Mooney does know for sure one or both are in their last year or he's willing to take that chance. he's never done that so I didn't expect it.
I said I'd take the L from the mountain top if we didn't bring in a 4/5. we will ALWAYS have 3 guys that can play the 5, even if the 3rd isn't an ideal 5 ... like Sal. (we'll also always have 3 that can play the point, even if the 3rd isnt an ideal PG ... like Goose. if I didn't say that about the PG spot then it's because I figured that's just as obvious as having 3 that can play the 5).
Nice list S-man. I would add that most teams are not rolling out a two center starting line, so most games Grace is probably going to be starting off guarding a non-center player, who more than likely will be smaller/quicker than Grace.
Yep, I am a believer in make them cater to me and not the other way around. If a team wants to go small out there, it doesn't mean I always have to go small to make sure I can guard everyone. They still need to stop me, so I will make them pay at the other end. Now, if they are gaining an edge with these lineups, sure, make adjustments with our lineup, but I need to see it first before just allowing them to dictate who I play.
2019: Jacob played nearly all game. You can count Goose as a 2nd PG here, but we had no other PGs on the roster.
2018: Grant and ? Maybe Nate and maybe Friendshuh? So, you say we always have 3, but we pretty much had 1 this year. You think Mooney was confident in Friendshuh being a key 3rd big that year if needed? This is why I don't think what you say makes sense. If Mooney always had to have 3 guys to guard a big, wouldn't he have have added someone this year? Friendship had already proved he would not be a rotation piece by then. So, you are saying who cares if we get no production out of our 3rd 5, we have to have a 3rd 5? How does that make sense?
That is why I said you were wrong in thinking we would rather have a Friendshuh on the roster than a top 150 Bizjack. There is just no way Mooney would recruit like that. Let's say he only had one spot left for Bizjack. There is no way he would pass on Bizjack to get any 3rd big on the when we already had Quinn and Walz here. So, we will just have to disagree, and I could not disagree more here.
LOL. Okay. Well, I guess if you can just call anyone a PG or a big, you can never be wrong here. No worries. JJ at PG? LOL. Yes, I'm sure Mooney has to have 3 PGs and was totally 100% fine with JJ there if needed. LOL. Okay.
JJ certainly didn't end up a PG. JJ coming out of HS was a 6'3" 185 lb combo guard.
215 lbs when signed ... but called a combo guard in this article.
Men's Basketball Signs Julius Johnson - University of Richmond Athletics
Johnson averaged 28 points per game as a junior at Florida Air Academy in Melbourne, Fla.
richmondspiders.com
LOL. Come on, Sman. That is so irrelevant. Like you said with a big, you said Mooney will always have 3 PGs on his roster. In 2019, JJ was a senior and had NEVER played PG for us. Yet, you are on here saying you are correct because JJ was called a combo guard in high school and was a 3rd "PG" behind Jacob and Goose? Come on, man. I admire the effort here, but my goodness, take the L.
So, wait a minute. So, you admit Goose is not the ideal PG and could be a 3rd PG. Okay, cool. Like this year, that works. But what about my 2019 example? So, this would make JJ the #2 PG? LOL, Sman. I guess if you throw crap out there and back it up with this line of thinking, you can never be wrong. So, I guess congrats on never being wrong.
Wojcik leaned more toward SG, but he was considered a CG by some, including Siena when they initially signed him. And yes, we did press him into service at PG when Gilly was injured for a bit.
sienasaints.com
Siena Basketball Signs Jake Wojcik - Siena College Athletics
Nov. 15, 2017 LOUDONVILLE, NY - Siena Basketball Head Coach Jimmy Patsos has announced the Saints' first signing for the Class of 2022. San Jose, California native
sienasaints.com
not 3 PGs on a roster.
not 3 Cs on a roster.
3 guys who can play the position. always. you need 2 every game, and a 3rd because things happen.
at least one of the C's will likely be more of a 4/5 combo big. next year that's Reed. in the year you questioned it was JMA.
at least one of the PG's will be a 1/2 combo guard. we've already told Smith we see him not only as a PG, but as a guy who can play with Nelson or Dji.
some guys can obviously play more than one spot. others can't. Walz and Quinn are strictly 5's. Nelson is strictly a 1.
VT, I'm sorry you don't get this. I don't think I can help more. you don't recruit without regard to position. you need to talk to a coach.
not 3 Cs on a roster.
3 guys who can play the position. always. you need 2 every game, and a 3rd because things happen.
at least one of the C's will likely be more of a 4/5 combo big. next year that's Reed. in the year you questioned it was JMA.
at least one of the PG's will be a 1/2 combo guard. we've already told Smith we see him not only as a PG, but as a guy who can play with Nelson or Dji.
some guys can obviously play more than one spot. others can't. Walz and Quinn are strictly 5's. Nelson is strictly a 1.
VT, I'm sorry you don't get this. I don't think I can help more. you don't recruit without regard to position. you need to talk to a coach.
Yes, and who is not considered a combo guard these days? The bottom line is Mooney does not have to have 3 PGs and does not have to have 3 bigs on his roster. The rosters may end up that way because you get 13 scholarships, but, back to the original debate, to say we would not offer a top 150 guy in Bizjack because we were saving that offer for a big, any big whether he ends up playing or not, is ridiculous.
LOL. Okay. I will talk to 100 coaches and see how many would not offer top 150 Bizjack if they had 1 spot left and already had 2 bigs, Quinn and Walz, on their roster. No doubt in my mind all 100 would offer Bizjack. But, all good, man. Keep thinking you are right and I am wrong.
Yes, I understand you need to recruit for need and make sure all areas have strength and depth. But, I think if any coach out there has two point guards and two bigs, they are not going to turn down a really good player just to get a third point guard or third big who may never play. No coach would do that.
Last edited:
LOL. So, you still think we don't offer Bizjack if we had one spot left? Everyone knew we would offer him if we had just one spot left except you.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
new drinking game: every time 4700 begins a post with LOL take a shot.
by the end of the day you will be dead
by the end of the day you will be dead
So, this leads me to a good question. If you have one spot open, and already had 2 bigs on the roster, would you offer Tyler Burton, or a 3rd big? Or, same with PG? If you had 2 PGs on the roster, would you offer Tyler, or JJ? Tyler or Wojcik? While you worry about getting a third point guard who may never see the floor,
I'll take my chances with Tyler.
dead. Lol whoops can I say that. We did a drinking game in college when Cal Ripken broke the streak that u had to drink every time they showed Cal on tv during the game. I thought I was going to die by the bottom of the 2nd.
we have had recruited forwards end up playing PG here. Ungerer & Sylla. Ungerer unconventional but good at it. Speaking of Ungerer we saw a game at GW when still in CAA & spider club had a postgame event. The team had dinner at the bar b4 leaving on bus. All the ladies I was with loved Ungerer & wanted to feel his arms. At least 1 did. It’s ok we got them back by then heading to a strip club.
Well, anyone can play a position, right? I mean, your example was JJ at PG, so sure, anyone can "play" a position. Doesn't mean they will be good at it, so if they are not going to be good at it, why recruit that way?
So, things happen? What happens? When exactly did "things happen" while Jacob was here the past 5 years that made us have to have a 3rd PG? Did we need more than Grant and Grace the past 4 years? I ask again. If one spot left, would it have made sense to have this emergency 3rd PG or 3rd big then instead of maybe a guy like Tyler? Seems like you want to recruit based on what might happen if we get injuries, but guess what? If you take an average 3rd string PG in case we might need him over a guy like Tyler, we are probably in big trouble anyway and I doubt we win too many games with JJ as our PG. So, no, sorry, but you are wrong. You do not recruit that way. Yes, you recruit for need, and if you are guard heavy, sure, go pursue a big, but if you already have 2 PGs and 2 bigs on your roster, no, you don't say no to a top 150 guy and not offer him just because you "might" need a 3rd big or 3rd PG. I just don't see anyone doing this. Where exactly did you hear about this 3 PG, 3 big talk anyway?
And, by the way, I have talked and do talk to coaches plenty. Do you? I can say with 100% confidence none would agree with you here.
Last edited:
no point in repeating myself more than I already have. I'm sure I'm boring everyone. I'm boring myself. yes, I've talked to a few coaches. probably not as many as you. the ones I've talked to all have 3 guys who can play the positions without forcing someone like Burton in at the 5.
All good, Sman, and I agree, with 13 man rosters, most teams probably do have 3 guys that can "play" those spots. But, that is far different than what we are debating. Ask them the questions I have asked you. The last spot available recruiting questions. You know, the ones that you have not answered.
nobody knew what Burton would become or he'd have gotten much higher offers.
so yes, I'd be looking at the best big man or PG as needed instead of a 9th wing. I wouldn't be looking for a permanent 3rd guy at either position. I'd be looking for someone who can in time be the top guy. like we got in Reed.
Mooney had a good idea what Burton would become. He has been talking him up since before his 1st game. 9th wing? Yes, I'm sure we figured Burton would be our 9th wing when we got him.
I assume that both sides of this debate have their limits.
But I will use an example that will help VT...
You already have 3 Centers, 2 PGs and one scholarship left.
You are recruiting 2 players both of whom you are certain will accept.
The two players are Jesse Pistokache and Armando Bacote.
Which do you choose?
But I will use an example that will help VT...
You already have 3 Centers, 2 PGs and one scholarship left.
You are recruiting 2 players both of whom you are certain will accept.
The two players are Jesse Pistokache and Armando Bacote.
Which do you choose?
jeez. this isn't complicated. I meant 9th guy on the roster who would play the wing. not ranked 9th on our roster at the wing.
you were saying take best player available ... even if you only have 2 guys who can play the 5 like Quinn and Walz ... no?
I assumed you also had only 2 guys that could play the point since you don't care about positions. so that left 8 guys who play on the wing.
so yes, I'm finding a big I really like if I only have 2. even over the potential of a wing like Burton who I really like but who's best offer was arguably UR at the time.
in your lala land fantasy world, I'd obviously take Bacote. in the real world where the perceived difference between the recruits you're talking to isn't as drastic, I'm focusing on finding a guard.
Another reason why you offer a top 150 guy like Bizjack for your last spot would be how crazy the transfer situation is now.
1. If you recruit in the fall to have 3 PGs and 3 bigs on your roster, who knows if you still might even have that the next spring. So, why worry about that in the fall at the expense of not getting a top 150 guy? Look at Wilson and Weir. If we only had 2 PGs and 2 bigs, Sman would take these guys over a top 150 recruit, but where would that have gotten us?
2. So, yes, you offer the top 150 guy 100% of the time like you should, and then, if you feel you want to add a 3rd PG or 3rd big in the spring, you will likely have a chance to do it anyway if and when a guy transfers. If not, you will most likely be just fine at those positions anyway, as I noted earlier with my Jacob and Grant/Grace examples.
1. If you recruit in the fall to have 3 PGs and 3 bigs on your roster, who knows if you still might even have that the next spring. So, why worry about that in the fall at the expense of not getting a top 150 guy? Look at Wilson and Weir. If we only had 2 PGs and 2 bigs, Sman would take these guys over a top 150 recruit, but where would that have gotten us?
2. So, yes, you offer the top 150 guy 100% of the time like you should, and then, if you feel you want to add a 3rd PG or 3rd big in the spring, you will likely have a chance to do it anyway if and when a guy transfers. If not, you will most likely be just fine at those positions anyway, as I noted earlier with my Jacob and Grant/Grace examples.
To answer your question, yes, 100% of the time. Why would I have needed a 3rd big behind Grant and Grace the past 4 years? Why have a guy who rarely played instead of a top 150 guy? You mentioned Sal as a 3rd big earlier. Well, how would that have worked out? Picking Sal over a top 150 guy if we had 1 spot left? That was the debate. You would take a 3rd big over a top 150 guy. It is all opinion, so no one can be wrong, but am I at least allowed to say how crazy you are with this?
Similar threads
