You like that?!
- Thread starter UR Fan 2
- Start date
No,
-Paul Friendshuh didn't play
-Where is Kovien
-we only played 6 guys
-DT is the devil
Trey Didn't score
-anything else I'm missing? I did the first two because TB Spyder has left the board
-Paul Friendshuh didn't play
-Where is Kovien
-we only played 6 guys
-DT is the devil
Trey Didn't score
-anything else I'm missing? I did the first two because TB Spyder has left the board
Juniors w 76 pts
Tres w 11 assists and 4 steals
we are down by 15 but win by 11.... on the road,,,against a team that had not lost there this year
It was gut check time, and I say they should be complimented on their poise and grit.
We were looking down the barrels of a shotgun, down 15 and we did not fold. We kept
attacking and forced the Rams to change their defense that created less pressure on our offense.
One note though, Fordham is not deep but it played a lot of freshmen keeping their team fresh.
I give CM credi for who he subbed and we did look fresher at end of game then usual. If
MW was out second half, I feel Paul would have had to play just to give some air to the bigs.
We were looking down the barrels of a shotgun, down 15 and we did not fold. We kept
attacking and forced the Rams to change their defense that created less pressure on our offense.
One note though, Fordham is not deep but it played a lot of freshmen keeping their team fresh.
I give CM credi for who he subbed and we did look fresher at end of game then usual. If
MW was out second half, I feel Paul would have had to play just to give some air to the bigs.
Last edited:
My former postdoc, a Duke grad, said Duke won a national championship playing only 7 guys. OSC
The problem with a short bench is you're one injury away from disaster. I watched the Creighton and St B.games yesterday same issues. In todays game (30 second clock) you have to hit 3s especially if you're going to give up offensive rebounds.
We're not Duke, and most teams need to get more players on the floor to sustain. As the season wears on and players get winded or potential injuries kick in, then we'll need the bench to be ready. If they're not getting time now, then when? When in the season & in the schedule is a good time to get them needed playing time?
If memory serves me right, it's been several years now that we're playing a thin bench. Something's not right for this to be a pattern??????
I'm not sure but I think Fordham has the most minutes off the bench in the A-10...
A good win and showed some fortitude today and that we can build off, but that was still a far cry from what we need if we are to either compete for the A-10 Tournament title or put up a gawdy record the rest of the way (one of which we must do to dance and avoid a disappointing season).
Most importantly, our defense was a train wreck all day long. I have no idea what some of our guys are doing rather often (and apparently they don't either). The number of times they simply drove the ball from 25 (or 30 or more) feet and went right to the rim was unbelievable. This should simply never happen. The problem isn't the on ball defender - - you will get beat sometimes (although we get beat off the dribble a LOT) - - its the help defender who is no where to be found. I watched closely - - some times its just flat out lazy help defense as the help defender waves a hand to try and slap at the ball as the guy goes by instead of getting his feet and body into the driving lane , but many times the help defender is getting pinned out of position because we have switched and he's been caught with a bad matchup and cant play straight up defense so he has to front or whatever and then he isnt even trying to be a help defende or gets easily pinned and can't help. Thats a scheme . Its been going for awhile now (as in since at least early last year if not the year before), but the word on our defense is simple - - just keep passing and moving until someone finds a matchup where they can take our defender off the dribble and go by. All that fronting on mismatches in the post is also a big reason for our rebounding woes. That D is schematically flawed and we need to make adjustments of we are to stop letting teams shoot such high percentages!
Most importantly, our defense was a train wreck all day long. I have no idea what some of our guys are doing rather often (and apparently they don't either). The number of times they simply drove the ball from 25 (or 30 or more) feet and went right to the rim was unbelievable. This should simply never happen. The problem isn't the on ball defender - - you will get beat sometimes (although we get beat off the dribble a LOT) - - its the help defender who is no where to be found. I watched closely - - some times its just flat out lazy help defense as the help defender waves a hand to try and slap at the ball as the guy goes by instead of getting his feet and body into the driving lane , but many times the help defender is getting pinned out of position because we have switched and he's been caught with a bad matchup and cant play straight up defense so he has to front or whatever and then he isnt even trying to be a help defende or gets easily pinned and can't help. Thats a scheme . Its been going for awhile now (as in since at least early last year if not the year before), but the word on our defense is simple - - just keep passing and moving until someone finds a matchup where they can take our defender off the dribble and go by. All that fronting on mismatches in the post is also a big reason for our rebounding woes. That D is schematically flawed and we need to make adjustments of we are to stop letting teams shoot such high percentages!
Agree SGuy...don't consider myself to be a pessimist, just a realist...
we need a 12-6 in the A-10 and to get it with only seven players, or six now that Deion is out, would border on miraculous...particularly when you cannot count on all six, or seven, to consistently deliver on the offensive and defensive ends of the court...
I don't believe Coach Mooney is any different from almost every coach...he plays the guys he believes give the team the best chance to win...
apparently Pistocache, Johnson, Friendshuh etc. just aren't good enough now to help...lets hope they develop in practice as Coach Mooney will most likely put the five on the court that will give us the best chance to get those 12 A-10 wins...
how did we get this way?...too many recruiting misses over the last four years...it seems pretty simple...
Go Spiders!
The Spider Gang Group Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/127760237246257/
Jesse hasn't shown much of a shot so far, Julius the same although somehow his shot looks better to me. Khwan is getting decent minutes. I thought we would see more out of at least jp or JJ but with marshalls showing so far the need at the two has been less important.
The only puzzler to me is Paul. I guess we just prefer to play small if a big guy needs a blow.
The only puzzler to me is Paul. I guess we just prefer to play small if a big guy needs a blow.
True, but they have the luxury of getting McDonald's All-Americans among the 7 guys. We don't have that and probably never will.
Because Mooney has about a 50% hit rate on his recruiting that is why. Each and every year we run a 7-8 man rotation and we always ask why and the answer is always the same, because we only have 7-8 guys who can meaningfully contribute at the level we need them to play. Its not cause Mooney wants to only run this shorter rotation or thinks a shorter rotation is better strategy, its because it is the only option he has.
Stop recruiting the Diekvoss, Smithen, Dominanus, Singleton's of the world and we will have a deeper bench. Right there is 1 junior, 2 sophomores, and a freshman who could be making contributions on this team.
Getting off my recruiting horse now, but this is the single and only reason that is preventing us from taking the step from being routinely good to being a consistent NCAA team.
Stop recruiting the Diekvoss, Smithen, Dominanus, Singleton's of the world and we will have a deeper bench. Right there is 1 junior, 2 sophomores, and a freshman who could be making contributions on this team.
Getting off my recruiting horse now, but this is the single and only reason that is preventing us from taking the step from being routinely good to being a consistent NCAA team.
I'd challenge some of you to go back and look at the (publicly reported) offers Kevin Anderson, Dan Geriot, and David Gonzalvez had coming out of high school. The blanket statements being made about Singleton, Smithen, et al. would apply to them too. Shoot, TJ Cline ended up at Niagara, and what's the difference between Niagara and Siena?
I'd consider it smart roster management to include 2-3 "projects" on the roster, because very very very few coaches are going to meaningfully play more than 9-10 guys.
I'd consider it smart roster management to include 2-3 "projects" on the roster, because very very very few coaches are going to meaningfully play more than 9-10 guys.
I've been critical of all the recruiting misses too, and I do think there is something to that, especially when you see guys transfer out after one year and go to juco or D-2 schools. But I will concede that I am looking at things from 25 feet up as opposed to from 5,000 feet up...meaning, I don't know how our misses and transfer rate compare with other teams in the A-10. Maybe all A-10 teams are averaging one transfer a year too. I think that kind of data would help give some better perspective to things.
That said, I do feel like most teams in this league have at least one or two impact freshmen every year or two. Our last true impact freshman was Kendall.
That said, I do feel like most teams in this league have at least one or two impact freshmen every year or two. Our last true impact freshman was Kendall.
I will have to defend Mooney some what as far as recruiting goes. We would all have to admit if we were at the NCAA Keenland Thoroughbred draft and we got TJ, TD, DT and Ano, we would think we had at least four Grade II Stakes winners. Who could have predicted with that group only one would rise to Stakes level for one year. One is a hard knocking claimer that pays for himself, one got claimed and the other is one step from the glue factory. In that time the stars of our barn have been a 5'6" pony with Secretariat's heart and a 5'9" finesse sprinter that just broke his lifetime record. This should have been a great year with a very strong 8 thoroughbred rotation, however we will be lucky to break even.
There were over 700 D1 transfers last year, over 2 per team. Despite the fact that it seems we have had a lot of transfers recently, in the current D1 basketball landscape we are actually well below average in terms of transfers.
Yeah, I knew there were a lot in D-1. I guess my point is specifically in the A-10, it would be interesting to see how many transfers each program has had in the last 5 years and where they went. Did they all go to worse programs or to low-level programs like basically all of ours (except ANO) did? Or did they go to similar programs or take a step up? Etc.
I would probably call Shawndre an impact freshman too. I think he played every game or close to it, averaged 6 or 7 points and really came on strong late in the year. I remember seeing flashes of brilliance and just knowing we had another future solid guard.
Also though, look at the teams with impact freshmen and they are typically struggling or rebuilding teams because they are forced to play their freshmen big minutes (George Mason has the most rookie of the week A10 honors so far this season).
But I still do agree, we don't seem to land players that make a big splash in year one. Hopefully that ends next year.
Player attrition over the past 4 seasons according to verbal commits.
(total players lost) School: transfers to lower level - transfers to higher level - dismissals/other
(1) Davidson: 1 - 0 - 0
(2) Saint Joe's: 1 - 0 - 1
(3) La Salle: 2 - 1 - 0
(4) Dayton: 2 - 0 - 2
(4) George Mason: 3 - 0 - 1
(5) UMass: 3 - 1 - 1
(5) VCU: 5 - 0 - 0
(6) Richmond: 4 - 1 - 1
(6) Duquesne: 5 - 0 - 1
(6) Saint Louis: 6 - 0 - 0
(6) Saint Bonaventure: 6 - 0 - 0
(8) George Washington: 7 - 1 - 0
(8) URI: 8 - 0 - 0
(10) Fordham: 8 - 1 - 1
We are right in the middle of the A10. I don't see any pattern.
(total players lost) School: transfers to lower level - transfers to higher level - dismissals/other
(1) Davidson: 1 - 0 - 0
(2) Saint Joe's: 1 - 0 - 1
(3) La Salle: 2 - 1 - 0
(4) Dayton: 2 - 0 - 2
(4) George Mason: 3 - 0 - 1
(5) UMass: 3 - 1 - 1
(5) VCU: 5 - 0 - 0
(6) Richmond: 4 - 1 - 1
(6) Duquesne: 5 - 0 - 1
(6) Saint Louis: 6 - 0 - 0
(6) Saint Bonaventure: 6 - 0 - 0
(8) George Washington: 7 - 1 - 0
(8) URI: 8 - 0 - 0
(10) Fordham: 8 - 1 - 1
We are right in the middle of the A10. I don't see any pattern.
First, I feel that the guys deserve a full standing ovation for their gritty effort. As one poster said, above...
"It was gut check time, and I say they should be complimented on their poise and grit." Amen to that!
Second, +1 Kneepad, with his insightful thoughts on roster management...
"I'd consider it smart roster management to include 2-3 "projects" on the roster, because very very very few coaches are going to meaningfully play more than 9-10 guys".
I agree. With regard to roster management, I feel we have improved dramatically in that regard. No coaching staff will hit 100%, or much past 50-60% on incoming recruits. So, the key to success may be to bring in guys with potential, and then ENCOURAGE transfers out as needed. Some of the recent "misses," cited by name above, would be REALLY serious if they stayed for 4 full years. However, if we have them for 1 year, and then have a "mutual paring of ways," it turns into a win/win and we can eventually build our depth up to 8 or 9 guys. I think our coaches have recently done some of their best roster-management work. When we make a mistake, identify it quickly, and do something about it. That is how we get back to the big dance, more than once every 4 or so years. And, I am confident we can do it, and that next year's recruiting class is likely to be one of our best in a long time. Nice job coaches!
"It was gut check time, and I say they should be complimented on their poise and grit." Amen to that!
Second, +1 Kneepad, with his insightful thoughts on roster management...
"I'd consider it smart roster management to include 2-3 "projects" on the roster, because very very very few coaches are going to meaningfully play more than 9-10 guys".
I agree. With regard to roster management, I feel we have improved dramatically in that regard. No coaching staff will hit 100%, or much past 50-60% on incoming recruits. So, the key to success may be to bring in guys with potential, and then ENCOURAGE transfers out as needed. Some of the recent "misses," cited by name above, would be REALLY serious if they stayed for 4 full years. However, if we have them for 1 year, and then have a "mutual paring of ways," it turns into a win/win and we can eventually build our depth up to 8 or 9 guys. I think our coaches have recently done some of their best roster-management work. When we make a mistake, identify it quickly, and do something about it. That is how we get back to the big dance, more than once every 4 or so years. And, I am confident we can do it, and that next year's recruiting class is likely to be one of our best in a long time. Nice job coaches!
Don't forget that Mooney got two transferring in, they are doing pretty well so far. He should at least get credit for that.
Thanks fan, that's a good list and helps put things in perspective a little more. We could probably drill down farther and see why those guys who transferred did so. For example, VCU had a few good players leave because they weren't going to get enough PT there, and they went to other DI programs and did well. A few of GW's guys in recent years transferred to Butler and UConn, so those were lateral or upward moves. The guys who have transferred out of our program have never been heard from again at any level, for the most part. But it is still good to see that we aren't the worst in the league.
Hello all,
20 year season ticket holder in Section 7. Finally decided to make my first post.
Interesting discussion. I challenge some of you to look at our neighbors down the street from us when talking about enormous misses. I agree with the sentiment that recruiting isn't as easy as everyone says it is on here. Have we recruited some players that clearly weren't A10 material or even D1 material? Absolutely. That being said, I think our team is no different when it comes to having players that just don't pan out as expected. Slow morning at work here, so I decided to look at some recent VCU recruits and their respective ESPN recruiting ratings over the past couple of years. Are these guys enormous recruiting misses based on their rather lofty ratings? I tend to think so. I'm curious to see everybody else's thoughts since we seem to have many saying how many misses we have.
Michael Gilmore, So. - 4 Star - ESPN Top 100 (77th)
2016 stats - 3.8ppg , 2.9rpg - 13.4 min
Jordan Burgess, Ju. - 4 Star - ESPN top 100 (96th)
2016 stats - 5.4ppg, 4.6rpg, 31% fg, similar stats for first two years
Jonathan Williams, So. - 3 Star
2016 stats - 1.3ppg, 1.5apg, 19% fg on 21 shots for the season
Doug Brooks, So. - 3 Star
4.9ppg, 2.3rpg, 27% fg, 17.8 min
Again, I could be a bit unfair by highlighting these four particular players which may not truly reflect their talent and whether they are recruiting misses because VCU seems to play very well with at least 9-10 deep. I just feel we are no different than any other team when it comes to recruiting misses. I am also of the mindset that if the freshmen were good enough to play now, they would be playing. Clearly, Mooney thinks only Fore is good enough to play now. For the rest of the freshmen, especially during A10 play, the minutes will be very hard to come by. As others have eluded to, it makes for a very fine line to tread on.
Eric
Recruiting is hard, its hard to project how good a player will be. There will be misses, no doubt about it.
But our last few classes have had misses that (IMO) aren't acceptable for a team at UR's level. We needed in the last few years to recruit more kids like Buckingham and Sherrod (who are highly regarded) than Singleton and Dievkoss (who no one heard of and aren't DI players). The jury is still out on this current true freshman class since they don't play.
We're now in a situation with little to no depth and no sophomore class.
Getting better players into the program makes everyone better and develops a winning culture when more than 7 players are pushing for playing time. Fact is that we didn't recruit well after our back-to-back NCAA appearances and haven't been to the tournament since 2011.
But our last few classes have had misses that (IMO) aren't acceptable for a team at UR's level. We needed in the last few years to recruit more kids like Buckingham and Sherrod (who are highly regarded) than Singleton and Dievkoss (who no one heard of and aren't DI players). The jury is still out on this current true freshman class since they don't play.
We're now in a situation with little to no depth and no sophomore class.
Getting better players into the program makes everyone better and develops a winning culture when more than 7 players are pushing for playing time. Fact is that we didn't recruit well after our back-to-back NCAA appearances and haven't been to the tournament since 2011.
Singleton was considered a very good recruit. Chose us over Tulsa and Murray State, with a bunch of other offers and interest but no offers from Auburn and LSU among others. And yes, he was a miss. it happens. that's why you get 13.
as for recruiting more kids like Buckingham and Sherod, they fall in the "special situation" category. of course we want and go after guys like them. but we landed them because they're local and they chose to stay home. not because we beat out the very impressive names on their lists (Buckingham's list in particular was loaded).
as for recruiting more kids like Buckingham and Sherod, they fall in the "special situation" category. of course we want and go after guys like them. but we landed them because they're local and they chose to stay home. not because we beat out the very impressive names on their lists (Buckingham's list in particular was loaded).
