that's been my projected 5 since summer.
that's been my projected 5 since summer.
Avila has averaged over 17 ppg for 2 years in a row, with 7 boards and 4 assists. That's tough.So not one completely dominant player this year?
but showed last year at least in a number of games I watched that he has some deficiencies as well.Avila has averaged over 17 ppg for 2 years in a row, with 7 boards and 4 assists. That's tough.
I think this lineup was the consensus pick this summer and was widely debated since Tyne was included.that's been my projected 5 since summer.
Had this in the queue to listen to already and got to it on the ride into work today. These guys do a great job on all the teams and pointed out a couple of things I didn’t realize, but that is probably because I really don’t research stats at the end of the year. In any case, they asked who were the top 3 players in minutes played last year. The answer is Tyne, B Artis, and AP. That sort of sums it up as to why the Spiders did not fare well last year. One would think the best players get the most minutes and obviously there wasn’t much to choose from last year. As MD pointed out, they really zoomed in on AP and I don’t think anyone on the Forum expects AP to be anything more than a bench guy this season. Time will tell.Pretty in-depth preview on the 3 Bid League Pod starting at 38:33. In general, they're optimistic about the offensive improving from last year and expecting big things from the three projected starting transfers (Lopez, Daughtry, Johnston). Also expecting jumps from Walz and Tyne (I still don't see it with Tyne, but happy to be proven wrong). Much more question on the defensive side as we don't really have a proven lockdown defender. Very low on AP, which I don't blame them for.
Glad they highlighted the poor non-conference road game performance. In case you've forgotten, we haven't won a non-conference true road game since DECEMBER 1ST, 2021 at Northern Iowa.
Robinson and McGlothin have "incredibly high ceilings. They could be really, really good," Chris Mooney said. "And I think a whole year on the back end is so much more valuable than a few minutes here or there (last) season.”
Players’ parents were involved in the decision that “I think it will really pay off for them and for us down the road," said Mooney.
“At the beginning, it was very tough,” said Robinson, a 230-pounder who weighed 217 last year. “But I could see myself getting better.”
Said McGlothin: “Initially, I had those emotions. But hindsight, seeing the improvement, I kind of just look at it big picture. I think redshirting was a really good decision for both of us, to be able to work on our bodies, work on our games.”
“I’m thinking more advanced, about deeper things in our system,” said McGlothin.
Said Robinson: “Last year, it was kind of like, ‘What do I do when I get the ball? Do I cut? Do I go over the top?’ That type of stuff. This year, I actually understand the offense. I’ve had a lot of experience with it and I’m more comfortable with what to do.”
TBD. And also depends on the NIL money. If the slow play means they are not going to really cash in until two years down the line, then they could have left a lot on the table. But also, if NCAA goes to 5 years eligibility they may get paid for 6 years - so not a bad move in that case.definitely the right move for both kids.
10-15 minutes per game, or total for the year like Marcus Randolph?Still, would have loved for both to get 10-15 minutes last season. Still feel that teaches lessons more (mentally, and realizing how hard you have to work, etc) than Mooney and Gipe telling them.
Knowing the short leash that is shown to young players who make mistakes, I would go with the under. The Forum has debated on and on about the system and it's degree of complexity, but all I know is I see much more confusion than understanding from nearly every new player. Since both the redshirts are saying the same thing, I think there is little doubt that there would have been minimal playing time.10 to 15 per game. Don't understand the "no way" comment, seeing how God awful 3 or 4 were on defense and the game results.
First, I don't think Mooney cares (as much) about defense. What is wants to see is "flowing offense". If the player doesn't pass the coach "eye test", then he doesn't play.Mooney has played freshman. And again, we had sorry defenders in front of them, so why not get experience?
Lot of really good points in your post.First, I don't think Mooney cares (as much) about defense. What is wants to see is "flowing offense". If the player doesn't pass the coach "eye test", then he doesn't play.
However, I think there is an even bigger issue. Mooney doesn't have a detailed, specific plan to get the Men's team to the top of the A10 and stay there. The biggest difference between Mooney and Roussell is that Roussell has a "blueprint". He talks about it regularly. He has a detailed plan and is working through it methodically. I have no idea what Mooney is trying to do. Not everything is his fault like the changes in the college athletics landscape. He is "old school" and is having a hard time adjusting. He also seems to have limited support, partially by choice, as he hasn't been able to hire staff that can help him adapt. Then there is the fact that he is living in the "culture of comfort" and isn't getting pushed by the AD, anyone in the administration, nor the big donor(s). The first step is admitting that one has a problem and the Men's program still hasn't reached that point. Obviously, there are quite a few people here on the Forum that reached step one many years ago.