Game Thread - GW @ RC New Years Eve 4pm ESPN+

was anyone suprised by the GW game?

actually, I thought we played the best we've played all year. we only had 8 TOs. we shot well. rebounding wasn't a problem. but we couldn't get stops. shows how different it is playing a good team.

Johnston and Daughtry were really tough. Lopez too. everything we were hoping for from the newcomers. they just didn't get any help. I'd feel much lower if they weren't so good though. those guys alone might win us a few games. and some others will step up.

GW looked really good to me. we'll see if they are, or if we just made them look that way.
 
was anyone suprised by the GW game?

actually, I thought we played the best we've played all year. we only had 8 TOs. we shot well. rebounding wasn't a problem. but we couldn't get stops. shows how different it is playing a good team.

Johnston and Daughtry were really tough. Lopez too. everything we were hoping for from the newcomers. they just didn't get any help. I'd feel much lower if they weren't so good though. those guys alone might win us a few games. and some others will step up.

GW looked really good to me. we'll see if they are, or if we just made them look that way.
Rebounding wasn't a problem. They got an offensive rebound on nearly 40% of their missed shots.

I guess offensively we looked decent but dear god we couldn't stop a wet paper bag. GW shot over 50% from 3 and nearly 70% from 2.
 
was anyone suprised by the GW game?

actually, I thought we played the best we've played all year. we only had 8 TOs. we shot well. rebounding wasn't a problem. but we couldn't get stops. shows how different it is playing a good team.

Johnston and Daughtry were really tough. Lopez too. everything we were hoping for from the newcomers. they just didn't get any help. I'd feel much lower if they weren't so good though. those guys alone might win us a few games. and some others will step up.

GW looked really good to me. we'll see if they are, or if we just made them look that way.
I guess you are right. The unbiased third party report on our transfers read that all were pretty good on offense and pretty bad on defense. Seems that is exactly what played out in this game.
 
was anyone suprised by the GW game?

actually, I thought we played the best we've played all year. we only had 8 TOs. we shot well. rebounding wasn't a problem. but we couldn't get stops. shows how different it is playing a good team.

Johnston and Daughtry were really tough. Lopez too. everything we were hoping for from the newcomers. they just didn't get any help. I'd feel much lower if they weren't so good though. those guys alone might win us a few games. and some others will step up.

GW looked really good to me. we'll see if they are, or if we just made them look that way.
I'm surprised at how poor we are defensively. I also thought we would win this game. I knew we didn't have a stalwart defensive team but that showing was more than atrocious defensively. As 23 pointed out above, I'm not surprised we had a good offensive showing, all the transfers we got are offensive guys but Johnston, Daughtry and Lopez are all below average defenders. It was also concerning to see how badly our big men were abused in the paint.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with the sentiments that support starting the best 5 and also then playing them more minutes. However, I honestly don't know who the best 5 are and there are many contenders (not because we have so many great players but because we have a bunch of incomplete, and not great players). I think we all tend to be the most down on Tyne, Tanner and Walz. But I am not so sure its because they aren't among the 5 "best' as much as it is we have seen more of them and all their flaws than the newer guys and we just aren't as sick of the new guys (yet). But as I try to look at things - - I can't get very excited about most of the rest of the group either.

Looking at some of these difficult to put in perspective views - - First team wise - - GW game is such a prime example. We were downright good offensively. 49% overall, 43% from 3 on good volume, got to the line a good amount (and more than GW) and made 80+% FT, more than held our own on the glass (including 10 offensive rebounds) and only turned it over 8 times. That's about as complete of an offensive performance as we can expect. And basically we were never a threat to actually win the game (at home) against a middling conference foe. Then look within the game and see these kinds of things - - Daughtry can and did score, but zero rebounds and was horrible defensively. I was leaning heavily to he is among the best 5 but the more critically I look, he has been a part of the problems and not some shining light for sure. Johnston scored yesterday, but was god awful defensively (and not just yesterday) and was coming off back to back zero point efforts. Is he really clearly one of the best 5?? Beagle looked great for a spell earlier but has now reminded us that against real bigs, he struggles on D and the glass etc. I can make lots of arguments for/against literally every player in the current rotation as to why they are or aren't one of the 5 best who should be starting and getting more minutes.

So I have a new standard for deciding who should play - - how long will you be with the program. Might as well play the guys who will be here the longest and hope they develop! So AA starts and get the most minutes which seems obvious. And Tyne's cedes even more minutes for this to happen. He isn't a senior, but he has played enough that I think we see whatever development there is to see. After that it gets tricky though. First place I start is with AP. He sits to give his minutes to others - - he has been decent but has become the Mooney trained kind of player I hate. Doesn't make a ton of mistakes, runs the Mooney offense well etc, but can't defend and doesn't make any plays really. Not making mistakes doesn't mean you are making plays. A concept Moon man seems to get confused on sometimes. Might be a good guy to have as a sub on a better team, but no place here to be taking time from others as a senior substitute on a mediocre team trying to rebuild. I actually like Thomas as perhaps closest thing we have to a two-way guard and as a Junior, I'd flip flop his and Johnston's role's to see what he can do. We have no choice really but to continue the time share at the 5, but I'd lean more into Walz because i think he is considerably better (not to be confused with good) on D and rebounding etc. especially against better opponents. But I might be looking to play smaller more to get Daughtry and JRob more time. And J Rob is getting a lot more time. And I am finding time for Harper too. That leaves Tanner in the current J Rob role (at best). The big issue here is that Tyne and Tanner (and AP) would lose time (lots) and that's problematic for Mr Loyalty at the helm.

So, AA and Thomas start at guard. I will keep Lopez at the three (i know he is a senior but closest thing we have to two-way player and he is the best of the Seniors). Daughtry and the two headed pivot monster round out my five. And AA, Daughtry get 30 minutes a night and Thomas jumps up to the mid 20's right away and more if it goes well. The two-headed pivot gets 32-35 and we play smaller 5-8 minutes. That leaves me about 25 minutes at guard. Harper get first priority and he gets 15 (and hopefully earns more). Johnston and Tyne get the rest (which may end up Tyne because we will need some PG minutes plus loyalty). That leaves Johnston sorta out but this is where the age part comes in - - - these minutes are better spent on younger people when the seniors aren't that much if any better really. But if Johnston gets those minutes over Tyne, I am fine with that. J Rob gets 10 behind Daughtry and 5 when we play without a real 5. And he gets more if he plays well. That leaves me maybe 15 min behind Lopez (although I'd be pushing Lopex closer to 30 than 25 minutes. So that can get filled with Tanner, AP, three guards (i.e Johnston) etc. So losers are AP and Johnston (Seniors and we have younger options) and Tyne and Tanner (Juniors but lots of experience and no more development left in all likelihood). Winners are Thomas, JRob and Harper (lets see what we have with more minutes for this group) and some time increases for Lopez, AA. Walz/Beagle just keep on truckin - warts and all.

AA 30+
Thomas 25
Daughtry 30
Lopez 28
Pivot Monsters 35 (combined)

Harper 15 (more if he plays well)
JRob 15 (also more if he earns it)
Back Up G 10 (Tyne/ Johnston - but to Harper if he plays well)
Back up F 12 (Tanner/AP - but to JRob if he plays well)

And those back up minutes would all go to one guy or the other for the full 10-12 not 5-6 each). So the rotation will go down by two people.
Philly, respect your basketball knowledge but I disagree with the assessment of a few guys you mention. First, AP is actually a plus defender and the advanced metrics support this. He's also a better rebounder than almost all of the wings we have and hardly turns the ball over. I agree on his offensive struggles but very much disagree on your assessment of his defense. HE also seems to bring intensity every game which this team clearly needs more of. Also disagree with your assessment of Lopez being a two-way guy. He is a below average defender and has Tanner-esque lateral quickness. Love his offense and think he should start of course. I really don't see Walz being that much better of a defensive player than Beagle, I'd argue they are pretty much identical on that end of the floor. JRob has been horrendous defensively so far, he is out of position far more than anyone else on the team. I've seen Mooney and the other coaches lighting him up almost every game about his defense. I love the energy he brings and I think it's fine he takes some lumps but he is a liability right now on the defensive end. Agree on AA, Tyne, Thomas takes.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised at how poor we are defensively. I also thought we would win this game. I knew we didn't have a stalwart defensive team but that showing was more than atrocious defensively. As 23 pointed out above, I'm not surprised we had a good offensive showing, all the transfers we got are offensive guys but Johnston, Daughtry and Lopez are all below average defenders. It was also concerning to see how badly our big men were abused in the paint.
Beagle and Walz have poor lateral movement and as my fellow 76er states who has season tickets: “white men can’t jump”! Would like to see us try 3-2 zone with Lopez or AA at top of zone.
 
Defense is almost always a problem for the Spiders and I seriously doubt that is an area that is going to improve. UR is going to have to out score the opposition and that is what makes the “mandatory substitutions” overly annoying for me. If the Spiders are going to win, whoever is scoring is going to have to stay on the court. The player can come out, but not when they are at peak production.

@PhillySpider I appreciate your play the guys with the most eligibility take, but there is no way in Earth that is going to happen. Mooney has his new approach this year and is going to continue with it, the future be damned. That has been my issue ever since the NCAA win, there has been no clear path forward. It is always simply “one more year”.
 
was anyone suprised by the GW game?

actually, I thought we played the best we've played all year. we only had 8 TOs. we shot well. rebounding wasn't a problem. but we couldn't get stops. shows how different it is playing a good team.

Johnston and Daughtry were really tough. Lopez too. everything we were hoping for from the newcomers. they just didn't get any help. I'd feel much lower if they weren't so good though. those guys alone might win us a few games. and some others will step up.

GW looked really good to me. we'll see if they are, or if we just made them look that way.
You mean our best offensive game, but certainly not our best game. Because our defense was so bad, this felt like one of our worst games all year. We just never could stop them. They scored 85 points on 58 shots. They were 17-25 from 2 and 17-33 from 3. Their EFG% was 72.3%. Yikes!!!!
 
I can't agree with playing guys who will be here the longest and hope they develop. Other than Aiden, which freshmen or sophmores do you want playing right now? Is Bryson, who will likely be transferring down next year ( just my opinion), really gonna develop even though he has been behind a bunch of average players for 2 years now? As long as JRob is a 6'5ish guy who cannot handle, play guard, or play defense, I am not sure how he will develop either. I doubt any of our other freshmen are ready because we don't seem to recruit a lot of ready now guys. Until we recruit better, and have higher expectations for our young guys, I don't think playing young guys and hope they develop makes any sense. This isn't a who are we playing issue, it's a who are we recruiting issue.
 
Philly, respect your basketball knowledge but I disagree with the assessment of a few guys you mention. First, AP is actually a plus defender and the advanced metrics support this. He's also a better rebounder than almost all of the wings we have and hardly turns the ball over. I agree on his offensive struggles but very much disagree on your assessment of his defense. HE also seems to bring intensity every game which this team clearly needs more of. Also disagree with your assessment of Lopez being a two-way guy. He is a below average defender and has Tanner-esque lateral quickness. Love his offense and think he should start of course. I really don't see Walz being that much better of a defensive player than Beagle, I'd argue they are pretty much identical on that end of the floor. JRob has been horrendous defensively so far, he is out of position far more than anyone else on the team. I've seen Mooney and the other coaches lighting him up almost every game about his defense. I love the energy he brings and I think it's fine he takes some lumps but he is a liability right now on the defensive end. Agree on AA, Tyne, Thomas takes.
We can agree to disagree a bit on a few of these points but a few clarifications because I don't think we actually do disagree much. On Lopez, I said he was the "closest we have" to a two way player - - and that language was chosen carefully because I agree he isn't any great defender (or even average). He just isn't as awful as most of the other options and to the extent there is a better option defensively, that option isn't close to him offensively. Thus the "closest we have" to a two-way player and not be confused with "he is a two-way player". Walz and Beagle, I'll stand by my assessment of Walz being the better option against stiffer competition, but similarly to Lopez, this shouldn't be misunderstood as a ringing endorsement. I'd prefer we had a choice to not play them at this point, but that doesn't exist and I am basically fine however they end up splitting the time there.

I also don't disagree with a lot of what you said about AP. Especially the parts about his rebounding (but as you said - - better than our other wings - - that's not a high bar and doesn't mean he is a good rebounder particularly - - but he certainly isn't awful) and also that he is well grounded in the offense system and doesn't turn it over etc. And I sorta said these things in my assessment that he doesn't make a lot of mistakes and might have a role on a better team where win now was maybe a bit more important. And I agree on his intensity being a positive attribute. Where will have to agree to disagree is his defense. His off ball defense is maybe OK (not close to plus) because he does seem to understand defense and gets to the right spots when off the ball etc. His on ball defense is horrible whenever his man can face him up. He is probably passable defending a guy down low who is playing with his back to the basket. The perimeter defense is an ability problem, not an effort or understanding problem. But its very bad. And for what its worth, I wouldn't trust any defensive metrics (advanced or otherwise) as a measure of any individuals defense ability. But my main point with AP is that even if I agreed with you about his defense, I wouldn't be playing him. Those minutes are just better off going to someone else to advance their development or to just find out more about a player (like say JRob) and what we have for the future. The slight impact AP MIGHT (but still might not) have on getting an extra win somewhere just doesn't warrant to me playing a Senior who won't be back in a back-up role while we have younger players who might (or might not) be more impactful over the long run. If we were playing meaningful games, I might think differently, but one extra win or two isn't gonna mater for this group and to me that means backup minutes should be focused on guys who might someday help in meaningful games (even if its just to find out that maybe they won't be able to help).
 
I can't agree with playing guys who will be here the longest and hope they develop. Other than Aiden, which freshmen or sophmores do you want playing right now? Is Bryson, who will likely be transferring down next year ( just my opinion), really gonna develop even though he has been behind a bunch of average players for 2 years now? As long as JRob is a 6'5ish guy who cannot handle, play guard, or play defense, I am not sure how he will develop either. I doubt any of our other freshmen are ready because we don't seem to recruit a lot of ready now guys. Until we recruit better, and have higher expectations for our young guys, I don't think playing young guys and hope they develop makes any sense. This isn't a who are we playing issue, it's a who are we recruiting issue.
Agree with a lot of this but I wasn't just focused on Freshman. I didn't mention McGlothin at all and don't see him being much help. I mentioned Harper and JRob but also Thomas and Daughtry getting more minutes over Johnston and AP and Tyne and Tanner. For JRob, for example, I am not in any way predicting studly development etc. But I'd sooner play him and see more clearly what we have and IF he might develop or even to confirm your assessment of his future than play the other 4 I mentioned who either won't be here or have had ample opportunity to play and show development. Thomas will be here next year so I wanna know what he can be for us still. I like him, but certainly may be wrong, but favor finding out more rather than seeing any more of the other 4 at this point.

Its all about the options for all that playing time given the state of the program. I wish we were playing meaningful enough games that we didn't have the ability to sacrifice time from rotation guys to see what we might have and I wish we had guys who arrived more ready to play and we weren't discussing that they may be simply be the better longer term option than the sub-standard options we do have. But thats not where we are at. So even as I agree with you about development being risky business in the portal era etc. I still think its the best course to follow right here and right now.
 
If we sent Johnston to the bench and moved an unproven guy ahead of him, what is that telling possible transfers? We would never get a top senior transfer again.
 
Also, I can't give up on a season 14 games in, not when we play in a very average conference where nearly every team could make a run in the conference tourney. Who knows? We still might have more Belmont games than GW games ahead of us.

I think we know what we have with most of our guys anyway. No reason to "develop" them to "see what we might have". I just can't make that make sense. Best guys play.
 
There are a ton of factors to a coach's success, and we see all kinds of hires succeed and fail. I tend to like the Beilein hire model. Guy that has had/shown ability to turn around a program at a lowe level and win big. And move up and win big again. McCollum at Drake comes to mind.
It is a lot different now with NIL and the portal. Think you need to be a talent recruiter in any model, but it is a different game now. Think Chu, Geriot and Hovde have that drive. Again, I completely understand wanting to go away from anyone Mooney related. But if Chris is playing the 20 more years long game, and slowly keeps fading the next 2-3 years - I think ceding to one of "his guys" may make the exit easier. Let's say Hovde has some good success at Columbia - he would be a palatable option for the admin, the moon guys (triumvirate) and I think most of the fans could get on board too.
 
CM has never shown any real appetite to develop a young guy over an upperclassmen when skillsets are generally equal, and certainly not when there’s a “better” option available, so this is mostly a theoretical discussion.

He has a pretty long leash so he could do it and the results be damned, but perhaps he feels compelled to win as many games as possible this year after last years disaster. And to VTs point, it’s a bit suicidal to drastically change things when the conference is really wide open.
 
Back
Top