Mooney--an under appreciated coach.

I will say on the radio postgame, whomever does that now, was pulling no punches on the state of our play. And they did not use Beagle/Walz injuries as an excuse. Of course, there was no criticism of the Mooney, but they were clearly pissed off as to the state of our effort and it was a tad refreshing to hear.
Matt Smith blamed it on poor/inexcusable guard play.
 
@sman, IIRC you have previously espoused not needing a 3rd big active in the past - believe it was when Soulis transferred - and also you think having 2 bigs get injured cost us (at least) one game here. Thoughts? Not trying to provoke here, but this came about very quickly and had real world negative impact in opposition to your opinion.
 
Probably me, but the debate was Sman saying we will recruit in a way to always have a 3rd big, while I countered with examples of us in certain years where we did not have a 3rd big.

Should we always have one? Even after losing both last night, I can't say yes because who would our 3rd big even be? It's not like a 3rd, rotation worthy big would be happy here backing up a couple guys and only playing if they get hurt. I would say there are very few programs out there who carry 3 bigs on their roster and could just put a decent big in there if they lose a couple bigs to injury like we did.

So, my point was don't get a 3rd big just to have a big, get a player who can help us, regardless of position. And. this year, we actually do have a 3rd big who is redshirting, so even though we have a 3rd big, we are better off going small than playing our 3rd big.

Soulis transferred because he was behind 2 guys, which backs up my point that it is hard to have 3 bigs on the roster since there are only 40 mpg to go around at that position.
 
Probably me, but the debate was Sman saying we will recruit in a way to always have a 3rd big, while I countered with examples of us in certain years where we did not have a 3rd big.

Should we always have one? Even after losing both last night, I can't say yes because who would our 3rd big even be? It's not like a 3rd, rotation worthy big would be happy here backing up a couple guys and only playing if they get hurt. I would say there are very few programs out there who carry 3 bigs on their roster and could just put a decent big in there if they lose a couple bigs to injury like we did.

So, my point was don't get a 3rd big just to have a big, get a player who can help us, regardless of position. And. this year, we actually do have a 3rd big who is redshirting, so even though we have a 3rd big, we are better off going small than playing our 3rd big.

Soulis transferred because he was behind 2 guys, which backs up my point that it is hard to have 3 bigs on the roster since there are only 40 mpg to go around at that position.
Im still unconvinced that Soulis was dramatically behind our two primary bigs. I’d certainly like to have him now.
 
Im still unconvinced that Soulis was dramatically behind our two primary bigs. I’d certainly like to have him now.
Maybe not dramatically, but likely did not want to go into the season with 2 other established bigs, and unsure of what playing time he might get. The big position is different. There is only 40 minutes there. You end up behind a couple guys, minutes are scarce.
 
Im still unconvinced that Soulis was dramatically behind our two primary bigs. I’d certainly like to have him now.
And for next year when we will have lost Waltz and Beagle with only returning redshirt & freshman at the 5. Picking up a true quality 5 in the portal & NIL these days will be challenging. What are the chances we pick up another TJ or even Quinn?
 
It is pretty random that both centers would get injured in the same game. If you have three big men, the third one is going to be a project at our level. And basically we have that in the Canadian kid.
Exactly, that third center is on the roster in form of a red shirt now. You are not going to have a third center on the roster in this NIL/portal era, if that guy can play at all.
 
I'll detail my belief on roster construction again, as it's been a while! lol

this was true with a 13 man roster, and is even easier now at 15. you carry at least 3 guys who can play the 5. two obviously would play every night at the 5. the 3rd needs to be a guy who could also play forward. it's unlikely to keep 3 guys happy if they all only play one spot. you need 3 as every year you'll have a 5 who misses time. a Matt Grace is a good example of a guy who can play the 5, but can also play with one.

so typically 2 true 5's and a 4/5 ... but you could roll with 1 true 5 and two good-sized 4/5's.

I guess this year you could argue that AP, Daughtry and JRob are all thrown into the 5 fire as needed. if AP bulked up to 240, he'd be very good for this role. and I think JRob will have to play the 5 next year despite his height unless we get two 5's who are playable.

same theory holds at PG. two that play every night. and at least one combo guard who can handle it as insurance.

or give me 15 Giannis' and then we can go positionless!
 
Another problem is that we run our offense around the center, which is going to continue to be the hardest position to fill in the portal role with a guy that can do all we ask from that position and will be hard for a guy to walk in off the street and be good at it in a short period.

But that’s the “system”
 
Back
Top