[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Saturday, July 05, 10:28:37am
Author: loyal
Subject: Re: More on Sutton
In reply to: E++ 's message, "Re: More on Sutton" on Friday, July 04, 06:23:23pm

Traore's leg issues were problematic long after his projected return date.

Let's hope the Peacock team docs have been fulfilling their "continuing education" requirements. :-)

That tidbit aside, Sutton's stregnths (boards, inside "D") fit our needs like a glove. While we can't expect too much too soon (even Jason Thompson was a WIP as a frosh) this late signing is a HUGE plus for the program.

If we can find a "3" that can score IN A HALF COURT OFFENSE among Gooding, Costner, the Houston kid or Reid (my guess is Costner) we may have an interesting club to watch by the time late January rolls around.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


[> [> [> [> Re: More on Sutton -- oldtimer#1, Saturday, July 05, 12:48:10pm [1]

Loyal, agree with you on Sutton. However, remember only a few months ago when the staff was being criticized for not signing a big man. Then along came Hill and Sutton. How things (and criticisms) now look different.

In terms of who will play where, all is speculation until perhaps well into the season. The best guess is that everyone will get minutes until JD decides who meshes best together and until the skill level/maturity of the newcomers is evident.

My best guess is that Bacon, Sutton and Hill will rotate up front with a hopeful starting lineup of Sutton and Bacon (see Cindy's prior posts). As far as the #2/#3 spots most forget that these are interchangeable. Fans basically think in terms of #1 thru #5. However, most coaches see a lot of these positions as interchangeable. Jay Wright at Villanova certainly did. Is Jenkins a #2 or #3? The answer is that he plays both and did so last year. Similarly with Leon, Lampley, Gooding, Costner and probably Reid. Gooding, Costner and Reid can play #3 or #4. Leon and Lampley #1 and #2. Think you'll see many combinations until we see which works best.

Now while we are speculating, I happen to like Cindy's guess of Leon, Jenkins, Gooding, Bacon and Sutton with Hall working himself in at the point. Aside from the newbies the player I am most interested in is Gooding. He will play a lot at what we call #3. Not a great or even good shooter, he is a scorer. Remember what he did as a Frosh? Think he was handicaped, last year, by playing (by necessity) against the big boys up front. A tremendous leaper with a very quick first step I could see him taking a 6'4"or smaller player to the hole. Sure his shooting ability is lacking but how many shooter's (Orta, for example) don't have that ability to take their man to the hoop.The only negative I see is that AG is very much of a team player and was quite passive (offensively) last year defering to Orta, Jenkins and Sowell. Hope to see a more agressive offensive player.

Much will obviously depend on how everyone develops over this Summer and in pre-season but we have some talent and depth. Competition for minutes should be interesting. Like you, I would like one more shooter but what we have isn't that bad. Think the staff has more to work with than last season so let's see if they can answer the critics about their coaching ability. There is no doubt that last year's team underperformed. Was it all coaching or was it a combination of things?Perhaps this season will answer those questions.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Kind of intersting. -- Peacock, Saturday, July 05, 01:16:43pm [1]

Without taking into account the coaching issue, I have found some serious doubters. Least of which is the rest of the MAAC fans. I have never felt that last years team was as poor as they showed and do believe that this year’s additions address various faults in that team. The problem is this.

I projected 10-12 wins last season and one sees how far that was off. Many others also felt that was a reasonable expectation. Now this season many think getting to 10-12 is a stretch. Now this is premised on their analysis of the total team. I personally don't think it is a stretch but since I was wrong last season I won't get too strong this year. However the problem then becomes that this is your team for the next two seasons with no additions other than Conley if it goes as printed in the public press.

Based on last season we are potentially in a position to lose a scholarship for last year’s team. Three points were deducted from the total and if one more player leaves it would go to four which would drop us below the 925. Now this all supposes that no other points were lost for unknown academic performance, for if there was we would definitely lose a ship. Now it is complex and the timings of any leavings effect the levy, but we get 52 points in a 13 ship year. We have lost one and possibly two for Hogga on retention and if he wasn't up to snuff academically a second one. It appears Orta left school after the season so he most likely failed that semester and also did not graduate giving us two points. Now if Orta can be remedied, we would be in luck, but that would be for a more informed person. So you can see why , what you see now as the team is the team for the next two years. One figures Traore's ship goes to Conley and if we get penalized for last season, someone will have to leave the team next year.

So I find it very pessimistic for those who can not see us winning 10-12 next year or potentially going 500 in the MAAC, yet think we are two years away. I for one don't feel that bad, but would like to hear from those who carry much distress over the performances so far shown by the team and why two years is the projection with little added than what you know already. My personal opinion is that we rise quite a lot this season and become a contender the following year.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kind of intersting. -- oldtimer#1, Saturday, July 05, 02:05:32pm [1]

I also projected a 10-12 win season last year. Whether it was coaching or a combination of things including Orta's injury and disappearance, Hogga's and Bacon's problems or the realization that some of the recruits were overhyped, what happened, happened.

What makes me most cautious for this year is that the lessons of projecting performance without seeing the recruits perform in a D1 competition were well learned last year. However, I think that we now have a handle on what each of last year's players can contribute. The new additions seem to fit areas we were lacking. Thus put me in the optimistic camp in that this should be a much better and stronger team than what took the floor for us last season. Anxious to see how the newbies look on the court and how well the pieces are put together.Thru all of this the players seem remarkably upbeat and I am told are working hard in the off season.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.