[ 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: Wednesday, September 03, 08:28:38am
Author: oldtimer#1
Subject: Re: You do attempt to alter things
In reply to: Sludge 's message, "You do attempt to alter things" on Wednesday, September 03, 12:42:07am

Although not willing to get too involved in this argument, I am struck by how one can change the facts (or not recognize them) to support a particular theory.To suggest that the "offensive flow" was not there on a consistent basis last year is quite accurate. One can lay blame to the players, including all those new freshman or can point the finger at the staff. One could even point to the disappearance of Orta and the injuries to Bacon and Hogga. The answer is probably a combination of the above with each protaganist choosing his own agenda.

One additional comment. Anyone who states that screens and picks were not part of the offensive scheme doesn't know what they are talking about. Indeed it often seemed that our only offensive game plan was to set screens left or right for Jenkins and Orta. If we are going to criticize lets atleast be accurate. Yes, ball movement was poor but screens and plays to that effect were constantly being run.

Turning towards the future Bacon is indeed the real deal. However, he does seem to be injury prone which should be a major concern. That is why Sutton or Conley would have been so valuable. Even if they weren't that good they would have given us some options and not have us rely on Ryan as much as we need to this year. Conley, by the way, is a stud. While I haven't seen him play, he is built like a Big Ten or Big East forward and is now 6'7"plus. If he makes it through he should be an impact player.

Reid looks like a player, is exceptionally strong and has a reasonable outside shot, even at the 3pt. area. Problem is that at 6'4" he'll have the same problem as 6'5" Gooding. Akheem is a great leaper but also undersized to play upfront. Contrary to some opinions posted above JD and staff will have their work cut out for them this year.

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


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Will disagree -- Peacock, Wednesday, September 03, 01:09:06pm [1]

One does not suggest the complete absence of screens but they were few and far between. The poor performance we saw was more in the from of lack of attempted execution of plays, than poor execution of a designed play. We can disagree, but I just don't think the players were as poor as the conclusion of the above posts make them.

Now one can not count on Conley and his impact just will not be that great if the players are as poor as suggested. The problem then becomes that this is the team for the next three years and the only way improvement will be seen is if that talent is there. Now out of all these arguments, choosing the poor side reflects on the coach and staff from every angle, game plan, talent level, recruiting and so on. I choose to say the talent is there and was not utilized properly last season. I also believe the staff will understand the level that they are at and the concessions they need to make to have this team function. Failure to do so dooms them to two to three more years of single digit wins.

Now I know you have inside knowledge and it does surprise me the lack of comment on Hill. Word coming out that he is looking like the best player not only among the freshman but possibly the team and will most likely start. Comparing Reid and Gooding doesn't work, as Gooding just doesn't have an outside shot. To state that Reid does puts him well ahead of Gooding if your observations are correct. This doesn't take away from Gooding who brings quite a lot to the party but makes me question your analysis. I wonder if you or your buddy observed Franklin on Siena. Not exactly one of your bigs, but dominates. Also wonder where have you ever seen a dominant front line in the MAAC. Talented speed always seems to overcome the height at the MAAC level. Right now the league is looking bigger, but no one knows if they can cut it. If you also recall, Siena is not a big rebounding team yet is judged the best. The talented front court players generally range from 6'5" to 6'8" in the MAAC and have mobility. If there is one thing you can say about us this year, is that we have mobility and better hands, something few commented on. When you boil it all down, the success or failure will depend more on the game style and plan and will we design more into the talent that really exists rather force feeding them into a system that just doesn't fit.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- oldtimer#1, Wednesday, September 03, 08:02:09pm [1]

Getting past our disagreement, here are some observations and I emphasize observations which are strictly my own.

#1) Hill has potential. Decent moves around the basket but thinner than Bacon. Don't know what source gave information on Hill but tonight was really the first of the "pick-up" games and Hill did not play nursing a minor injury. Overall, I agree that he could be a pleasant suprise but no one has really seen him play yet.

#2) Bacon looks good. A legit MAAC player on a higher level. Problem, as mentioned before, could be injuries and fatigue if he has to carry too much of the burden.

#3) Gooding and Reid are similar types of players -height wise, strength wise and position wise. You misintrepret a previous post (or I didn't clarify enough). Reid can shoot the ball but not in Jenkins or Leon's class. Decent but not great. By the way, for all the bad mouthing Gooding gets about his shot (and it is ugly) he had one of the best shooting percentages on the team last year and I could name several players who shoot it worse.

#4) Conley, as stated, will be an impact player. Very strong, knows the game, unselfish with decent moves offensively that need to be improved. Could be a rebound and dunking machine.

#5) Lampley looks more in control and is looking to pass more (thank God) but still doesn't have much of a shot.

#6) Leon and Jenkins will be our only real outside threats. It may suprise you but I believe that Nick has the best shot on the team. A fun debate on that one.

Again, I emphasize that these are my observations only but if it helps what few fans we have read atleast one point of view that's fine.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- Peacock, Thursday, September 04, 01:57:56pm [1]

Others have seen Hill. And he is projected very well versus our present people. All the comments on Conley also fit into the same area as Hill. I know what the kid did down in the peninsula and in his All Star games and feel your comments are unjustified as yet, and are more the opinions of the staff. It is not a secret how Dunne feels about Conley, having told all who have talked to him and that is good, but justifying the impact comment yet considering all what passes for logic on this board is premature.

Again, Gooding and Reid are only similar in size and athleticism. On the floor they will have to be defended differently and could actually cause mismatched problems when there together as they can concede Gooding his shot but will need to pay closer attention to Reid. Where they are similar is on defense where both can cause great trouble for the opposition when pressure is needed. If we failed one thing last season was the use of pressure, and came most to light in the second game of the season when he took forever to implement it.

I disagree with your comment on Lamply not having a shot, and I think you might get a fair amount of others who will. He is no Clark, but has more talent than a number of your favorite players.

No question that Nick and Jenkins will be the outside threat, but I do believe you will see Lampley out there. Left unsaid is what kind of shot Hall has and some think he will be the point rather quickly. Also unsaid is the fact that Mumford is very good three point shooter but hampered by attitude and could suffer the problem of not being used at all.

Being familiar with both the Owes and Spann situation, one needs to worry about the over the top control that might exist on the team. We all want the discipline, but in each of the cases above leaving was unwarranted. Different reasons for each, but exposes areas that might impact a Lampley or a Mumford.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- oldtimer#1, Friday, September 05, 01:33:56am [1]

Peacock, some follow up to what we disagree on.

#1) Conoly - I've have now seen Conoly play and the opinion I posted is from that observation. Who knows what will happen but I feel more comfortable with my assessment than almost any other. I could be wrong but then I could point out many of your "assessments" that have turned out to be incorrect. As you say why be afraid to render an opinion. I'm not.

#2) Hill- If you remember I was among (if not) the first to state that Hill could be a sleeper. That was based on the same reports that you refer to.No one has seen him play up here as of yet, so I will urge the same caution on Hill that you have on Conoly. Bottom line I like the kids potential.

#3) Lampley - as stated I like what I've seen in Lampley so far but I don't care how many immaginary people think that Lampley is a good shooter, he is not. Potentially streaky yes but just check out last years shooting stats. He's an exciting player and will contribute in any event. Actually. I was hoping that he worked on his shot over the summer because he could be special if he could knock it down consistently. What I did notice is that he is passing more and becoming more of the team player that we need him to be. I'm hopeful.

#4) Mumford - again my opinion and in disagreement with all those "so-called" reports.Think his 3pt. is not as good as advertised but he has anice little pull-up jumper and is not a bad passer or finisher. Also played decent defense in what little I saw. Bottom line though is that overall he comes up a bit short.

#5) Gooding - outstanding on the break. In trouble with the half court game. Hope we run more because that's where he shines. Problem is that you have to rebound well in order to run.

Finally if we are ever going to have dialogue about SPC basketball stop this crap about reflecting what the staff thinks. While I disagree with many of your opinions (and yes I agree with some) I assume that it's the product of your own point of view. In fact, I think it's inappropriate for one not on the basketball staff to try to pick there brains. Not my style.

[ 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.