Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Way I See It

  1. #1

    The Way I See It

    1. So Young picked Providence over MU. On average, according to some high-major D-1 coaches, teams land roughly one in six of their top recruits. We were in his final two, and he thought the Friars were a better fit. So be it. If Bentil doesn't return, which it seems like he probably won't, then Young may very well be the starter at the 5 next year for the Friars with Bullock at the 4. Tough to turn down that kind of situation.

    2. All this blasting of Wojo for not landing Young or Gill is not only ludicrous; it's embarrassing. My God, all Wojo has done the past two recruiting classes is land six Top 100 recruits on RSCI (five on 24/7). And that doesn't even include Traci. Fans ragging on Wojo because an 18-year old kid picked Providence over MU? Give me a frickin' break.

    3. Given the offense Wojo prefers - 4-out/1-in - Young would probably not have been much of a factor this year. Hauser is a much better fit for the stretch-4 than Young.

    4. I think it would have been hard for Luke and Young to play together for significant minutes. Luke is best operating at the low post. We don't really need another low post player clogging up the lane/blocks.

    5. My guess is that Young would have competed with Heldt for minutes backing up Luke this year. From that standpoint, it would have been nice to land Young as we would have had greater depth at the 5 and greater flexibility at the 5.

    6. I can see Reinhardt and Hauser sharing time at the 4. Reinhardt can also stretch the floor, and he is 6'6" with a rep as a very solid defender. He has not been much of a rebounder, but that could be in large part due to his playing primarily the 2 until now. Put it this way: Reinhardt fits the stretch-4 role far better than Sandy or Anim, and he is almost certainly a better interior defender than either Haanif or JJ.

    7. I am pretty confident that Hauser will prove to be a better defensive rebounder than many doubters expect him to be. He is 6'7", but he is also long. Perhaps more importantly, he seems to have a high basketball i.q., and rebounding is as much about effort and smarts as it is about height, strength, and jumping ability.

    8. We lost Henry - obviously a significant loss. And we lost Wally, which is not so much of a loss. But we bring in four new players, all of whom have definite upsides, certainly much greater upsides than Wally. There is a lot of talent, especially on offense, on this year's roster.

    9. Personally, I am really sick of the "woe-is-me" attitude of some posters. The negativity about the coaches, about the program, is way over the top.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,627
    I don't think scoring is going to be our problem next year -- preventing other teams from scoring and rebounding will be our problems.

    If we're going to make the tourney next year, the guys are going to have to become better wing defenders and better rebounders.

    I also think that with our lack of size and the abundance of depth we have at the guard and wing positions, we need to press a lot and become good at it.

  3. #3
    Agree with PW , though I would add that MU really should not have been in a position in late May without a true 4 or player with length or girth. The staff knew Henry was a one year deal, so they truly did have almost 2 years to develop a relationship with such a player for 2016-17. That's the part that I find "troubling". Hoping for someone late in the game like Gill or Young was probably a reach (and, MU was not involved with Young until earlier this year).

  4. #4
    Losing out on Young doesn't change my outlook for next year. The depth would have been nice, but as far as being a contributor next season, I wasn't convinced.

    I swear this isn't sour grapes, but looking at the long game, I'm kinda glad MU has that spot open. The PFs they're tracking in 2017 are better players, frankly. And if a good player opts for a mid-year transfer, MU has an open slot to offer.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by MUfan12 View Post
    Losing out on Young doesn't change my outlook for next year. The depth would have been nice, but as far as being a contributor next season, I wasn't convinced.

    I swear this isn't sour grapes, but looking at the long game, I'm kinda glad MU has that spot open. The PFs they're tracking in 2017 are better players, frankly. And if a good player opts for a mid-year transfer, MU has an open slot to offer.
    True, though MU's 17-18 front court consists of Matt Heldt right now (Hauser being a true 3). So, MU will be in a continuing building mode for yet another season in terms of the front court. Hopefully, small ball will work for Wojo.

  6. #6
    Missing Young pretty much assures we need to get a grad transfer big for the 2017-2018 season or we will be incredibly shallow in the front court. As for this season I think it will be another rebuilding year anyhow as I'm not quite as high on this team as others, but who knows, it's college basketball and sometimes players take a huge leap in the off season and surprise you.
    The artist formerly known as "the sitting MU coach for president"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •