Transfers SJU May Get Involved With

[Happy]

One of our early targets, per Corey Evans

Alex Yetna has committed to South Florida

.......so now, Matt and Mullin, we can't beat out South Florida, for Yetna and Nikola Scekic?

We have 5 very good players next year. After them there is a precipitous drop in talent. Hopefully this does not turn into a Lavin-like day late dollar short scenario because the head coach and his HOF assistant aren't showing kids out of town love. $500,000 would go a long way in recruiting unless the guy you are paying is doing lunch in Lexington on our dime.

No offer for the Serb and academic issues surrounding Yetna . Also heard Yetna is not a down low player . We are going after the right kid from PSA. Not sure what people expect this late in the game? Matt gambled and struck out on Jessica and I don't see what everyone else sees in the transfer market this year. It's not as easy as saying we should go after every single kid who is 6'8 and over that transfers because a lot of these kids are just not that great . Also easy to say how come we can't get a visit from the Carlton Bragg type transfer because we have playing time . I never understood why the playing time makes us any more attractive to elite recruits. If you are elite you will get playing time wherever you go and last I checked we have absolutely stunk the last couple of years. We will get thes kids if we win. Pretty simple

 

[Class of 72]

One of our early targets, per Corey Evans

Alex Yetna has committed to South Florida

.......so now, Matt and Mullin, we can't beat out South Florida, for Yetna and Nikola Scekic?

We have 5 very good players next year. After them there is a precipitous drop in talent. Hopefully this does not turn into a Lavin-like day late dollar short scenario because the head coach and his HOF assistant aren't showing kids out of town love. $500,000 would go a long way in recruiting unless the guy you are paying is doing lunch in Lexington on our dime.

No offer for the Serb and academic issues surrounding Yetna . Also heard Yetna is not a down low player . We are going after the right kid from PSA. Not sure what people expect this late in the game? Matt gambled and struck out on Jessica and I don't see what everyone else sees in the transfer market this year. It's not as easy as saying we should go after every single kid who is 6'8 and over that transfers because a lot of these kids are just not that great . Also easy to say how come we can't get a visit from the Carlton Bragg type transfer because we have playing time . I never understood why the playing time makes us any more attractive to elite recruits. If you are elite you will get playing time wherever you go and last I checked we have absolutely stunk the last couple of years. We will get thes kids if we win. Pretty simple

Thanks Happy! We definitely don't need a Yenta on the team! We already have one in our recruiter.

 

[RedStormNC]

Thanks Happy...

Definitely no future offer for Nikola Tesla or just not at the moment ?

I know his #'s suck and don't know anything else about him, but seems like filling a last spot on the bench with a big body is not all that bad (how much worse could he be than a freshman Jessica ?)

 

[paultzman]

Thanks Happy...

Definitely no future offer for Nikola Tesla or just not at the moment ?

I know his #'s suck and don't know anything else about him, but seems like filling a last spot on the bench with a big body is not all that bad (how much worse could he be than a freshman Jessica ?)

Likely to commit to USF.

 

[Happy]

Thanks Happy...

Definitely no future offer for Nikola Tesla or just not at the moment ?

I know his #'s suck and don't know anything else about him, but seems like filling a last spot on the bench with a big body is not all that bad (how much worse could he be than a freshman Jessica ?)

No offer from what I heard and I have never seen him play so I couldn't comment .. The consensus of everyone I have talked to who has seen him is not good .

 

[Spruces2]

One of our early targets, per Corey Evans

Alex Yetna has committed to South Florida

.......so now, Matt and Mullin, we can't beat out South Florida, for Yetna and Nikola Scekic?

We have 5 very good players next year. After them there is a precipitous drop in talent. Hopefully this does not turn into a Lavin-like day late dollar short scenario because the head coach and his HOF assistant aren't showing kids out of town love. $500,000 would go a long way in recruiting unless the guy you are paying is doing lunch in Lexington on our dime.

No offer for the Serb and academic issues surrounding Yetna . Also heard Yetna is not a down low player . We are going after the right kid from PSA. Not sure what people expect this late in the game? Matt gambled and struck out on Jessica and I don't see what everyone else sees in the transfer market this year. It's not as easy as saying we should go after every single kid who is 6'8 and over that transfers because a lot of these kids are just not that great . Also easy to say how come we can't get a visit from the Carlton Bragg type transfer because we have playing time . I never understood why the playing time makes us any more attractive to elite recruits. If you are elite you will get playing time wherever you go and last I checked we have absolutely stunk the last couple of years. We will get thes kids if we win. Pretty simple

Ehh. Once Sima left, getting help down low for next season became imperative. Still think it was a pretty big recruiting failure given opportunity next year.

 

[logen]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

 

[mjmaherjr]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

maybe you are both right

 

[Class of 72]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

 

[logen]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

 

[Class of 72]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

First off, I express criticism where and when it is warranted just like you do during the season and as do many others. You can give the staff all the "reasonable" time you want in your limited life span. Some of us have been doing that dance since 1990. Four or five years with Brian Mahoney, 4 or 5 years with Norm Roberts, 4 or 5 years with Steve Lavin and now you are willing to wait another 5 fckg years while Chris Mullin learns the nuances of coaching and recruiting at the college level.
OK, enjoy!
As for the stats you are contesting, so as to criticize my post, yes, you all knowing Logen criticiquite a bit for an innocent fan, please go to the St. John's site and review our conference statistics. Those are the ones that determine if you finish 1st or 10th in the Big East, when and who you play in the Big East tourney and whether you get a chance at an at-large bid. These are the rebounding stats:

REBOUNDS................. 567 719
Rebounds per game...... 31.5 39.9
Rebounding margin...... -8.4 -

Have a nice day and all the besr.

 

[mjmaherjr]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

First off, I express criticism where and when it is warranted just like you do during the season and as do many others. You can give the staff all the "reasonable" time you want in your limited life span. Some of us have been doing that dance since 1990. Four or five years with Brian Mahoney, 4 or 5 years with Norm Roberts, 4 or 5 years with Steve Lavin and now you are willing to wait another 5 fckg years while Chris Mullin learns the nuances of coaching and recruiting at the college level.
OK, enjoy!
As for the stats you are contesting, so as to criticize my post, yes, you all knowing Logen criticiquite a bit for an innocent fan, please go to the St. John's site and review our conference statistics. Those are the ones that determine if you finish 1st or 10th in the Big East, when and who you play in the Big East tourney and whether you get a chance at an at-large bid. These are the rebounding stats:

REBOUNDS................. 567 719
Rebounds per game...... 31.5 39.9
Rebounding margin...... -8.4 -

Have a nice day and all the besr.

just for clarification. Your last line " Have a nice day and all the besr ". Was that supposed to be have a nice day and all the beer or all the best ? That's a real important spelling error

 

[paultzman]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

First off, I express criticism where and when it is warranted just like you do during the season and as do many others. You can give the staff all the "reasonable" time you want in your limited life span. Some of us have been doing that dance since 1990. Four or five years with Brian Mahoney, 4 or 5 years with Norm Roberts, 4 or 5 years with Steve Lavin and now you are willing to wait another 5 fckg years while Chris Mullin learns the nuances of coaching and recruiting at the college level.
OK, enjoy!
As for the stats you are contesting, so as to criticize my post, yes, you all knowing Logen criticiquite a bit for an innocent fan, please go to the St. John's site and review our conference statistics. Those are the ones that determine if you finish 1st or 10th in the Big East, when and who you play in the Big East tourney and whether you get a chance at an at-large bid. These are the rebounding stats:

REBOUNDS................. 567 719
Rebounds per game...... 31.5 39.9
Rebounding margin...... -8.4 -

Have a nice day and all the besr.

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

 

[Section9]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

First off, I express criticism where and when it is warranted just like you do during the season and as do many others. You can give the staff all the "reasonable" time you want in your limited life span. Some of us have been doing that dance since 1990. Four or five years with Brian Mahoney, 4 or 5 years with Norm Roberts, 4 or 5 years with Steve Lavin and now you are willing to wait another 5 fckg years while Chris Mullin learns the nuances of coaching and recruiting at the college level.
OK, enjoy!
As for the stats you are contesting, so as to criticize my post, yes, you all knowing Logen criticiquite a bit for an innocent fan, please go to the St. John's site and review our conference statistics. Those are the ones that determine if you finish 1st or 10th in the Big East, when and who you play in the Big East tourney and whether you get a chance at an at-large bid. These are the rebounding stats:

REBOUNDS................. 567 719
Rebounds per game...... 31.5 39.9
Rebounding margin...... -8.4 -

Have a nice day and all the besr.

just for clarification. Your last line " Have a nice day and all the besr ". Was that supposed to be have a nice day and all the beer or all the best ? That's a real important spelling error

Nah, he's still pissed and ripping on SS&G, come to think of it, he's just pissed in general. :dry:

 

[Red.Fans]

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Yup and as Maher said, Both. The defense and in particular the rebounding (which relies upon fundamental execution like position) meant that our speed and open court advantage was largely negated and most of our offense was in the 1/2 court where the lack of a big put more pressure on our guards because the opposition knew they could disregard that as an option. (deep breath) The small ball / guard's game talk is fine but it relies upon execution. That execution starts with defense. The offense is the reward and until our guys get that we will look like a street ball team.

 

[SJU1512]

My two cents, getting any players that can play is a good thing. But, IMO, BY FAR our biggest problem was defense, not rebounding per se. Just basic hard nosed on the ball defense. Stop the revolving door penetration, stop the constant scrambling on defense and we will improve immensely. We have the athletes to do it, no question. But the idea that we only need to add a big to become a tournament team is one I disagree with. We will score enough to win but we need to improve our defense, improve our commitment to getting 50-50 balls, improve the little things that win at this level. We can play small, certainly other teams, notably Nova, have won consistently that way, but we have to play right.

While defense was a big problem in that there was no semblance of defense by the current players, the most glaring issue was rebounding. Not only were we last in the Big East in rebounding differential but also in offensive rebounding thus giving the opposing team more opportunities to score and break on us. Thus the 100 point embarrassments.
Not bringing in a rebounder will bite this staff on the ass....or hip.

Well, then I guess we disagree. I think the 4 or 5 extra rebounds the opposition got on us, which at about 40% - 45% shooting translates into 4 or 5 extra points a game, pales when compared to the porous defense we played on the perimeter. And the constant scrambling by our interior people to cover for that certainly accounted for a couple of those rebounds a game. Yes, we could use more size but it is not the end all you and others would like to make it.

The opposition actually averaged 8.4 more rebounds per game and shot 48% against us. That would be 7 more points for us and 4 extra wins. An 18-15 record would have been acceptable.
That we sucked at both rebounding and defense was extremely disappointing.

Well, since you went there - we averaged 34.4 rebounds a game, the opposition against us 38.9; I am too old to be learned in the new math but from what I was taught that is a difference of 4.5 to the negative. The opposition attempted 2,725 shots against us and made 1,182 which again, not common core mind you, but I get a 43.3% from those numbers. But I don't want to let facts get in the way of your desire to criticize anything and everything about the program. Me, I will give the staff a reasonable amount of time, 4-5 years, before I let go. After all, I stuck with Roberts longer than that and even Lavin got about that from me. It takes time, like it or not, it takes time. As Happy wrote in another thread, give me some 4th year players with some depth behind them, then you have a program. We shall see where this goes.

First off, I express criticism where and when it is warranted just like you do during the season and as do many others. You can give the staff all the "reasonable" time you want in your limited life span. Some of us have been doing that dance since 1990. Four or five years with Brian Mahoney, 4 or 5 years with Norm Roberts, 4 or 5 years with Steve Lavin and now you are willing to wait another 5 fckg years while Chris Mullin learns the nuances of coaching and recruiting at the college level.
OK, enjoy!
As for the stats you are contesting, so as to criticize my post, yes, you all knowing Logen criticiquite a bit for an innocent fan, please go to the St. John's site and review our conference statistics. Those are the ones that determine if you finish 1st or 10th in the Big East, when and who you play in the Big East tourney and whether you get a chance at an at-large bid. These are the rebounding stats:

REBOUNDS................. 567 719
Rebounds per game...... 31.5 39.9
Rebounding margin...... -8.4 -

Have a nice day and all the besr.

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Excellent post and agree on all.

Understand the challenges in trying to solve for this late in the game. Limited options and those that are quality a lot of teams want. Grad transfer big would have been ideal but same is true for a ton of teams.

At same time would be inexcusable not to land at least one player with size who can contribute, especially given how set up we otherwise seem + criticality of next season as you note. Not like this was an unforeseen issue. Sima transferred in December and seemed as though the Brown situation seemed tenuous for some time.

So this hopefully should not be a situation where we are talking ourselves into a 4 year type guy who really won't be ready to impact things next year. With the scholarships we have to give fine to bring a guy like that in but should not be the reliance for next year.

Staff obviously focused on this as Matt confirmed the other day. But given that at this point expectations have been lowered beyond that ideal scenario hoping we see a good result. Not bringing in anyone of anticipated production besides Simon/Clark who have been in the fold for almost a year could be first spot where staff has come up short in terms of a recruiting need with any materiality. See what happens in next few weeks.

 

[beast of the east]

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Yup and as Maher said, Both. The defense and in particular the rebounding (which relies upon fundamental execution like position) meant that our speed and open court advantage was largely negated and most of our offense was in the 1/2 court where the lack of a big put more pressure on our guards because the opposition knew they could disregard that as an option. (deep breath) The small ball / guard's game talk is fine but it relies upon execution. That execution starts with defense. The offense is the reward and until our guys get that we will look like a street ball team.

FWIW, I can't remember when, if ever, we had a squad that thrived on defense. Maybe back in the Beaver Smith, Searcy, Rellford, George Johnson days. Although sacrilege on here, I actually did not think that Pointer was a great on ball defender. Too many times he would get beat off of the dribble 25 feet from the basket.

There's a local former HS coach who loves to tell the story how he benched one of his highest scorers in the city championship game (that his team won) after the guy hit his first three shots, but couldn't cover the corner on defense. He yanked him early in the first half and benched him the rest of the way. The guy went on to be his D1 school's all time leader in scoring average. Old school basketball values tough and aggressive in your jock defense. I think New York fans value that too, as evidenced by the admiration for the Charles Oakley led physical Knicks of 20 years ago.

The best way to instill that type of desire to play defense is to bench players who don't

 

[Red.Fans]

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Yup and as Maher said, Both. The defense and in particular the rebounding (which relies upon fundamental execution like position) meant that our speed and open court advantage was largely negated and most of our offense was in the 1/2 court where the lack of a big put more pressure on our guards because the opposition knew they could disregard that as an option. (deep breath) The small ball / guard's game talk is fine but it relies upon execution. That execution starts with defense. The offense is the reward and until our guys get that we will look like a street ball team.

FWIW, I can't remember when, if ever, we had a squad that thrived on defense. Maybe back in the Beaver Smith, Searcy, Rellford, George Johnson days. Although sacrilege on here, I actually did not think that Pointer was a great on ball defender. Too many times he would get beat off of the dribble 25 feet from the basket.

There's a local former HS coach who loves to tell the story how he benched one of his highest scorers in the city championship game (that his team won) after the guy hit his first three shots, but couldn't cover the corner on defense. He yanked him early in the first half and benched him the rest of the way. The guy went on to be his D1 school's all time leader in scoring average. Old school basketball values tough and aggressive in your jock defense. I think New York fans value that too, as evidenced by the admiration for the Charles Oakley led physical Knicks of 20 years ago.

The best way to instill that type of desire to play defense is to bench players who don't

With better roster balance of both youth/maturity and size/skills I think we'll naturally see better defense. IMO the Jarvis Elite 8 team was Defense to Offense. Jarvis had his major faults but his teams generally defended well.

 

[beast of the east]

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Yup and as Maher said, Both. The defense and in particular the rebounding (which relies upon fundamental execution like position) meant that our speed and open court advantage was largely negated and most of our offense was in the 1/2 court where the lack of a big put more pressure on our guards because the opposition knew they could disregard that as an option. (deep breath) The small ball / guard's game talk is fine but it relies upon execution. That execution starts with defense. The offense is the reward and until our guys get that we will look like a street ball team.

FWIW, I can't remember when, if ever, we had a squad that thrived on defense. Maybe back in the Beaver Smith, Searcy, Rellford, George Johnson days. Although sacrilege on here, I actually did not think that Pointer was a great on ball defender. Too many times he would get beat off of the dribble 25 feet from the basket.

There's a local former HS coach who loves to tell the story how he benched one of his highest scorers in the city championship game (that his team won) after the guy hit his first three shots, but couldn't cover the corner on defense. He yanked him early in the first half and benched him the rest of the way. The guy went on to be his D1 school's all time leader in scoring average. Old school basketball values tough and aggressive in your jock defense. I think New York fans value that too, as evidenced by the admiration for the Charles Oakley led physical Knicks of 20 years ago.

The best way to instill that type of desire to play defense is to bench players who don't

With better roster balance of both youth/maturity and size/skills I think we'll naturally see better defense. IMO the Jarvis Elite 8 team was Defense to Offense. Jarvis had his major faults but his teams generally defended well.

I would agree about Jarvis. He was a creep, didn't recruit enough, was hard on players and demanding (perhaps appropriately), but could coach and stressed defense and running his damned plays. It didn't hurt that Artest was a very good to great defender.

 

[bamafan]

In my opinion, it was obvious that our ability to stay on the ball & defend overall was a big problem. Rebounding was also clearly a deficiency. On the latter, I will note defensive rebounding is a big key this year with our new lineup. As I have noted before, feedback from a few guys who have seen Simon practice, underscores his ability to run the court like a deer & find guys on the break. If we can rebound better defensively, that could equate to more easy baskets with our quick guards. I hope to see Ponds, Simon & LoVett play together a lot to generate those break points, but obviously the other two guys will be essential in denying second shots & triggering breaks.

Despite not coming up with a physical grad transfer seemingly, I like the flexibility & speed of this team. Yakwe, Ahmed, Owens, Clark, Mussini also can run the court well. Easier said than done, but if newbies & returnees dedicate themselves to defending the entire shot clock, box out & rebound, we should be very competitive. Of course defending in the post against some of the physical power guys in BE will still be a challenge, but this is a guards game. Hopefully Kante, if he joins us, can provide a few minutes of physicality each game to negate size differential a bit.

Lastly, we really have to be very competitive this year & at least sniff the Dance to show recruits this is a program headed in right direction. Critical season IMO.

Yup and as Maher said, Both. The defense and in particular the rebounding (which relies upon fundamental execution like position) meant that our speed and open court advantage was largely negated and most of our offense was in the 1/2 court where the lack of a big put more pressure on our guards because the opposition knew they could disregard that as an option. (deep breath) The small ball / guard's game talk is fine but it relies upon execution. That execution starts with defense. The offense is the reward and until our guys get that we will look like a street ball team.

FWIW, I can't remember when, if ever, we had a squad that thrived on defense. Maybe back in the Beaver Smith, Searcy, Rellford, George Johnson days. Although sacrilege on here, I actually did not think that Pointer was a great on ball defender. Too many times he would get beat off of the dribble 25 feet from the basket.

There's a local former HS coach who loves to tell the story how he benched one of his highest scorers in the city championship game (that his team won) after the guy hit his first three shots, but couldn't cover the corner on defense. He yanked him early in the first half and benched him the rest of the way. The guy went on to be his D1 school's all time leader in scoring average. Old school basketball values tough and aggressive in your jock defense. I think New York fans value that too, as evidenced by the admiration for the Charles Oakley led physical Knicks of 20 years ago.

The best way to instill that type of desire to play defense is to bench players who don't

With better roster balance of both youth/maturity and size/skills I think we'll naturally see better defense. IMO the Jarvis Elite 8 team was Defense to Offense. Jarvis had his major faults but his teams generally defended well.

I would agree about Jarvis. He was a creep, didn't recruit enough, was hard on players and demanding (perhaps appropriately), but could coach and stressed defense and running his damned plays. It didn't hurt that Artest was a very good to great defender.

The only good coaches are the demanding ones. You let sh$t slide you ain't gonna get the best out of your team.