Are we done? | Syracusefan.com

Are we done?

C

Cappy3

Walk On
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
182
Like
327
Other than the Serbian rumor, which I’m beginning to doubt, are we actively recruiting anyone else for this season? We have 2 open schollys, and with 4 srs and possibly 1-2 guy who will leave for the draft, we don’t seem to need to be saving any for next year.
 
Cappy3 said:
Other than the Serbian rumor, which I’m beginning to doubt, are we actively recruiting anyone else for this season? We have 2 open schollys, and with 4 srs and possibly 1-2 guy who will leave for the draft, we don’t seem to need to be saving any for next year.
Expand...
i hpe not.

going with only 11 players and only 2 bigs will be a big mistake, if it happens
 
CardiacCuse said:
i hpe not.

going with only 11 players and only 2 bigs will be a big mistake, if it happens
Expand...
I get where 11 would be less than ideal but I think my greater concern really is who the 11 are. Not trying to throw shade at anyone because an offseason can drastically change a player's outlook. We've seen it plenty. Highly regarded guys like Waiters and Fab, who had brutal freshman campaigns, and came back as studs as sophomores. Rakeem Christmas and Lazarus Sims were largely disappointing for three years and then were brilliant as seniors. Other guys without that pedigree have done similar things -- Copeland couldn't get on the floor as a frosh and had a nice soph season; Elijah Hughes was solid in his first year in Orange after doing relatively little at ECU, then was outstanding in his second year in orange. We've also had guys come out of nowhere -- Shumpert wasn't a big recruit; no one even knew who Marek was, etc.

So, I say that only to point out that I'm not ruling out a good year or significant improvement from any individual player.

BUT, I feel like there are big questions at really every position on the floor.

PG -- Guess it's JJ. Like the kid, solid player. Is he a 1? Will he find his shot consistently? Can he create and get to the line? Not sure.

SG -- Westry, big question coming off injury; I like some of what Cuffe showed, but there are questions there; Moore looks like a player but he's a frosh shooter, which brings questions; Taylor seems like an intriguing piece, but who knows?

SF -- Bell did some really nice things. Can he improve his activity level on both ends and bring more to the table than his shooting?


PF -- Freeman/Davis -- probably feel as good about freeman as anyone; seems like great upside. But, again, how much is reasonable to ask of a frosh? Davis is stepping up in competition.

C -- Lampkin/McLeod -- McLeod was injured last year, so maybe it was just injury that was the issue, but he couldn't move at all on the perimeter, which isn't great for pressure man. Lampkin doesn't appear to be a switchable big either. Should bring size and rebounding with some low-post scoring ... but I just wonder what we look like on the defensive end with either big, at least in the style we played last year (pressure, minimal help).
 
billsin01 said:
I get where 11 would be less than ideal but I think my greater concern really is who the 11 are. Not trying to throw shade at anyone because an offseason can drastically change a player's outlook. We've seen it plenty. Highly regarded guys like Waiters and Fab, who had brutal freshman campaigns, and came back as studs as sophomores. Rakeem Christmas and Lazarus Sims were largely disappointing for three years and then were brilliant as seniors. Other guys without that pedigree have done similar things -- Copeland couldn't get on the floor as a frosh and had a nice soph season; Elijah Hughes was solid in his first year in Orange after doing relatively little at ECU, then was outstanding in his second year in orange. We've also had guys come out of nowhere -- Shumpert wasn't a big recruit; no one even knew who Marek was, etc.

So, I say that only to point out that I'm not ruling out a good year or significant improvement from any individual player.

BUT, I feel like there are big questions at really every position on the floor.

PG -- Guess it's JJ. Like the kid, solid player. Is he a 1? Will he find his shot consistently? Can he create and get to the line? Not sure.

SG -- Westry, big question coming off injury; I like some of what Cuffe showed, but there are questions there; Moore looks like a player but he's a frosh shooter, which brings questions; Taylor seems like an intriguing piece, but who knows?

SF -- Bell did some really nice things. Can he improve his activity level on both ends and bring more to the table than his shooting?


PF -- Freeman/Davis -- probably feel as good about freeman as anyone; seems like great upside. But, again, how much is reasonable to ask of a frosh? Davis is stepping up in competition.

C -- Lampkin/McLeod -- McLeod was injured last year, so maybe it was just injury that was the issue, but he couldn't move at all on the perimeter, which isn't great for pressure man. Lampkin doesn't appear to be a switchable big either. Should bring size and rebounding with some low-post scoring ... but I just wonder what we look like on the defensive end with either big, at least in the style we played last year (pressure, minimal help).
Expand...
i mean...yeah...who the 11 are is more important than the sheer number of players...obviously.

BUT

it is precisely who the 11 are that has me worried. there's only like 2 bigs on the roster...one coming off foot surgery...and didnt show he was ready for primetime last year

the other positions...and who is filling them... aren't going to matter...if there's no one over 6'9 to put on the floor (which is a very realistic scenario with this roster, as is, unfortunately)

in theory, 11 players might be enough...but I would aay you'd def need at least 3 bigs (if not more) to be secure for a full season...

i suppose...if you got the 11 right...that's all you need

but that's not the current situation with this 11...

and furthermore, even if it was, i'd still fill out the roster for insurance...(in case someone gets kicked off the team...or has to have foot surgery...or blows a ligament...or all 3)

there's so much riding on the season and ability to field a competitive team...i just cannot fathom leaving holes on a roster that are allowed to be filled.

even if #12 and #13 arent great players ...so what...theyre ging to be better than walkons...and that extra size will be vital...if it is needed at some point.
 
Not sure just having more bigs is a solution. Last year we had 4 bigs, but Carey, Hima and Patterson were, frankly, useless. Their “extra size” was far from vital. Rather have a 6-9 or 6-8 guy who can play than a 7 footer who’s a total stiff.
 
CardiacCuse said:
i mean...yeah...who the 11 are is more important than the sheer number of players...obviously.

BUT

it is precisely who the 11 are that has me worried. there's only like 2 bigs on the roster...one coming off foot surgery...and didnt show he was ready for primetime last year

the other positions...and who is filling them... aren't going to matter...if there's no one over 6'9 to put on the floor (which is a very realistic scenario with this roster, as is, unfortunately)

in theory, 11 players might be enough...but I would aay you'd def need at least 3 bigs (if not more) to be secure for a full season...

i suppose...if you got the 11 right...that's all you need

but that's not the current situation with this 11...

and furthermore, even if it was, i'd still fill out the roster for insurance...(in case someone gets kicked off the team...or has to have foot surgery...or blows a ligament...or all 3)

there's so much riding on the season and ability to field a competitive team...i just cannot fathom leaving holes on a roster that are allowed to be filled.

even if #12 and #13 arent great players ...so what...theyre ging to be better than walkons...and that extra size will be vital...if it is needed at some point.
Expand...
I get what you’re saying and I think we’re basically discussing two sides of the same coin. Both numbers and possibly personnel are concerns.

I just don’t know in the NIL era how easy it is to fill a roster with 13 guys who can conceivably play. I agree, two more scholarship players would be preferable to walk-ons. But do we have the budget? If we do, is there someone available who could conceivably play 12-15 mins if McLeod goes down? Not sure.

Pure size isn’t as big a thing for me. I’m ok with a smaller front court, particularly in man, if you have the personnel to harass and hustle and battle. I just wonder if we have that kind of personnel. And let’s say our bigs are healthy and depth isn’t a factor — can those guys hang in switches against wings and guards? Or hedge and recover effectively? I don’t know.

But I’m with you. A functional big at a minimum would be a nice addition.
 
Fingers crossed, but it’s really rolling the dice to count on a big guy with a non-contact foot injury
 
I’m as worried as anyone as far as center depth. With that being said, Donnie can absolutely fill in there. Is it ideal, no. But he is very, very tall. May be closer to 6’11 than 6’9.
 
Cuse_NYC said:
I’m as worried as anyone as far as center depth. With that being said, Donnie can absolutely fill in there. Is it ideal, no. But he is very, very tall. May be closer to 6’11 than 6’9.
Expand...
DC filled in for Rony his freshman, and Sophmore years.
 
I see a lot of people writing off whoever this European player is going to be. Not thinking he’ll have much of an impact at least right away. No one knew squat about Marek when we took him a few years back. We were in the same situation as we are in now, just looking to give out no more scholarship to sure up the team. Turns out Marek was a contributor year one. Not a huge contributor but he got minutes and you saw the potential. By the end of his career he was a fan favorites and as consistent and as solid a player on any of the teams he played on. And correct me if I’m wrong but Autry was the one who discovered and recruited Marek.

These coaches are not just going to hand out a scholarship to an overseas player to finish out the team. They are going to see something in them and view them as a contributor. I have faith they’ll get it right.
 
billsin01 said:
I get what you’re saying and I think we’re basically discussing two sides of the same coin. Both numbers and possibly personnel are concerns.

I just don’t know in the NIL era how easy it is to fill a roster with 13 guys who can conceivably play. I agree, two more scholarship players would be preferable to walk-ons. But do we have the budget? If we do, is there someone available who could conceivably play 12-15 mins if McLeod goes down? Not sure.

Pure size isn’t as big a thing for me. I’m ok with a smaller front court, particularly in man, if you have the personnel to harass and hustle and battle. I just wonder if we have that kind of personnel. And let’s say our bigs are healthy and depth isn’t a factor — can those guys hang in switches against wings and guards? Or hedge and recover effectively? I don’t know.

But I’m with you. A functional big at a minimum would be a nice addition.
Expand...
i think the NIL era actually makes it easier to fill out the end of bench spots

there's hundreds of players who will be left with no chair when the merrygoround stops spinning////plus there are still covid players out there playing...so technically there's a glut of players out there...moreso than normal.

plus international basketball has never been this good or popular as it is right now

its a global sport and P5 roster spot...for a name like Syracuse...no excuse not to fill up a roster, imo

Pure size matters to me...after seeing this team getting abused with PF playing center...brown was good but got utterly dominated by duke and unc bc hes too small...JBs last years should also show how important sheer size is...the buddy rosters got obliterated on the boards.

thing is you dont need a great player to cover the C spot...for example Anselem and Hima put in some good shifts for the Orange at times...and they are nobodies i the landscape of NCAAB (no offense...and, well, no offense)...but thats all I would expect!

you cant teach height.

it wont be needed vs everyone...but without it, the season will be hard capped at mediocre.

i really dont see why not.

and sorry to be so harsh but if this is the issue looking back on the season next year...it will fall squarely on red in my book...it just doesnt make any sense...and it doesnt take a leap to see why it is important.


(if the 3rd ceneter sucks, thats one thing...if the 3rd center isn't on the roster...thats another)
 
atlanticuse said:
Donnie is going to play the 1, 2, 3, 4, and maybe the 5.
Expand...
It's a good thing he's a plus defender at all five positions...
 
CardiacCuse said:
i think the NIL era actually makes it easier to fill out the end of bench spots

there's hundreds of players who will be left with no chair when the merrygoround stops spinning////plus there are still covid players out there playing...so technically there's a glut of players out there...moreso than normal.

plus international basketball has never been this good or popular as it is right now

its a global sport and P5 roster spot...for a name like Syracuse...no excuse not to fill up a roster, imo

Pure size matters to me...after seeing this team getting abused with PF playing center...brown was good but got utterly dominated by duke and unc bc hes too small...JBs last years should also show how important sheer size is...the buddy rosters got obliterated on the boards.

thing is you dont need a great player to cover the C spot...for example Anselem and Hima put in some good shifts for the Orange at times...and they are nobodies i the landscape of NCAAB (no offense...and, well, no offense)...but thats all I would expect!

you cant teach height.

it wont be needed vs everyone...but without it, the season will be hard capped at mediocre.

i really dont see why not.

and sorry to be so harsh but if this is the issue looking back on the season next year...it will fall squarely on red in my book...it just doesnt make any sense...and it doesnt take a leap to see why it is important.


(if the 3rd ceneter sucks, thats one thing...if the 3rd center isn't on the roster...thats another)
Expand...
No NIL for non-US players due to student visa rules.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
No NIL for non-US players due to student visa rules.
Expand...
It’s 2024, schools have been getting around it for years. Intl guys still get paid more here than they would in their 2nd/3rd division pro teams or else they wouldn’t come
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SUFan44
    • Like
Are we done with adding players for 2024-25?
12 13 14
Replies
332
Views
28K
Zelda Zonk
Zelda Zonk
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Basketball
Replies
4
Views
467
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Basketball
Replies
7
Views
624
Ozone!
Ozone!

Forum statistics

Threads
168,435
Messages
4,776,182
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
895
Total visitors
997
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom