Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Niastri, post: 5730592, member: 722"] People have been suggesting that Moesch is rated so low only because he is small. I think that is part of it, but his shot isn't exactly textbook. If he could clean that up and become a 38% 3pt shooter, his ability to get to the basket would be a lot more reliable at the next level. As it is, I think he could be a decent player, but will have trouble finishing against ACC bigs, and doesn't shoot well enough to keep defenses honest. One thing that we haven't seen in a while is the trend that often occurred with JB coached teams, the huge improvement of role players through coaching development. If you go back to 1995 (which is when I started moving from casual fan to much more interested fan) the number of players who went from unplayable freshmen to studs by their junior or senior year is legion. We watched guys stagnate the last few years under Red and the last years of JB's coaching career. The reason I mention this in the Moesch thread is that he looks like a player who could become great, or never actually be playable. He needs to get stronger, he needs to develop a reliable 3pt shot, and he will have a big adjustment going to the basket against legit bigs. It is just harder to score against long athletic wings and bigs at this level. He might be blocked a lot until he adapts. Moesch would be a great test case for GMAC's coaching staff. Can they bring the 90th percentile projection out of players, or will they be the same guy their whole career? Contrast this with Red's track record. In Starling's case, he was actually worse in his third year being coached by Red. Chris Bell was exactly the same guy both years under Red, and got a bit (incrementally) better once he transferred away. Copeland became a stud after leaving, Westry and Majstorovic left and played really well (though at lower levels). We had no evidence of development in anybody coached by Red. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?