Tyler Cavanaugh weighs college options that include SU | Syracusefan.com

Tyler Cavanaugh weighs college options that include SU

Reading that article, the kid seems like a better fit for Notre Dame's system than ours.
 
I disagree ... I think he'd thrive playing the backline of the zone. The more I read about this kid, the more I like. I don't know why you wouldn't want a smart, well disciplined, versatile, local kid on this team. I think there's always room for players of this type.
 
I disagree ... I think he'd thrive playing the backline of the zone. The more I read about this kid, the more I like. I don't know why you wouldn't want a smart, well disciplined, versatile, local kid on this team. I think there's always room for players of this type.

Never really said I don't want the kid. If we strike out on either Grant or DC2, I think he'd be a fine addition. If we get those two, he seems like a superfluous player for us and personally, I'd rather bank the scholarship for next year's deep class. But the staff has offered so they apparently agree with you.

My point was that if you read the quotes, he sounds like a prototypical Notre Dame big man, not a typical Syracuse 3.
 
Take him. Syracuse should always have a couple of pasty white guards. :)

But really smart, plays the point and can shoot the 3 sounds like a good kid to have. As long as he understands we probably won't get many minutes for a year or two.
 
if he comes here i think it would be only a matter of time before he became a dome favorite with an all out hustle style of play
 
Is tyler the only player with no youtube highlights? Id like a feel for his game.
 
I am convinced SU needs to have at least one pasty white guy in the rotation to make a run at the FF. Seikaly in 87, Janulis/Cipolla in '96 and Forth/McNamara in '03.
 
I am convinced SU needs to have at least one pasty white guy in the rotation to make a run at the FF. Seikaly in 87, Janulis/Cipolla in '96 and Forth/McNamara in '03.
Lee and Seibert in '75
 
Two thoughts, having not seen him play:

Having a giant in the middle who is ranked as among the best centers in his age group has to help him work on his skills. Even highly skilled 6'8 guys get pushed to center in a lot of (non elite) high school teams. Good that he will get to play smaller because of Coleman. I imagine having waterbug guards who know he has a huge height advantage will test him all season, and thus force him to improve his skills. If he can shoot, be tall and handle the ball...

Secondly, just how high is the normal standard for Syracuse these days? I imagine 1200 on the SAT would be pretty normal for SU. How much "extra credit" (complete, I would guess) do we give to athletes if 1200 is considered a smart player? Did the standard change where 1200 is really good these days?

I thought that is why it was standardized... Much like IQ. How many morons are running around with 135 IQ's these days?
 
Two thoughts, having not seen him play:

Having a giant in the middle who is ranked as among the best centers in his age group has to help him work on his skills. Even highly skilled 6'8 guys get pushed to center in a lot of (non elite) high school teams. Good that he will get to play smaller because of Coleman. I imagine having waterbug guards who know he has a huge height advantage will test him all season, and thus force him to improve his skills. If he can shoot, be tall and handle the ball...

Secondly, just how high is the normal standard for Syracuse these days? I imagine 1200 on the SAT would be pretty normal for SU. How much "extra credit" (complete, I would guess) do we give to athletes if 1200 is considered a smart player? Did the standard change where 1200 is really good these days?

I thought that is why it was standardized... Much like IQ. How many morons are running around with 135 IQ's these days?

1200 is good if you're looking at just the math/reading sections. There is a writing section now as well, so the scale is really out of 2400, although it isn't as highly weighed as the other two.

If the 1200 is out of the two sections, it's a good score, if it's out of all three, it's not very good.
 
I get the feeling that most media outlets use the old scoring. The writing gets ignored, since we have spent years on the other two. He must be a 1200 on the original two, or why would they report is as a positive?
 
I get the feeling that most media outlets use the old scoring. The writing gets ignored, since we have spent years on the other two. He must be a 1200 on the original two, or why would they report is as a positive?

I hadn't read the article, but yeah, I'd assume they're reporting 1200/1600 then which is a good score for sure.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
166,644
Messages
4,649,673
Members
5,888
Latest member
WNYThings

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
827
Total visitors
1,049


Top Bottom