mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-28-11 07:27 PM - Post#102643
In response to EddieAlberto
Look, can we please stop talking about how Donahue's staff called the class of '13 his best recruiting class at Cornell? They may have said it, but it is clearly not true. Seriously, it's not like Dale, Witt, Tyler, Jacques, and Reeves were all that long ago.
I have no desire to rip on Cornell players by name, let the Quaker boards eat thier own, but I didn't see a lot of progress from the Sophomore class this year. MAA plays solid defense, no question, but he reminds me of those defensive whiz shortstops who hit .190 and needed to steal first to get on base. You don't see them much anymore because you can't survive their automatic out in the line-up. If MAA can't improve that jump shot, and in two years he has not, his role is very, very limited.
You also say Ivy bigs develop more slowly, which is true, but there is no analogy between Jeff Foote and Josh Figini and Eitan Chemerinski. First, neither will have Jeff's physical presence unless they grow a couple of inches. Second, as a Sophomore Foote was a vastly better post player than either Josh or Eitan and he was very much a work in progress. I've watched Figini play for two years and agree he has some skills, but he has shown no desire to play the post; he wants to be the next Jon Jacques instead. And maybe he can be a useful 4, but this team needs help at the 5. And even though Courtney clearly wanted him to be an inside presence, he just wasn't. Not sure why that would change over the summer.
You talk about so-and-so (McMillen, Sahota, etc.) showed flashes of talent, which is true. They all earned spots on a DI roster. But flashes of talent is not much to go on. I played that game coming into this season. After all, how much time could any freshman get on the Sweet Sixteen team? Maybe they were really good, I told myself, but not as good as Foote, or Dale or Witt, or Tyler -- guys who had started for three or four years. A year later, we are still talking about so and so showing flashes of talent, but this time after a 10-18 season where there buckets of minutes waiting to be earned and not being earned.
Some returnee will develop; they always do. Maybe Peck becomes the consistent all-Ivy stud he has to tools to be and should be, but isn't yet. Eitan's stides considering the project he was when he enrolled and the awful high school league he played in have been remarkable. I like Grey though his on-floor decision-making is dicey. Maybe it is one of those guys, maybe two, maybe someone else. But not everybody; it just doesn't work like that. Make no mistake, I would love for Grey and Peck and Figini and McMillen to take a big jump and become all-Ivy standouts. But, I've watched enough basketball to know that's a sucker's bet.
I give a pass to the Freshman. Tarwater battled mono and missed a lot of the season to try to save some eligibility; Scelfo was out the entire year. I think both have talent. Matthews was a pleasant surprise, though he was little more than a change of pace guard. Who knows about Sahota, but I've been routinely disappointed by Cornell's Canadian recruits. Honestly, the skill level of the Class of '14 is every bit the mystery as the Class of '15; we have little evidence either way.
So, to get back to your question, who would I bet on? Do I take the known quantity of the Class of '13, who have shown little thus far, or what is behind the curtain (the Class of '15)? While its an unfair question -- one group has played with each other for two years and the other would basically be a pick-up team -- I take the Class of '15 because it had better increase the talent level at Cornell or the Quaker fans who predicted Cornell will fade back into hockey oblivion will be right.
|
