cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2204
Reg: 10-09-09
|
07-02-10 11:59 AM - Post#84417
http://www.gocolumbialions.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB...
The list is out. It includes Lyles, Starks, Frankoski, Feldman, and Van Green.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
 07-02-10 01:40 PM - Post#84423
In response to cc66
Huge upgrade for the Lions in the backcourt. Noruwa Agho must be very happy. All four of the new guards will compete with the returning players for playing time. Unless the veterans improve, two of the four newcomers are likely to start at guard if Smith goes with a three-guard offense. I'm assuming that Starks and Green will play the point, with Lyles and Frankoski at shooting guard.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-02-10 06:05 PM - Post#84425
In response to Columbia 37P6
My guess--since none of the incoming guards is a pure PG, most are combos at best, it will depend on who meshes best on the court with whom, and that won't be clear until formal practices.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-02-10 10:40 PM - Post#84430
In response to Dr. V
Agreed, although Starks and Green are the better athletes so I see them as the likely point guards. Lyles and Frankoski are outstanding shooters, but apparently neither one is a great athlete. Anyway, all four of the new guards can score which means that we might have a better shooting gang than last year. Also, its nice to know that Feldmann has added an inch to 6'9" which makes him our tallest forward.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3683
Reg: 02-06-10
|
the list is out
07-03-10 03:34 AM - Post#84433
In response to Columbia 37P6
Starks is my preseason FOY pick based the "talent + college-ready x available minutes" formula. Yeah, it's silly to make predictions this early, but I thought I'd throw it out there for kicks.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
07-03-10 09:51 AM - Post#84437
In response to Columbia 37P6
Frankoski may not be a great athlete, but he is more athletic than perhaps some are expecting.
Starks, Green or one of the holdovers has to turn into a quality PG. Last year Columbia was a much better team at the beginning of the season when Foley was playing. Once Foley went down, so did the the team. No one seemed capable of running the point well in Foley's absence.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-03-10 11:08 AM - Post#84439
In response to TheLine
I've seen Frankoski play. Agree that he might not be a great athlete, but definitely more athletic than some/many may expect. Several different things to like about him in addition to a very good shot: he does everything else quite well, i.e., defend, bring the ball up, move without the ball; and, he is a worker who appears intent on improving.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-03-10 11:47 AM - Post#84440
In response to Dr. V
It is, of course, always preferable to have an effective PG. And if the other players are not very good at creating their own shots, the absence of an effective PG can be disastrous. However, if a team has a number of players who can create their own shot, as I believe we now have, one can get by with two combos playing together and sharing PG duties.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-03-10 03:04 PM - Post#84443
In response to Dr. V
Foley was great at penetrating and scoring, but not so great at bringing the ball upcourt or shooting from the outside. I remember a number of games where defenders like Louis Dale took the ball away from him rather easily by simply bumping him slightly. I have no idea if any of the newcomers are going to be an effective PG, but they all look quite promising. At the very least we know that we have two great athletes in Starks and Green, and two very good athletes In Frankoski and Lyles. Who knows? Maybe Coach Smith will start three of them and use the fourth guy as his top reserve.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2204
Reg: 10-09-09
|
07-03-10 09:35 PM - Post#84450
In response to Columbia 37P6
So with the start of the season just five months away, who's your starting five?
|
Roar
Freshman
Posts: 46
Reg: 12-10-04
|
07-03-10 10:45 PM - Post#84451
In response to cc66
Agho has to start...the only other returning backcourt player with a chance to start is Barbour at the point (and Smith has said he likes him and recruited him for St. Mary's), but it will probably end up (maybe after a few games) with Starks on the point and either Frankoski or Green alongside Agho. Lyles could also be in there, we just don't know enough yet. Interesting that the only recruit whose scoring average wasn't mentioned in the release is Starks, and he is the highest at around 28. But when was the last time we recruited 3 guards all over 20 ppg and a fourth at 18? Probably never.
Predicting the starting forwards is another story, with Grimes, Ampim, Cisco, Daniels, and Feldmann all in the mix. Feldmann at his newly revised height of 6'9" is the tallest, and may also be the best (the only All-Stater in the group), but he's new so he'll probably be worked in there bit by bit, if at all. Will Coach Smith go with a center in the starting line-up? May not be necessary, but if so, we know that will be Craig. One thing for sure, Smith will have plenty of options, and it will be fun to see how it all comes together. Other teams like Harvard, Princeton, snd maybe Yale will, I think, still have the edge in the bigs, so it will be our new, dynamic backcourt that carries us. Should be an exciting year.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-03-10 10:46 PM - Post#84452
In response to cc66
I haven't seen the freshman play and I have no idea whether Ampim and/or Grimes have recovered from their injuries, but what the heck: Max Craig will start at Center with Zack Crimmins and Marc Cisco in reserve. Either Asenso Ampim or Brian Grimes will start at forward, depending on who wants it more. If Ampim and Grimes can't solve their medical problems, thenJohn Daniels, Blaise Staab and Danny Feldmann will compete for the starting forward spot. There's also a chance that Coach Hartman will teach Crimmins or Cisco how to play forward. Noruwa Agho, will start, of course, at guard, along with Dyami Starks and either Van Green, Meiko Lyles or Steve Frankoski in Coach Smith's three guard offense. Brian Barbour and Steve Egee could start, but have to improve significantly to fight off the challenge from the four very promising freshmen. Matt Johnson and Chris Crockett will have a great opportunity to prove themselves under the new coach.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-03-10 11:10 PM - Post#84453
In response to Columbia 37P6
And the final Ivy League standings in 2010-2011 will be: #1 Cornell; #2 Princeton; #3 Columbia; # 4 Penn; #5 Brown; #6 Yale; #7 Dartmouth. At this time,I'm not sure where to rank Harvard given the possibility that its admission Friday that it violated NCAA recruiting rules may lead to further sanctions by the NCAA or the Ivy League.
|
skiba34
Masters Student
Posts: 952
Reg: 03-11-06
|
the list is out
07-04-10 01:16 AM - Post#84454
In response to Columbia 37P6
Think for a second gentlemen. With a new coach in place, he will want invest in the long haul. Expect John Daniels and Cisco to be the starters. They are both only in their second year and already have out shot FG% wise bettr than the often injured seniors. Smith will also want to gel the freshman with the frontcourt that will there for the most years together.
The real mystery is what two guards play along side Agho. Van Green, Starks, Frankowski and Myles are all in the same boat in that none have proven themselves in college. It would be anyone's guess which 2 of the 4 play the best early on.
As for the 2 returning guards at PG in Egee and Barbour, neither has shown great abilities, yet perhaps one may have improved in the same way J.Miller did a few years back and surprise.
Either way, it's way too early to even guess at this point.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-04-10 09:34 AM - Post#84455
In response to skiba34
It's unanimous then, Agho + 4.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 07-06-10 04:37 PM - Post#84492
In response to Dr. V
Daniels, Cisco and Agho will start. Expect to see less minutes for Ampin and Grimes. Ditto the twin towers. Right now there are too many SGs and not enough PGs. The battle for the PG slot will be wide open for Barbour and Agee. We'll run a three guard offense. I like Starks as the seocnd SG. A new coach is not gong to invest any real time in playing a senior in the absence of a great, great pre-season effort.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
07-06-10 04:39 PM - Post#84493
In response to Chet Forte
PS, expect to see all of the marginal sophomores and juniors cut. We've had this debate before, but all of us seem to agree that we aren't going to have a 20 member squad. You just can't coach that many players. I think that 15 is about the upper limit.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-06-10 06:59 PM - Post#84499
In response to Chet Forte
Keep in mind that four of the returning sophomore and junior guards (Crockett, Dhaliwel, Kowalski & Piscina) barely played last season. Crockett was a great high school running back in Ohio so you have to hope that he can make an impact in basketball or football at Columbia. The head coaching switch seems to afford him a great opportunity to show his stuff. Or maybe he will try football. Who knows? Also, up front, Mase was injured most of the season and Ampim, Craig and Grimes for part of the season. I assume that the four returning guards are more vulnerable than the four injured frontcourt players, because there are many more guards than frontcourt players on the team. Craig seemed to be almost 100% at the end of the season, so I'm not too worried about him. Same with Grimes as I recall his late season injury was not a knee injury. I have no idea why Ampim has missed so much playing time the last two years. Does anyone know? Certainly, Coach Smith has to be wary of relying too much on him.
|
skiba34
Masters Student
Posts: 952
Reg: 03-11-06
|
07-07-10 12:47 AM - Post#84507
In response to Chet Forte
Daniels, Cisco and Agho will start. Expect to see less minutes for Ampin and Grimes. Ditto the twin towers. Right now there are too many SGs and not enough PGs. The battle for the PG slot will be wide open for Barbour and Agee. We'll run a three guard offense. I like Starks as the seocnd SG. A new coach is not gong to invest any real time in playing a senior in the absence of a great, great pre-season effort.
Agree with above 100%
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 07-07-10 02:01 PM - Post#84516
In response to skiba34
I don't think that Crockett is going to be able to make the switch to football at this point. Coach Wilson seems set at the running back position with Ivery, Kourouma and Gerst, for starters, plus a few outstanding incoming players. I understand that Crockett was being heavily recruited as a running back until a season ending injury forced him to concentrate on basketball. I never did understand why Crockett wasn't given more of a chance last year. He impressed me with his athleticism and ball handling skills when he got minutes at garbage time.
|
hoopsfan
Masters Student
Posts: 648
Reg: 12-26-04
|
Van Green Dunk
07-10-10 02:08 PM - Post#84607
In response to Chet Forte
http://vodpod.com/watch/2489176-van-gre en-dunk
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-10-10 06:42 PM - Post#84612
In response to hoopsfan
The dunk was impressive; his jumper looked a little awkward.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-11-10 09:08 AM - Post#84625
In response to Dr. V
Wish we had more film, but from the two dunks we've seen it is evident that Green has great leaping ability and knows how to score from underneath. Hard to evaluate his shooting ability on the film, but if he can hang in the air like he did on that dunk, he will be exciting to watch.
|
The Lion King
Junior
Posts: 257
Reg: 11-10-06
|
07-11-10 10:43 AM - Post#84627
In response to Columbia 37P6
Whenever someone mentions dunking, I think of Eric Clarke, who was (and is) a great guy and did a solid job on some early 1980s Lions teams, but he shot about .500 on dunks. Every time he went up to throw one down, it seemed that the backboard or the rim would get in the way. Eventually I think Buddy Mahar told him to just take a lay-up instead.
|
CU.LIONS
Senior
Posts: 398
Reg: 03-03-07
|
07-12-10 11:44 PM - Post#84675
In response to The Lion King
After the last few seasons, I hope that Columbia can boast at least 3 good shooters on the court at all times. Possibly 4 even better.
Agho would be 1. Between Starks, Frankowski, Van Green and Myles there should be a good chance the other 2 should be found. If 3 or even 4 of the freshman can shoot, then Columbia can rotate the guards and still have 3 solid shooters on the court at all times. Something Columbia hasn't had too often in recent years.
But I must clarify myself a bit on shooting. Being a capable shooter is not necessarily a good shooter. A good shooter should shoot at or near the 40%
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32898
Reg: 11-21-04
|
the list is out
07-13-10 06:49 AM - Post#84678
In response to CU.LIONS
While good shooting ability is great, without the PG who gets the ball to people where they are comfortable shooting, the shooting will not be great. That was CU's major problem last year. Someone will need to step up and compete with the top PG's in the league. I can't recall an Ivy champion which lacked that element. In a year where the league is more wide open than any time since the late '80s, it is crucial to address that area.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 07-13-10 06:18 PM - Post#84717
In response to Chet Forte
Our new coach had some nice things to say aobut Barbour, who he tried to recruit for St. Mary's.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-13-10 07:34 PM - Post#84718
In response to Chet Forte
Brian Barbour was also a member of the 3-man players committee that helped select the new coach. He was a fine high school player in California and showed signs of excellence as a freshman last year. He can dribble and shot. However, there were questions, I believe, about his size and athleticism. Anyway, like so many other returning players, the coaching change could afford him some previously unexpected opportunities.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
07-13-10 09:42 PM - Post#84719
In response to CU.LIONS
But I must clarify myself a bit on shooting. Being a capable shooter is not necessarily a good shooter. A good shooter should shoot at or near 40%...
I think this is a great point to consider. What is a “good†shooter? A look at last season’s Ivy whole season stats shows that: a) Ivy League players are somewhat better shooters than one might think, and b) inside players shoot more accurately than perimeter players.
There were 76 players (38 guards and 38 forward/centers) who had 50+ field goal attempts for the season. The average FG% for the whole group was 44%. However, the guards averaged 41%, while the forward/centers averaged 47%. To be a Top Ten guard, one had to shoot 44.5%. To be a Top Ten Forward, one had to hit 53%.
Average? Good? No question, scoring is only one facet of the game, but it’s a metric that draws a lot of attention.
|
CU.LIONS
Senior
Posts: 398
Reg: 03-03-07
|
the list is out
07-13-10 11:37 PM - Post#84721
In response to IvyBballFan
Interesting numbers. While I am not surprised to see the forward/centers shoot a higher pct, which is usually the norm, the difference of the % is a bit revealing. Considering Columbia had poor shooting % from their big players, it is a must that someone gets it going amongst our Forward/centers. But I also believe having better shooting from our guards may help increase the space and therefor the % of our Bigs.
As palestra38 has stated a good PG can go a long way helping the team obtaining a better overall offense.
While that may remain a question mark coming in the season, I do believe there are some good candidates in place to do the job.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-14-10 08:28 AM - Post#84725
In response to CU.LIONS
It goes without saying that having a PG who can distribute-set up shots for others effectively is highly desirable. That said, it's possible to succeed without one, e.g., Duke last year with converted SG Scheyer playing the point. The player(s) serving the PG role have to do a lot of things well: bring the ball up under pressure without turning it over; play good D on the opposing PG; recognize what D the opposition is playing; be a good FT shooter at the end of the game etc. If a team has several players who can create their own shots and, thus, help break a defense down, a team can get by with PG by committee if it has several combos who, collectively, can perform the PG duties.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32898
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-14-10 08:50 AM - Post#84726
In response to Dr. V
In theory, you are correct. However, it is a little apples to oranges to compare Duke to Columbia. Duke is all McDonald's All-America players who can create their own shots. Almost everyone has playmaking ability. In the Ivies, you generally are dealing with kids who have particular skill sets, such as hitting open shots from, say 18-20 feet. If you push that kid out, or have pressure on the shot, the fact that he can hit 10 in a row unmolested won't make an impact on the game.
As I said earlier, I cannot remember an Ivy team winning a championship that didn't have one of the top point guards in the League. Teams with talent, but without a quality point guard inevitably disappoint. I do not believe the "point guard by committee" idea gets CU beyond 4th place. Someone has to step up to compete with guys like Brandyn Curry of Harvard, Doug Davis of Princeton and Zack Rosen of Penn.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
07-14-10 01:40 PM - Post#84735
In response to palestra38
Checking the league’s returning PGs, prospective PGs, and their stats is a good idea. A look at last year’s stats suggests that, of the returnees who have played significant time at the 1, Rosen and Curry are indeed the cream of the crop. Rosen’s numbers are all the more remarkable, since they were achieved on a team that shot under 42% from the field. They are joined by Yale’s Braswell and Brown’s Matt Sullivan.
Of the others, Davis’s assist and week A/T ratio numbers suggest that he was either not given an opportunity or faltered when tested, at Princeton’s point. Agho’s assist total indicates that he could do a more than respectable job at Columbia’s point, if noone steps in from the bench or the frosh class. Likewise, and somewhat surprisingly, Cornell’s Wroblewski has averaged ~3APG over his career, while playing the 2 with Louis Dale much of the time. Some may recall that he played credibly the first eight games of his freshman year at the 1 when Dale was injured. Much like the Lions’ situation where Agho may be their best option for running the offense, Wroblewski may end up being Cornell’s best choice. Only Dartmouth and [potential league-favorite] Princeton seem absolutely destined to opening the year with D1-inexperienced PG’s.
More reflection on the Lions’ front line… The problems from last year are pretty plain to see in the box scores. Poor shooting by Grimes (under 35%!) and Ampim (~43%), way below average for big men, were trouble. I think we must consider the possibility that a Grimes now nearing two years post-ACL reconstructive surgery is likely to be more effective in 2010-11 than last year. Furthermore, Cisco (56%) and Daniels (49%) actually shot very well, something that could earn them long looks in Coach Smith’s frontcourt.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32898
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-14-10 01:45 PM - Post#84736
In response to IvyBballFan
Davis is as good a Princeton guard as I have seen in some time. Remember, any Princeton guard's assist numbers will be lower due to the "System", which limits the number of overall shots and distributes the ball around the perimeter. Davis also is a dynamic scorer---rare for Princeton---and takes more shots than you would expect for that team in that position. He is a good player.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
07-14-10 02:28 PM - Post#84737
In response to palestra38
Let me repeat; guys like Ampin and Grimes will see their minutes go down unless they show dramtic improvement. Ditto the twin towers. A new coach will not waste time on a senior who has disappointed the program and will invest in the younger players. Cisco and Daniels will play more than Grimes and Ampin. The twin towers will also see fewer minutes. Pencil in Agho, Daniels, Cisco and two first years.
|
skiba34
Masters Student
Posts: 952
Reg: 03-11-06
|
the list is out
07-14-10 05:31 PM - Post#84750
In response to Chet Forte
First to CU.LIONS and palestra38. Having a pure PG is a great benefit agreed. But like Dr.V has stated and I have in the past, 2 or 3 combo guards can more than get the job done. A few years back Brown had an outstanding offense without having a true PG in play. The odds of a good offense is certainly more likely with a good play-maker but it still can be done. And you don't have to be on Duke to get it done.
The last few years Columbia has struggled to get 3 good play-makers/shooters on the court at the same time. When Foley was healthy (which seemingly was less than more)he teamed up well with Scott and Agho and Columbia was much better.
But when Foley went down, Columbia's replacements in Bulger/Barbour/Egee were too offensively challenged to keep it going. That combined with poor shooting from anyone inside overall led to poor offensive showings.
At this current time, I do believe as a whole Columbia has some nice guards in place and should improve the play-making and shooting aspect of the offense, with or without a true PG.
The bigger problem as I see it is still finding someone who can be a steady threat on the inside. I have seen way to many missed layups and put backs in the last few seasons.
|
skiba34
Masters Student
Posts: 952
Reg: 03-11-06
|
the list is out
07-14-10 05:37 PM - Post#84753
In response to skiba34
There are of course other issues with the offense in the past such as strange rotations and coaching ect, but that is another subject altogether.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
07-14-10 06:41 PM - Post#84760
In response to skiba34
Gentlemen, I agree with everything you have said, but am less concerned than you are because I really like this new freshman group, particularly Dyami Starks, who I believe will become a very good point guard at Columbia. Sure it's a big step up from high school basketball in Minnesota to Division I, but by all indications Starks is a tremendous student-athlete who should excel at Columbia almost immediately as either a one or two guard. If you want to see yourself, take a look at his films on You Tube. Keep in mind that ESPN gave him an 86 rating and ranked him as the #74 highest point guard in the country. I see Starks at the point with Agho and another freshman guard in a very good three guard offense. Up front it will be whomever Smith and Hartman like the most and I'm betting on Craig and either Ampim or Grimes, but can see Cisco, Daniels and Crimmins as possibilities, if Ampim and Grimes are not 100%.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
07-15-10 09:16 AM - Post#84793
In response to Columbia 37P6
You will see a three guard offense with Daniels and Cisco starting up front. This new coach is not going to invest in a group of seniors who haven't lived up to their potential (Grimes and Ampin) or who just aren't going to be able to play offense (the twin towers).
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3781
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
07-15-10 09:33 AM - Post#84794
In response to Chet Forte
I know you Columbia fans tend to get snippy when Penn fans express an opinion on your board, but I'd like to suggest you stop using the expression 'twin towers.' It makes those guys sound WAY better than they really are. Put another way, they're not nearly good enough to have a nickname. If this turns out to be their breakout season, then by all means, 'twin towers' it will be.
Go ahead. Snip away.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 07-15-10 10:13 AM - Post#84797
In response to Silver Maple
I did not use twin towers as anything other than a short hand reference to the fact that both Craig and Crimmins are 7 footers. I am hardly an admirer of their play up to date. In fact, according to the Penn Daily News, the seven footers were much less of a factor than the Columbia band in our sweep of Penn last season.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
the list is out
07-15-10 02:05 PM - Post#84805
In response to Chet Forte
Nicknames aside, I wonder why you are so certain that Coach Smith will write-off all four of the seniors merely because they have underperformed thus far. Sure you would rather make a long-term investment in the freshmen or sophomores, but if he can capitalize on the talents of one or more of the returning seniors to compete for an Ivy League Championship in 2010-11, why not do so? And unlike the backcourt where the freshmen are clearly an upgrade, I'm really not sure how Columbia could compete up front without the seniors. Furthermore, while I do not reaslly want to criticize the past coaching staff, the fact is that I did not see much coaching from that staff. Craig did not play until the middle of his junior year and then sat out most of the Ivy League games. Crimmins, is still a project, but is it his fault or the past coaching staff's fault that he developed so little? Grimes missed a year due to injury and then he and Ampim were shuffled around from forward to center and then back to forward last year. Both of them are natural forwards and that's where they need to play. I've read great things about Coach Smith and Coach Hartman's teaching ability. They will be challenged like they have never been before by the four seniors who are all big and athletic, but not yet good basketball players. I don't think they are going to run away from that challenge. Only time will tell. You may be right. But it is too early to tell.,
Edited by Columbia 37P6 on 07-15-10 02:07 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
the list is out
07-15-10 03:49 PM - Post#84816
In response to Columbia 37P6
So after being told on this board that Niko Scott was one of the top shooters in the League and one of the most underrated guards, your new freshman guards are "clearly an upgrade."
They must be really good.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 07-15-10 03:49 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-15-10 04:05 PM - Post#84818
In response to palestra38
Doug Davis hasn't been playing much PG for Princeton -- it was Marcus Schroeder last year. In fact, the Princeton fans got pretty worked up on their board when I suggested Davis might slide over to PG this year. I still think he will, but it's not been his role thus far. Just another reason why his assist numbers don't look very good.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: the list is out
07-15-10 04:18 PM - Post#84820
In response to Columbia 37P6
I'm also not convinced about the theory about new coaches and seniors. I think he'll play the best players available.
I'm also not convinced that Grimes really failed. Prior to getting hurt against American last year, he was averaging 11.2 points and 7.3 rebounds per game over 11 games. After his return, he never scored 11 in a single game, and only got 7 or more rebounds once. That suggests to me that his problems were injury related, and not so much that he couldn't do it.
With Craig, it's hard to know, as he was slowly building up mintues as time went on. Not as much evidence as with Grimes, but again, a healthy Craig could be good in the league.
I suspect that Ampim and Crimmins are the guys more likely to fall by the wayside, though admittedly I base my evaluation of Ampim on some particularly boneheaded plays against Penn, which may not be fair.
All that said, I'll guess that Cisco and Daniels start up front with Craig and Grimes backing them up. I think the guards will start out as Agho, Egee, and Barbour. But Egee could give way to Starks or another ready freshman fairly quickly. But that's just a Penn fan making wild guesses.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32898
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-15-10 04:31 PM - Post#84822
In response to SomeGuy
It's always tough to guess who is the PG when you are dealing with Princeton since they share the ball so much. But I would agree with you both that Schroeder would have to be considered more of the PG last year and that Davis will be that guy this year. And Davis looked really good to me--too good to be at Princeton.
|
skiba34
Masters Student
Posts: 952
Reg: 03-11-06
|
Re: the list is out
07-15-10 09:03 PM - Post#84831
In response to Howard Gensler
So after being told on this board that Niko Scott was one of the top shooters in the League and one of the most underrated guards, your new freshman guards are "clearly an upgrade."
They must be really good.
No one is saying the freshmen guards are better than Niko Scott individually, but as a group (4 players) all have the potential to be very good based on some video, some actual first hand views and other poster confirmations of player descriptions.
At this point every player will have to prove themselves, especially the freshmen,. But optimism is what I call "hopeful and cautiously high"
There is a new coach, some new players who "appear promising" so why not have some optimism?
Most who have read my posts throughout the years know I am not the most optimistic person, yet even I have a sense that there is something good going on here.
Time will tell.
|
