Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-28-11 11:22 AM - Post#102553
In response to Old Bear
I remember when Jerome Allen et al. beat Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1994. Prior to the game, despite the fact that we were considered to have one of the top 5 backcourts in the country and Michigan had lost four of the fab 5, the Michigan student paper was saying that this would be an welcome break for the team from what had been a very challenging schedule, and making snarky predictions about just how bad an a$$-whipping their boys were going to lay on us. After we beat them the criticism of the coach (Steve Fisher?) was unbelievable.
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-28-11 12:55 PM - Post#102571
In response to mountainred
Mountainred:
Well, I can't say I agree with the logic of your argumant that "admittedly" unknown freshmen are more likely to contribute to the success of the 2011-12 team than improved returning players out of the best two recruiting classes in Cornell history (as described by the Donahue staff). But, if blind faith works and the incoming freshmen immediately push those guys out of the way and substantially contribute to an Ivy title in game action, I am all in favor.
I will say that MAA does not have to develop a jump shot to contribute. He probably never will develop a jump shot at this point, but he can do many other things, especially defend, to help the team be successful.
Grey has already improved to the point of being a contributor.
Big men always tend to take longer in the Ivy League (witness.... Jeff Foote), so Chemerinski and Figini as juniors will not look anything like they did as freshmen and sophomores. They both have very good athleticism for the Ivy league, and their offensive skills are their strengths. Don't take my word on that, Wroblewski said that Chemerinski was unstoppable in practice, and Figini had several very good games late this past season in limited minutes. They need what most young players need, strength and minutes.
Without a doubt, Peck has the ability to be All Ivy. He is a perfect example of how even talented freshmen take time to get acclimated to the college game. My guess is that his light bulb goes off in 2011-12.
Sahota showed flashes of talent and potential, but did not get the minutes to prove much of anything. Same for Mathews - his skill level and athleticism are definitely there, he just needs strength and minutes. Tarwater was in the rotation early in the season, but then I think he got sick or hurt.
McMillen may have been the odd man out last year, but he has a really nice shot. And, he has two years under his belt practicing against competition that far exceeds high school competition.
Just for kicks, if the incoming six freshmen were to play last year's sophomore and freshmen classes in a 40 minute game on the first day of practice, October 15, 2011, and you had to bet your mortgage on the game, which team would you pick to win?
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
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.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-28-11 07:35 PM - Post#102644
In response to mountainred
Or, short version, I have no idea if the incoming freshman are good enough to force their way into the line-up. None. Nada. Zilch. But, if Cornell wants to challenge for a league title soon, they had better because based on what I have seen from the guys currently on the roster, the current team is not good enough.
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-28-11 11:54 PM - Post#102669
In response to mountainred
Ok, so you have no desire to rip on the players on the current Cornell roster by name, but........
If you feel like my argument was a bit more persuasive than yours, no need to lash out at the players in frustration. 
Seriously, every player that you ended up ripping on by name is an under the radar talent who was brought into the program to be developed. They are kids who have already shown that they are willing to commit to getting better or they would not be one of the approximate 35-40 kids from across the country every year who have the rare combination of academics and basketball talent to be recruited onto an Ivy League roster. And, they have all proven the naysayers wrong their entire young careers. That includes next year's freshmen class, who should also be permitted some time to mature and develop before they are over-hyped and then rejected as well.
With these truths in mind, I guess I would prefer to judge the success of last year's freshmen and sophomores after they are juniors and seniors who are no longer playing behind experienced seniors and after they are further down the learning curve of a brand new staff which, until the end of the 2010-11 season, had not one year of head coaching experience - combined.
Finally, the Wittman/Dale/Reeves/Foote class was undeniably the most successful class in Cornell history. But they did not start out as Ivy League champs. Even Coach Donahue called Foote the worst player in D-1 basketball after he transferred to Cornell. Each of those players got better every year and were able to develop their games without being prematurely evaluated. And, each of the players from that historic class got far more minutes as freshmen and sophomores to learn and make mistakes on the job than did last year's freshmen and sophomores, mainly because their team situations were just different.
Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to value your anonymous opinion over Donahue's opinion (formed after his 20 years in the Ivy league) that his last two recruiting classes were his best two classes ever at Cornell. Perhaps that is why I might give those two recruitng classes a bit more time to develop, but perhaps I am too patient??
|
cornellfan4
Masters Student
Posts: 543
Reg: 12-09-09
|
03-29-11 12:15 AM - Post#102671
In response to EddieAlberto
The problem was Donahue thought they were the best classes he recruited for him and his system. Donahue isnt here anymore and Courtney seems to have a much different philosophy. Courtney said when he came in that he wanted to have a 40min of hell type team that full court pressed you the whole game. Towards the end of the season he started to press more and while still fouling too much the press did contribute toward our success. If anything next year's class is one of the more athletic classes we have had and will fit into Courtney's 40min of hell system. It is hard to expect much from freshman but the minutes are surely there for them next year. If this class is as good as advertised I expect at least one freshman to be a major contributor next year
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Season in Review or Where do we go from here
03-29-11 09:14 AM - Post#102679
In response to EddieAlberto
Finally, the Wittman/Dale/Reeves/Foote class was undeniably the most successful class in Cornell history. But they did not start out as Ivy League champs.
No, but they were Ivy League champs as sophomores and then dominated the League for two more years. The class they most resemble in terms of Ivy success is Jerome Allen's freshman class, which didn't win the League but then (with the addition of Matt Maloney the following year) went 42-0 over the next three years. The Dale/Wittman/Foote class was special. You don't get "special" often.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 03-29-11 09:15 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
03-30-11 12:11 PM - Post#102763
In response to mountainred
I have no desire to rip on Cornell players by name, but I didn't see a lot of progress from the Sophomore class this year.
You also say Ivy bigs develop more slowly, which is true...
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 (Class of '15)? I take the Class of '15 because...
Ah! The world of Ivy bigs. All of us want an Eggleston, Maddox, Mangano, Hummer, or Wright to patrol our boards, but the truth is that such “standouts†are few and far between. It is is a little more realistic to look around the league and recognize what constitutes a credible, positive performance and realize what any big man does relative to that. These comments actually apply to all eight teams. The “standard†for bigs is surprisingly modest. There are a number of Ivy front court players who perform steadily in an under-the-radar manner that helps their team. In some way of thinking, their main job is to get hold of the ball for their backcourt mates.
Let’s define an Ivy big man as someone who is at least 6’7†and weighs at least 215lbs. Guys smaller than this generally are unable to camp effectively in the paint for long periods without getting hurt or into repeated foul trouble. Let’s see what such guys contributed in 2010-11, and how many return.
44 big men suited up during 2010-11. Only about twenty contributed in a way that positively affected their clubs’ on-court fortunes. Moreover, only about a dozen played more than 20 min/g. Cornell’s Coury, Osgood, and Wire (Wire played very “bigâ€) were loosely among the twenty, but not in the dozen. A minimum positive performance appears to be about 4R, 6P in 18 min/g over the course of the season. Bigs who produce this for their teams, hang onto the ball (e.g., Darrow or Connolly), and play defense, stay out there because they are positives in this league.
41 big guys are already on rosters for 2011-12. There are a couple more borderline guys who may try to play in the frontcourt, who cannot be evaluated right now. Let’s see who looks ready. Of the 41, only ten played ~18 min/g in 2010-11, and have proven that they are ready to contribute at or above the 4R,6P level. Yes, it’s not many. Many are juniors. Room for a few more, for sure. Loosely-arranged, based on number of returning players and what they did last year, the frontcourts appear to rank in this order: Harvard, Yale, Brown/Princeton, Columbia (barring recurrent injury), Cornell, Penn, and Dartmouth. There will be big individual jumps. Remember, one player with a ~4R,6P profile in 2009-10 (Mangano) put up Ivy POY-like numbers in 2010-11.
If things play out like last year, there will be about two dozen bigs who contribute positively to their teams. There are now about 12-15 guys around the league who played in the 100-250 minute range in 2010-11 and showed enough to make one think that they could join the above ten at the steady 4R,6P or better level in 18 min/g. Cornell’s Chemerinski, Figini, and Gatlin are in this group. Somewhat surprisingly, if two of the three reach or exceed this level, Cornell will get more production from its frontcourt than last year. What strikes me on the downside is that none of the three really have the bulk right now to bang hard and effectively and stay healthy and foul-free, on an ongoing basis. Save for Barrett and Gunter, they are the lightest bigs in the league and seem headed for trouble mixing it up with wide bodies like Cisco, Connolly, Hummer, Kreisberg, Mangano, and Wright, among others. Ampim, Cisco, Daniels, Howlett, Osgood, and PSullivan are examples of how hard it is to stay healthy for a season, when you are somehat undersized for the Ivy frontcourt. An additional ten to fifteen lbs of muscle on any or all of Cornell’s three returning big men really increases the chances of success.
Like Eddie, I think relying on the bigs in the Class of 2015 for this year doesn’t look like the way to go. In the future, OK, but not for this year. Of ten Ivy frosh bigs last year, only two, Kreisberg and Walker, provided value. Could Cornell’s LaMore or Giddens contribute? They, like the Cornell incumbents, are probably somewhat undersized. They will have a chance, but it’s not this year’s high probability outcome. In 2011-12, the odds of Chemerinski, Figini, and Gatlin elevating their respective games into the 4R, 6P group of positive bigs are greater than the odds of having a frosh reach that level.
|
|
