Commits/Recruiting

[twballgame9]

Lost interest.

BC is going to run. They aren't going to press, which is what 40 minutes of hell was about. So when you can switch over from defense to offense, we can talk.

Ok, I this is also not very interesting to me, but don't you think that the 16 second shot clock comment is in reference to preparing the players to play in Europe with the 24 second shot clock? Taking that paragraph as a whole.

No

When you have a 24-second clock, you just don’t have the luxury of messing around with the ball. You’ve got to get into something. You’ve got to attack, and that’s how we want to play anyway. So I think that it became second nature after a while, and it’s something we’ll probably continue to do because we’ve always done that. We’ve played with a 16-second clock, a 20-second, 24-second, just so you get into that mentality of attacking before the defense is set, which I think is critical for how we play.

[BCEaglesFan]

Let's not forget Hanlan is really good in transitionand he's good at setting up other guys to score.

[eagle9903]

Lost interest.

BC is going to run. They aren't going to press, which is what 40 minutes of hell was about. So when you can switch over from defense to offense, we can talk.

Ok, I this is also not very interesting to me, but don't you think that the 16 second shot clock comment is in reference to preparing the players to play in Europe with the 24 second shot clock? Taking that paragraph as a whole.

No

When you have a 24-second clock, you just don’t have the luxury of messing around with the ball. You’ve got to get into something. You’ve got to attack, and that’s how we want to play anyway. So I think that it became second nature after a while, and it’s something we’ll probably continue to do because we’ve always done that. We’ve played with a 16-second clock, a 20-second, 24-second, just so you get into that mentality of attacking before the defense is set, which I think is critical for how we play.

None of that supports up tempo emphasis as you have used it elsewhere in the thread when you take into account how the team played last year, which was intentionally very, very slow because they were young and not in good shape. You read it as Donahue saying that they are going to increase tempo and aggressiveness relative to average college basketball speed of play, as if Donahue is all of a sudden Nolan Richardson, I read it as saying they are going to increase tempo and aggressiveness relative to BC basketball 2011, which gets them to roughly the speed of 1998 Princeton.

[twballgame9]

Lost interest.

BC is going to run. They aren't going to press, which is what 40 minutes of hell was about. So when you can switch over from defense to offense, we can talk.

Ok, I this is also not very interesting to me, but don't you think that the 16 second shot clock comment is in reference to preparing the players to play in Europe with the 24 second shot clock? Taking that paragraph as a whole.

No

When you have a 24-second clock, you just don’t have the luxury of messing around with the ball. You’ve got to get into something. You’ve got to attack, and that’s how we want to play anyway. So I think that it became second nature after a while, and it’s something we’ll probably continue to do because we’ve always done that. We’ve played with a 16-second clock, a 20-second, 24-second, just so you get into that mentality of attacking before the defense is set, which I think is critical for how we play.

None of that supports up tempo emphasis as you have used it elsewhere in the thread when you take into account how the team played last year, which was intentionally very, very slow because they were young and not in good shape. You read it as Donahue saying that they are going to increase tempo and aggressiveness relative to average college basketball speed of play, as if Donahue is all of a sudden Nolan Richardson, I read it as saying they are going to increase tempo and aggressiveness relative to BC basketball 2011, which gets them to roughly the speed of 1998 Princeton.

Nolan Richardson increased tempo by pressing. Apples and oranges, no one made that point.

The Don has said on a number of occasions that he wants this team to score in the 80s. That's a plan for uptempo offense. As is the mere statement that they want to attack before the defense gets set.

[twballgame9]

We’re going to play fast, we’re going to try to score 75 to 80 points, we’re going to mix up defenses, we’re going to be aggressive, we’re going to play nine to 10 guys. All the things I just said just weren’t realistically options with such youth and inexperience and weak bodies and cardio fitness. All those things have got to be terrific—and, you know, just not enough pieces.

“We’ll be able to play 40 minutes of basketball and keep it a high pace. We’ve got to be a team that really scores the basketball efficiently. We can’t average in the 60s, we’ve got to be at 75, pushing 80. It’s starting to click, it’s a great pace, a great understanding of what we need to do.”

[eagle9903]

We’re going to play fast, we’re going to try to score 75 to 80 points, we’re going to mix up defenses, we’re going to be aggressive, we’re going to play nine to 10 guys. All the things I just said just weren’t realistically options with such youth and inexperience and weak bodies and cardio fitness. All those things have got to be terrific—and, you know, just not enough pieces.

“We’ll be able to play 40 minutes of basketball and keep it a high pace. We’ve got to be a team that really scores the basketball efficiently. We can’t average in the 60s, we’ve got to be at 75, pushing 80. It’s starting to click, it’s a great pace, a great understanding of what we need to do.”

75-80 pts is probably about 2010 Cornell average (edit: actual average was 74.85 w/ games against princeton which neither team went above 50 and a game against #1 Kentucky in which they scored 45 pts, 77.48 w/o those games). Would you describe 2010 Cornell as a run and gun team? I don't think they were that. BTW, Jeff Foote played 27+ minutes a game in 2010. They had two backup bigs who played about 10 a game each and put up virtually no numbers while they played. I don't think Caudill and Van Nest are likely a step down from them.

[BCEaglesFan]

Hoosier Nation was disappointed when touted shooting guard Ron Patterson (Indianapolis, Ind./Brewster Academy), a member of Indiana's highly ranked 2012 recruiting class, failed to make it into school.

Now at Brewster Academy, the 6-foot-2, 195-pounder recently updated his recruitment with CuseNation.com.

"It's been good so far," he told the website. "My recruitment has been good. I cancelled a visit to Xavier because of a conflict. I'm also hearing from SMU. I don't have any favorites yet. I'm going to take an official to Syracuse coming up soon. From Wednesday (October 31st) until Friday (November 2nd)."

Along with the aforementioned SMU, Xavier and Syracuse, Patterson indicates that Providence, UConn, Boston College and Florida State are the other schools recruiting him the hardest.

From ESPN Insider

[twballgame9]

We’re going to play fast, we’re going to try to score 75 to 80 points, we’re going to mix up defenses, we’re going to be aggressive, we’re going to play nine to 10 guys. All the things I just said just weren’t realistically options with such youth and inexperience and weak bodies and cardio fitness. All those things have got to be terrific—and, you know, just not enough pieces.

“We’ll be able to play 40 minutes of basketball and keep it a high pace. We’ve got to be a team that really scores the basketball efficiently. We can’t average in the 60s, we’ve got to be at 75, pushing 80. It’s starting to click, it’s a great pace, a great understanding of what we need to do.”

75-80 pts is probably about 2010 Cornell average (edit: actual average was 74.85 w/ games against princeton which neither team went above 50 and a game against #1 Kentucky in which they scored 45 pts, 77.48 w/o those games). Would you describe 2010 Cornell as a run and gun team? I don't think they were that. BTW, Jeff Foote played 27+ minutes a game in 2010. They had two backup bigs who played about 10 a game each and put up virtually no numbers while they played. I don't think Caudill and Van Nest are likely a step down from them.

Caudill and Van Nest are not a step down head to head, but they are a step down when you consider night in and night out competition, ACC versus Ivy League.

27 minutes for Clifford and Anderson is fine. As currently constituted, the roster will require them to play closer to 33-35. That's too many for a fast paced offense. They will wear down, even if they are stronger and in better shape.

I would describe Cornell as a fast paced offense, particularly when they played in the Ivy League. They definitely looked to fast break. They took a lot of shots early in possessions. In the second round, they dropped 87 on defensive minded Wisconsin. They dropped 78 on defensive minded Temple. Was some of that shooting the lights out, sure (58% from 3 in the Wisco game). But a lot of it was up tempo basketball which created a lot of open shots before the D was set.

“We play fast,” Donahue said. “We’re not necessarily the most athletic fast, but we averaged the most (points) in our league by far and the top 25 in the country (actually 49th this season). I would love to have 75-80 (points per game). Simply put, I believe in playing before the defense is set. If we have a great shot early on, we’re going to attack it.

That’s a pretty in-depth breakdown for an introductory press conference. But to go a little deeper, I sought insight from Jon Jaques, a Cornell senior who played for Donahue for the past four years. Here’s what Jaques had to say about the coach’s style:


“You fast-break when the opportunity presents itself, you push the ball no matter what, but then once you’re in the half court, you make quick decisions with the ball. I think that’s the most important thing,” Jaques said on Tuesday, his description nearly matching the one Donahue provided a day later. “It’s not exactly playing fast. It’s just making quick decisions before the defense can react. It’s not an offense based on sets or anything. It’s basically based more on reads. You need to have smart players and players who can work on the fly to make it successful. When it’s working well, as you saw in the tournament, it’s pretty hard to stop.”

[eagle9903]

We’re going to play fast, we’re going to try to score 75 to 80 points, we’re going to mix up defenses, we’re going to be aggressive, we’re going to play nine to 10 guys. All the things I just said just weren’t realistically options with such youth and inexperience and weak bodies and cardio fitness. All those things have got to be terrific—and, you know, just not enough pieces.

“We’ll be able to play 40 minutes of basketball and keep it a high pace. We’ve got to be a team that really scores the basketball efficiently. We can’t average in the 60s, we’ve got to be at 75, pushing 80. It’s starting to click, it’s a great pace, a great understanding of what we need to do.”

75-80 pts is probably about 2010 Cornell average (edit: actual average was 74.85 w/ games against princeton which neither team went above 50 and a game against #1 Kentucky in which they scored 45 pts, 77.48 w/o those games). Would you describe 2010 Cornell as a run and gun team? I don't think they were that. BTW, Jeff Foote played 27+ minutes a game in 2010. They had two backup bigs who played about 10 a game each and put up virtually no numbers while they played. I don't think Caudill and Van Nest are likely a step down from them.

Caudill and Van Nest are not a step down head to head, but they are a step down when you consider night in and night out competition, ACC versus Ivy League.

27 minutes for Clifford and Anderson is fine. As currently constituted, the roster will require them to play closer to 33-35. That's too many for a fast paced offense. They will wear down, even if they are stronger and in better shape.

I would describe Cornell as a fast paced offense, particularly when they played in the Ivy League. They definitely looked to fast break. They took a lot of shots early in possessions. In the second round, they dropped 87 on defensive minded Wisconsin. They dropped 78 on defensive minded Temple. Was some of that shooting the lights out, sure (58% from 3 in the Wisco game). But a lot of it was up tempo basketball which created a lot of open shots before the D was set.

“We play fast,” Donahue said. “We’re not necessarily the most athletic fast, but we averaged the most (points) in our league by far and the top 25 in the country (actually 49th this season). I would love to have 75-80 (points per game). Simply put, I believe in playing before the defense is set. If we have a great shot early on, we’re going to attack it.

That’s a pretty in-depth breakdown for an introductory press conference. But to go a little deeper, I sought insight from Jon Jaques, a Cornell senior who played for Donahue for the past four years. Here’s what Jaques had to say about the coach’s style:


“You fast-break when the opportunity presents itself, you push the ball no matter what, but then once you’re in the half court, you make quick decisions with the ball. I think that’s the most important thing,” Jaques said on Tuesday, his description nearly matching the one Donahue provided a day later. “It’s not exactly playing fast. It’s just making quick decisions before the defense can react. It’s not an offense based on sets or anything. It’s basically based more on reads. You need to have smart players and players who can work on the fly to make it successful. When it’s working well, as you saw in the tournament, it’s pretty hard to stop.”

If what you meant was Cornell fast I don't disagree that's what Donahue wants. Our opinions on what is needed in terms of backups remains different.

[twballgame9]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

[twballgame9]

I would also note that thee best fast break team in the history of basketball had a bunch of slow ass guys like Tommy Heinson and the greatest rebounder in the history of the NBA.

[vegasEagle]

I would also note that thee best fast break team in the history of basketball had a bunch of slow ass guys like Tommy Heinson and the greatest rebounder in the history of the NBA.

Very Nice Teddy!

[BCEaglesFan]

One guy you're all forgetting: Eddie Odio.

Let's not forget how athletic this guy is. Last year, I thought he had some talent but he was always timid. This fast break system, plus the fact he gained 30 pounds of muscle, could make him a solid player.

[eepstein0]

One guy you're all forgetting: Eddie Odio.

Let's not forget how athletic this guy is. Last year, I thought he had some talent but he was always timid. This fast break system, plus the fact he gained 30 pounds of muscle, could make him a solid player.

If we're resting our hopes on Odio, we're screwed.

[eagle9903]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

No, I don't choose to accept this framing of the argument. The beginning of this conversation started with your position being that BC needs another big man in the class of 2013 and my position that it was not a necessity and that current personnel improvement could be adequate.

We argued for a time about the ability for players to improve their rebounding ability over time. There was no resolution.

The argument moved to your position that the tempo of Donahue's desired offensive would require additional big man depth. I assumed you were thinking about a full court press with fast break offenses, because in that instance I agree that your not getting the kind of minutes I expect our two best players to play this year. However, I was certain and you agree as it was not what you were talking about, that we will not run that kind of defense. We do not have the personnel for that.

You apparently were not and were talking about what you call a "fast break offense," the terminology of which I won't argue because you accept Cornell 2010 as an example of what you were talking about. I have no doubt we the personnel for that. That was never an argument made (by me).

Larry Foote and his 27 minutes and Ryan wittman and his 30+ and their awful backups in 2010 are my response to your position that BC's current personnel is inadequate to run that kind of offense. Caudill, Van Nest and Odio could easily be those awful backups. I happen to think Clifford > Foote and Anderson could well end up > Wittman.

Whereby it is beyond cavil that we do not need a 2013 big man.

[eagle9903]

I would also note that thee best fast break team in the history of basketball had a bunch of slow ass guys like Tommy Heinson and the greatest rebounder in the history of the NBA.

Russell played like 45 minutes a game for those teams.

[RedBaron67]

I think the argument over a PF in 2013 or 2014 is getting lost in the woods. The point to remember is that we want a PF who can do the job we want him to do, regardless of year. I lean toward 2014 because I think the possibility of finding such a PF in 2013 at this point is low, while things are looking rather good for 2014. If Donohue were to pull out of his hat a quality 2013 PF who can do what's needed (and I'm sure he'll try his best to accomplish this), I'd be perfectly happy with him using a scholarship. We all want a quality PF; the question is whether Donohue can sign one in 2013 ( which I think is unlikely) or will have to wait until 2014 (where the prospect currently looks much better).

[claver2010]

One guy you're all forgetting: Eddie Odio.

Let's not forget how athletic this guy is. Last year, I thought he had some talent but he was always timid. This fast break system, plus the fact he gained 30 pounds of muscle, could make him a solid player.

If we're resting our hopes on Odio, we're screwed.

EPSTEINPOST

but agreed, I know Donahue is talking Odio up but I'll believe it when I see it. He had (and probably has) a long way to go

[wildcat81]

Maybe Odio will become the next J. Beerbohm, very similar built. Sometimes you got to create a place on the floor for your skill level.

[twballgame9]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

No, I don't choose to accept this framing of the argument. The beginning of this conversation started with your position being that BC needs another big man in the class of 2013 and my position that it was not a necessity and that current personnel improvement could be adequate.

We argued for a time about the ability for players to improve their rebounding ability over time. There was no resolution.

The argument moved to your position that the tempo of Donahue's desired offensive would require additional big man depth. I assumed you were thinking about a full court press with fast break offenses, because in that instance I agree that your not getting the kind of minutes I expect our two best players to play this year. However, I was certain and you agree as it was not what you were talking about, that we will not run that kind of defense. We do not have the personnel for that.

You apparently were not and were talking about what you call a "fast break offense," the terminology of which I won't argue because you accept Cornell 2010 as an example of what you were talking about. I have no doubt we the personnel for that. That was never an argument made (by me).

Larry Foote and his 27 minutes and Ryan wittman and his 30+ and their awful backups in 2010 are my response to your position that BC's current personnel is inadequate to run that kind of offense. Caudill, Van Nest and Odio could easily be those awful backups. I happen to think Clifford > Foote and Anderson could well end up > Wittman.

Whereby it is beyond cavil that we do not need a 2013 big man.

A. This is just one of a myriad of reasons we need another big man. Even if they play half court, their rebounding sucks.

B. Full court press and fast break are two entirely different concepts that do not go together, or at bare minimum, do not require the automatic grouping you have been doing in your head for 3 pages. Nothing I have ever said, particularly not the words "fast break offense" is related in any way to the defensive strategy of pressing.

C. I am most certainly talking about fast break offense, which Cornell most certainly ran.

D. Foote and awful backups were not trying to run the fast break in the ACC.

[twballgame9]

I would also note that thee best fast break team in the history of basketball had a bunch of slow ass guys like Tommy Heinson and the greatest rebounder in the history of the NBA.

Russell played like 45 minutes a game for those teams.

They also generally scored before he got to half court after his outlet pass.

[eagle9903]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

No, I don't choose to accept this framing of the argument. The beginning of this conversation started with your position being that BC needs another big man in the class of 2013 and my position that it was not a necessity and that current personnel improvement could be adequate.

We argued for a time about the ability for players to improve their rebounding ability over time. There was no resolution.

The argument moved to your position that the tempo of Donahue's desired offensive would require additional big man depth. I assumed you were thinking about a full court press with fast break offenses, because in that instance I agree that your not getting the kind of minutes I expect our two best players to play this year. However, I was certain and you agree as it was not what you were talking about, that we will not run that kind of defense. We do not have the personnel for that.

You apparently were not and were talking about what you call a "fast break offense," the terminology of which I won't argue because you accept Cornell 2010 as an example of what you were talking about. I have no doubt we the personnel for that. That was never an argument made (by me).

Larry Foote and his 27 minutes and Ryan wittman and his 30+ and their awful backups in 2010 are my response to your position that BC's current personnel is inadequate to run that kind of offense. Caudill, Van Nest and Odio could easily be those awful backups. I happen to think Clifford > Foote and Anderson could well end up > Wittman.

Whereby it is beyond cavil that we do not need a 2013 big man.

A. This is just one of a myriad of reasons we need another big man. Even if they play half court, their rebounding sucks.
I think their rebounding will improve, you do not. I believe that is an impasse that will not be breached absent seeing how it plays out.
B. Full court press and fast break are two entirely different concepts that do not go together, or at bare minimum, do not require the automatic grouping you have been doing in your head for 3 pages. Nothing I have ever said, particularly not the words "fast break offense" is related in any way to the defensive strategy of pressing.
I understand the difference. As stated above, I disagree with your contention specific to needing additional big men depth in the fast break offense(your term) and therefore assumed you thought Donahue wanted to run full court press and fast break, in which I see the need for additional depth.
C. I am most certainly talking about fast break offense, which Cornell most certainly ran.
I now know what you are talking about and agree that Cornell ran it. I think that lends to my position that you do not need another big man, because Cornell didn't really have one.
D. Foote and awful backups were not trying to run the fast break in the ACC.
It worked adequately against Temple and Wisconsin in the Tournament, which counts for something but is not dispositive. I'm sure they would not have been a 27 win regular season team, but I think they would have been a 20+ game winner in the ACC. I also think, as mentioned previously that Clifford is going to be better than Foote and Anderson better than Wittman, I have no idea nor way of knowing how Caudill and Van Nest compare to Foote's backups.

[twballgame9]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

No, I don't choose to accept this framing of the argument. The beginning of this conversation started with your position being that BC needs another big man in the class of 2013 and my position that it was not a necessity and that current personnel improvement could be adequate.

We argued for a time about the ability for players to improve their rebounding ability over time. There was no resolution.

The argument moved to your position that the tempo of Donahue's desired offensive would require additional big man depth. I assumed you were thinking about a full court press with fast break offenses, because in that instance I agree that your not getting the kind of minutes I expect our two best players to play this year. However, I was certain and you agree as it was not what you were talking about, that we will not run that kind of defense. We do not have the personnel for that.

You apparently were not and were talking about what you call a "fast break offense," the terminology of which I won't argue because you accept Cornell 2010 as an example of what you were talking about. I have no doubt we the personnel for that. That was never an argument made (by me).

Larry Foote and his 27 minutes and Ryan wittman and his 30+ and their awful backups in 2010 are my response to your position that BC's current personnel is inadequate to run that kind of offense. Caudill, Van Nest and Odio could easily be those awful backups. I happen to think Clifford > Foote and Anderson could well end up > Wittman.

Whereby it is beyond cavil that we do not need a 2013 big man.

A. This is just one of a myriad of reasons we need another big man. Even if they play half court, their rebounding sucks.
I think their rebounding will improve, you do not. I believe that is an impasse that will not be breached absent seeing how it plays out.
B. Full court press and fast break are two entirely different concepts that do not go together, or at bare minimum, do not require the automatic grouping you have been doing in your head for 3 pages. Nothing I have ever said, particularly not the words "fast break offense" is related in any way to the defensive strategy of pressing.
I understand the difference. As stated above, I disagree with your contention specific to needing additional big men depth in the fast break offense(your term) and therefore assumed you thought Donahue wanted to run full court press and fast break, in which I see the need for additional depth.
C. I am most certainly talking about fast break offense, which Cornell most certainly ran.
I now know what you are talking about and agree that Cornell ran it. I think that lends to my position that you do not need another big man, because Cornell didn't really have one.
D. Foote and awful backups were not trying to run the fast break in the ACC.
It worked adequately against Temple and Wisconsin in the Tournament, which counts for something but is not dispositive. I'm sure they would not have been a 27 win regular season team, but I think they would have been a 20+ game winner in the ACC. I also think, as mentioned previously that Clifford is going to be better than Foote and Anderson better than Wittman, I have no idea nor way of knowing how Caudill and Van Nest compare to Foote's backups.

It's never been solely about depth. It's been about depth at the most important thing for fast breaking - defensive rebounding. They have plenty of depth elsewhere to break.

I do not think that Cornell would have come remotely close to 20 wins in the ACC, largely because of depth at the big men. You ignore that Foote would have faced guys every night his size. He would have worn down between that and running that offense (which is my point here).

As I admitted above, a large part of Cornell running those 2 teams in the tourney was the 58% shooting from 3. Yes, many of those shots were created by the Dons offense, but they wouldn't beat Wisco more than 3 out of 10 times they played. And they got squashed by Kentucky and only scored 40 points. Temple just wasn't very good.

[Shaddix]

Travis Jorgenson decommitted from Missouri. He's also playing at New Hampton this year

[eagle9903]

You confuse fast break offense with full court press defense. Cornell didn't fast break any slower than any other team, they just didn't full court presses to speed up the offense. They are not Kentucky of Pitino or Arkansas of Richardson, both of which attempted to generate points with defense.

But they were a fast break offense. If your point is that Cornell had slower guys, so they were athletically less fast in running the break, I just note again that if physical speed is a problem on the break then you dribble too much. Regardless, if this is your point, BC will have no issues with Daniels at the point and the guys running the wing.

In sum:

The Don runs an up tempo, fast break and quick shot offense that relies on smart players and good passers.

This type of up tempo offense wears out players, particularly big men that are running basket to basket rather than wing to wing.

BC has the players to run that offense, but not enough of them to run 10 guys out there, as the Don would like to do.

Where BC lacks the most depth is in the paint, and defensive rebounding is the catalyst for any fast break team that does not utilize the full court press defense (where turnovers are the catalyst)

Ergo and QED: BC could really use another big man.

No, I don't choose to accept this framing of the argument. The beginning of this conversation started with your position being that BC needs another big man in the class of 2013 and my position that it was not a necessity and that current personnel improvement could be adequate.

We argued for a time about the ability for players to improve their rebounding ability over time. There was no resolution.

The argument moved to your position that the tempo of Donahue's desired offensive would require additional big man depth. I assumed you were thinking about a full court press with fast break offenses, because in that instance I agree that your not getting the kind of minutes I expect our two best players to play this year. However, I was certain and you agree as it was not what you were talking about, that we will not run that kind of defense. We do not have the personnel for that.

You apparently were not and were talking about what you call a "fast break offense," the terminology of which I won't argue because you accept Cornell 2010 as an example of what you were talking about. I have no doubt we the personnel for that. That was never an argument made (by me).

Larry Foote and his 27 minutes and Ryan wittman and his 30+ and their awful backups in 2010 are my response to your position that BC's current personnel is inadequate to run that kind of offense. Caudill, Van Nest and Odio could easily be those awful backups. I happen to think Clifford > Foote and Anderson could well end up > Wittman.

Whereby it is beyond cavil that we do not need a 2013 big man.

A. This is just one of a myriad of reasons we need another big man. Even if they play half court, their rebounding sucks.
I think their rebounding will improve, you do not. I believe that is an impasse that will not be breached absent seeing how it plays out.
B. Full court press and fast break are two entirely different concepts that do not go together, or at bare minimum, do not require the automatic grouping you have been doing in your head for 3 pages. Nothing I have ever said, particularly not the words "fast break offense" is related in any way to the defensive strategy of pressing.
I understand the difference. As stated above, I disagree with your contention specific to needing additional big men depth in the fast break offense(your term) and therefore assumed you thought Donahue wanted to run full court press and fast break, in which I see the need for additional depth.
C. I am most certainly talking about fast break offense, which Cornell most certainly ran.
I now know what you are talking about and agree that Cornell ran it. I think that lends to my position that you do not need another big man, because Cornell didn't really have one.
D. Foote and awful backups were not trying to run the fast break in the ACC.
It worked adequately against Temple and Wisconsin in the Tournament, which counts for something but is not dispositive. I'm sure they would not have been a 27 win regular season team, but I think they would have been a 20+ game winner in the ACC. I also think, as mentioned previously that Clifford is going to be better than Foote and Anderson better than Wittman, I have no idea nor way of knowing how Caudill and Van Nest compare to Foote's backups.

It's never been solely about depth. It's been about depth at the most important thing for fast breaking - defensive rebounding. They have plenty of depth elsewhere to break.

I do not think that Cornell would have come remotely close to 20 wins in the ACC, largely because of depth at the big men. You ignore that Foote would have faced guys every night his size. He would have worn down between that and running that offense (which is my point here).

As I admitted above, a large part of Cornell running those 2 teams in the tourney was the 58% shooting from 3. Yes, many of those shots were created by the Dons offense, but they wouldn't beat Wisco more than 3 out of 10 times they played. And they got squashed by Kentucky and only scored 40 points. Temple just wasn't very good.

I think defensive rebounding will improve without an addition. I understand that you do not. Since it appears there are some similarities between the current BC team and the makeup of the 2010 Cornell team, I'd point out that despite the difficulties last season, and rebounding was absolutely a big issue, Anderson had 7.4 and Clifford 4.7 on the Cornell team Foote had 8.1 and Wittman 4.0. Humphrey had more rebounds last year than anyone else on the 2010 Cornell team. So if Donahue wants to run a fast break offense which is similar to Cornell in 2010, our bad 2011-12 rebounding is not statistically far away from the Cornell 2010 rebounding.

Cornell shot 39% from 3 in that tournament run. .391 against Temple, .53 against Wisconsin and .238 against Kentucky. That's 46% in the wins. That's only 3% above their season avg. Also Temple with Lavoy Allen, Juan Fernandez and Ryan Brooks was not bad. They were 29-5 and had beaten a then #3 nova team, plus a sweet sixteen Xavier team and a Richmond Tournament team.

[eagle9903]

Travis Jorgenson decommitted from Missouri. He's also playing at New Hampton this year

I don't know that there is roster space for another 6' PG.

[781]

I thought this was a recruitment thread? because all i see is topics about the past and debates about the upcoming season

[eagle9903]

I thought this was a recruitment thread? because all i see is topics about the past and debates about the upcoming season

I'm sorry that your New England recruiting agenda is not receiving the attention you believe it deserves.

[Hunta518]

I thought this was a recruitment thread? because all i see is topics about the past and debates about the upcoming season

I'm sorry that your New England recruiting agenda is not receiving the attention you believe it deserves.

[RedBaron67]

Travis Jorgenson decommitted from Missouri. He's also playing at New Hampton this year

I don't know that there is roster space for another 6' PG.

It wouldn't happen anyway; the fact that Jorgenson decommitted after Missouri signed another PG for 2013 leads me to think he's concerned about PT. BC already has a rotation of four in the backcourt, including two PGs and one combo guard; five would definitely be a crowd. I expect BC to add another guard in 2014, but definitely not in 2013.