|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 28, 2015 12:09:35 GMT -6
Looking at the Valpo game with their size he probably has to play well for us to compete, and it will be maybe the first game where he has to play good big men on a good team. If he can provide some good minutes it will be important and a good step in development and it is maybe an important game for him.
Trey looks like a good addition so far.
The good: He's no pure project and can contribute as a freshman. Good character, good size, good coordination and some shooting ability.
The Bad: Not much. Right now the game looks a little fast for him, he is still learning. For this crowd, he's a disappointment if he's not a Program saving instant high impact player, but that is more our bad.
The ugly: Pretty much what you expect for a good MAC recruit. He's not an exceptional athlete, but not a plodding player limited by lack of athletic ability. He's not an exceptional shooter out to the 3 point line, but can in fact shoot. He's not exceptionally aggressive or powerful near the basket, don't see a power inside move. He needs to add some muscle and play a little faster to be a really good big man.
But if he were any of those things we label bad or ugly, he would be a VERY good recruit. He looks like he will be a good MAC big man, maybe sooner than later, short of that right now based on play up to now.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 28, 2015 12:48:41 GMT -6
I think he might be able to develop into a decent #2 big man on a MAC contending frontline, although there is a lot of work and improvement needed between now and then. And of course you would need to pair him with a truly outstanding MAC big man to have that contending frontline...and that's the real trick, isn't it?
His 5 fouls could be very useful today as long as they aren't part of an and1.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 28, 2015 15:23:57 GMT -6
Say General. I'd say the kid is already at the level of a "#2 big man" in the MAC. I didn't see him kick ass today, but he held his own, rebounded well, even hit a few baskets.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Nov 28, 2015 16:01:15 GMT -6
Say General. I'd say the kid is already at the level of a "#2 big man" in the MAC. I didn't see him kick ass today, but he held his own, rebounded well, even hit a few baskets. I'd have to say I agree with 00hmh on this one as far as being a decent No. 2 now, and I'll be interested to see how he develops over four years, or even over a summer. Moses did give me the biggest laugh of today's game when Valpo's No. 11 basically walked by a somewhat off-balance Trey and the wind apparently blew him over, fouling out the Valpo player. Trey should wear a sign: "Beware, clumsy freshman." BTW, if you guys haven't seen it, here's a story from The Star Press and Moses' ongoing work with kids. www.thestarpress.com/story/sports/college/ball-state/2015/11/20/moses-gets-second-family-through-best-buddies/76124592/ |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2015 9:05:38 GMT -6
Lets give the General a break. I originally read his post to say Moses was never going to be more than a backup big man. Let's suppose he means, more reasonably, that reluctantly he'll agree Moses can be, but only after further development, a credible big man, and a starter in the MAC. But, that's not good enough he says. He then continues that we are doomed because we need two "good" big men to contend for the MAC and Moses will never really be "good," and that's where he concludes we need a "terrific" big man playing in the lineup with him to make the duo "good."
That's a little more reasonable but I still have to say he's wrong. On two counts.
First, I see nothing so far to say Moses cannot be a good big man, he's got the physical ability and is learning the college game quickly, but I suppose he might not be good enough by the General's definition. Still...
The General's premise that you need two "good" big men is just not the only way to win. I admit, I'm not clear exactly what "good" means in his argument. Based on his ruling out that we can contend in the future and criticism of our failings in recruiting, I'd say he apparently does not count House and Calhoun as good, along with Moses, or maybe he doesn't count them as big? I'd say a bigger kid like Moses paired with a player like House are quite big enough and surely could be good enough based on the progress both players are making. That means next year we have the starters we need, although I will agree we need more depth (probably that Teague develops) and we need to recruit at least one more big man along with our current signee.
His argument fails if his premise is wrong about needing two "good" big men. Maybe that was more true in the past, but basketball seems to be changing. And, the formula for winning has always included teams without great size or dominant inside play that succeed and contend for conference titles. Butler could win the MAC over the last decade. Not many really big players there. Certainly not two on most teams. IU did it in the B10 for the better part of Knight's 30 years. Usually only one traditional big man, sometimes none, usually not an inside post player. Arizona where Whitford comes from has done it.
At all levels we are now in the era of money ball. You score outside with the 3 ball, and you score near the basket, but it does not require those close shots to be post up plays and that you pound it inside. I will agree we need some size to defend size, and to rebound, but at the MAC level we rarely will see a big man who can dominate the game inside, much less two big men. Even where that might occur we will have advantages other places on the floor and can win.
We are getting some good players. Given the great difficulty in recruiting really good big players especially, I like the idea of substituting speed and aggressive play and going for depth at other positions, defense, and good shooting as a formula to win the MAC.
|
|
|
|
Post by jburton on Nov 29, 2015 10:57:03 GMT -6
Trey was clutch down the stretch with a couple key baskets and a free throw. I would go as far as to say that Ball State would not have won if he didn't play well in the closing minutes of the game.
He was a question mark recruit for this season. I thought he would be a project that might pay off his junior year. I have been pleasantly surprised by his development. His play won't demand a double team, but he contributes and doesn't hurt the team.
Anybody notice that he had 3 blocked shots... that 2 more blocked shots than the entire Valparaiso team.
|
|
|
|
Post by jburton on Nov 29, 2015 11:09:14 GMT -6
Lets give the General a break. I originally read his post to say Moses was never going to be more than a backup big man. Let's suppose he means, more reasonably, that reluctantly he'll agree Moses can be, but only after further development, a credible big man, and a starter in the MAC. But, that's not good enough he says. He then continues that we are doomed because we need two "good" big men to contend for the MAC and Moses will never really be "good," and that's where he concludes we need a "terrific" big man playing in the lineup with him to make the duo "good." That's a little more reasonable but I still have to say he's wrong. On two counts. First, I see nothing so far to say Moses cannot be a good big man, he's got the physical ability and is learning the college game quickly, but I suppose he might not be good enough by the General's definition. Still... The General's premise that you need two "good" big men is just not the only way to win. I admit, I'm not clear exactly what "good" means in his argument. Based on his ruling out that we can contend in the future and criticism of our failings in recruiting, I'd say he apparently does not count House and Calhoun as good, along with Moses, or maybe he doesn't count them as big? I'd say a bigger kid like Moses paired with a player like House are quite big enough and surely could be good enough based on the progress both players are making. That means next year we have the starters we need, although I will agree we need more depth (probably that Teague develops) and we need to recruit at least one more big man along with our current signee. His argument fails if his premise is wrong about needing two "good" big men. Maybe that was more true in the past, but basketball seems to be changing. And, the formula for winning has always included teams without great size or dominant inside play that succeed and contend for conference titles. Butler could win the MAC over the last decade. Not many really big players there. Certainly not two on most teams. IU did it in the B10 for the better part of Knight's 30 years. Usually only one traditional big man, sometimes none, usually not an inside post player. Arizona where Whitford comes from has done it. At all levels we are now in the era of money ball. You score outside with the 3 ball, and you score near the basket, but it does not require those close shots to be post up plays and that you pound it inside. I will agree we need some size to defend size, and to rebound, but at the MAC level we rarely will see a big man who can dominate the game inside, much less two big men. Even where that might occur we will have advantages other places on the floor and can win. We are getting some good players. Given the great difficulty in recruiting really good big players especially, I like the idea of substituting speed and aggressive play and going for depth at other positions, defense, and good shooting as a formula to win the MAC. Sherman can take care of himself. He brings most of upon himself by questioning the intelligence of any optimist and I believe that he actually said that the recruiting has been a "complete failure". |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Nov 29, 2015 11:31:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 29, 2015 11:45:21 GMT -6
I've always had pretty much an "anything goes" attitude about message board posting, but I really draw the line at mischaracterizing other people's posts. That's highly annoying. Especially if you use quotation marks. In my opinion, that really put the onus on you to get it right.
I have never said that recruiting in general is a "complete failure". I have said many times that Whitford's frontline recruiting is a failure so far...and I stand by that. In 2.5 classes (hopefully not 3.5 classes), you need more than a Moses to think about MAC championship contention. Who knows what the hell is really going on with Teague. Being carried by Billy Taylor frontline recruits is not what I really hoped to see from Whitford. I felt his background entitled us to hope for much more.
"I'm not clear exactly what "good" means in his argument."
Curtis Kidd/Paris McCurdy/Bill Gillis/Steve Payne/Lonnie Jones/Theron Smith. The bigs we won championships with. Got it? Clear enough for you? It's not difficult to understand. I've only been over this 10,000 times.
Moses is not of this caliber and, in my opinion, does not project to this caliber. I did not say you absolutely needed two good big men (although that would certainly be a plus [see list above]). I meant that I could see Moses as a starter on a championship team, but not as the lead big. Great kid and all, and young players sometimes end up surprising you. But I just don't see him joining the list above.
Seems like a lot of people have forgotten how it happened that we used to win the MAC, and in particular the quality of our frontlines. I suppose because that gets squarely in the way of wishful thinking, which is the preferred mode of thought for some.
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Nov 29, 2015 11:50:51 GMT -6
Do you guys remember how Chris Kaman looked his first couple years at CMU? Horrible. By the time he left he was a beast. I expect the same from Moses. I wouldn't be surprised if he grows another inch or two as well and when he's a senior he's 6'10" or 6'11" and around 260.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 29, 2015 11:56:17 GMT -6
I have also said that last year's and this year's point guard situation is a reflection of recruiting failure...and I stand by that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Nov 29, 2015 12:17:45 GMT -6
I would agree that the point guard situation is pretty murky. Smith isn't producing much and Davis isn't really a point guard.
You can win with a 1 who can't/doesn't score (see Nichols, Scott) but he's got to defend and assist, plus you need to be real solid elsewhere. We are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2015 13:14:53 GMT -6
I did not say you absolutely needed two good big men (although that would certainly be a plus [see list above]). I meant that I could see Moses as a starter on a championship team, but not as the lead big.
That is what I decided you meant. Curtis Kidd/Paris McCurdy/Bill Gillis/Steve Payne/Lonnie Jones/Theron Smith count as "good" for you. Moses is not of this caliber you say, does not project to this caliber. OK. A couple of points here. Lonnie was not a "lead big man" to me, more a rebounding and defensive specialist. We needed a lot more with him to be good. T Smith who was as much a wing player at times as a "lead big man." We needed a lot of support inside, he was not the defender or rebounding talent we needed to fight high major teams. Kidd, McCurdy, Gillis and Payne were very good MAC inside players, not just good. The test for me is overall talent. There were years in there where we did not have much except ONE of those VERY good big guys and did contend. I don't think it is conclusive we can't contend with two big guys, good, but less good than this. Or, even with one big guy and VERY good talent surrounding him. The Kidd McCurdy team which was our best team in history had more overall talent than any other team and all those championship teams may have been characterized as very talented overall. You may be focusing too much on those standout big men. I understand. You want more from Whitford. Now. Well we all want more, we are greedy pigs. But the question is can we contend without more big man talent than we are going to have in the next year or two. I am not predicting this team becomes the best team in our history, and surely can't predict a championship. But we are going to be good and going to contend for a championship. If that is not enough for you, it is one hell of a lot more than we have seen in a decade or more. We have players on this roster who will be better than some of the starters on those great teams you remember. I love those teams too. We may not ever see a team as good as our best in the past. But that is not the question. I hope we get there. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Nov 29, 2015 13:18:46 GMT -6
Wells isn't doing much for us, that much we know.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2015 13:25:17 GMT -6
I would agree that the point guard situation is pretty murky. Smith isn't producing much and Davis isn't really a point guard. You can win with a 1 who can't/doesn't score (see Nichols, Scott) but he's got to defend and assist, plus you need to be real solid elsewhere. We are not. Good point about Nichols and Scott. Persons and returning guards I expect to be better than those guys. We had other contending teams without a really good PG. A lot depends on how you play. We are going to be pretty solid elsewhere next year. Could be standout the best shooting team we have ever had. Could be one of the deepest teams we have ever had. There is a legitimate question whether we will be big and strong enough, and we need to see what we require at PG for this style of basketball to work. It's no sure thing, I am greedy enough to want more and to think we need to see recruiting and player development of the kids sitting out to produce another piece or two. But we have good players who will be better next year, and I cannot be all that gloomy about the future as some are. |
|
