Paradise Jam 2016?

[Old guy]

We can all agree that we're not going to be good in 2015-2016.

General questions for those who say we're going to be good in 2016-2017:

-What does "good" mean? NIT? Top half of A10? NCAA Tournament? Tournament run?

-What are you basing this on? A hunch? The current roster? Something you know that the rest of us don't?

(Sincere questions on both fronts.)

Lord Pistol, you are a pessimistic about next season. My answer to your questions is that as long as we do better than last year I will be satisfied to some degree. I expect this modest goal will be met.

Now, let me ask you, what is "not good" to you? Not being in the top half of A10, or not making NIT, or not making NCAA tournament, or no tournament run? What are you basing your pessimism on?

I am serious about this, I think my very modest goals will be met or exceeded this season. What do you consider acceptable goals for this coming season that would satisfy you?

[brianstl]

Nm

[Cowboy]

We can all agree that we're not going to be good in 2015-2016.

General questions for those who say we're going to be good in 2016-2017:

-What does "good" mean? NIT? Top half of A10? NCAA Tournament? Tournament run?

-What are you basing this on? A hunch? The current roster? Something you know that the rest of us don't?

(Sincere questions on both fronts.)

-I'm sort of with Old Guy here, elaborate on not good in 15-16 to set the expected baseline

-if you are saying a lot of things, and I mean A LOT OF THINGS, need to change for 15-16 to not resemble 14-15, I'll agree with that

[3star_recruit]

We can all agree that we're not going to be good in 2015-2016.

General questions for those who say we're going to be good in 2016-2017:

-What does "good" mean? NIT? Top half of A10? NCAA Tournament? Tournament run?

-What are you basing this on? A hunch? The current roster? Something you know that the rest of us don't?

(Sincere questions on both fronts.)

I'm assuming something like 18-15 and a 10th place finish in the league this year. The following year we will be one of the most experienced teams in the league and returning our core. Many of the teams ahead of us will be losing key members of their core to graduation. With just incremental improvement, and least one contributor from the 2016 class that translates into 21-22 regular season wins and a top 5 finish. Probably need to make a deep A10 run to secure a NCAA tournament berth.

[BigMouthBilliken]

Addition by subtraction. Apparent attitude changes with no grandy, AM, and TL. Plus manning....

[RiseAndGrind]

Am I wrong to assume that Tanner Lancona has just moved to eastern Washington with Mcbroom to help him make Vines for 16 yr olds?

[majerus mojo]

Addition by subtraction. Apparent attitude changes with no grandy, AM, and TL. Plus manning....

Good call here

[Box and Won]

Am I wrong to assume that Tanner Lancona has just moved to eastern Washington with Mcbroom to help him make Vines for 16 yr olds?

This is the best thing I've read all day.

[crymdg2]

Am I wrong to assume that Tanner Lancona has just moved to eastern Washington with Mcbroom to help him make Vines for 16 yr olds?

Hoochies

[Taj79]

As I sit here mostly in silence awaiting the great FBJT decision, if i had a vote, I'd say:

Horrible = 11 wins or less (same as last year/no improvement)

Medicore = a .500 season (which isn't saying much given who we seem to schedule in the OOC year-in and year-out)

Success = CBI/NIT consideration (notice: not even expecting a bid just consideration)

Ecstatic would of course be a dance bid but that doesn't appear imminent given this roster. There may be talent on the roster as willie is inclined to believe but I don't see the necessary integration of those so-called talented pieces into a cohesive sum. Not based on what I saw last year. What are our known components (PER people if you will) in terms of defensive rebounding? Rim guarders? Reliable outside shooters? Interior players? And most importantly --- a distribution-first point guard? Which, factored with a now-30 second clock, ought to make helter-skleter plays even more the norm in our shotclock milking offense. There just seems a lot of praying going on in that heretofore unknowns and non-deliverers will suddenly change spots and indeed deliver. We shall see. Deaux.

Attitude concerns me too. Both that expressed by the coaching staff ("they didn't believe in the system") and the very fact that the coaching staff's statement appeared to be true. And someone pointed out we (the collective again) have not won at this level just yet. And that doesn't begin to touch on winning on the road because if you can't win on the home turf winnign on the road i salmost impossible. Didn't the late,greta Rick say this somewhere once?.

Of course, there is some leeway in being horrible in my graded scale above and just even getting to medicore. We can be mediocre, but is that really success? It might be progress but it won't be anything to write home, and rave about. Making anything other than the Dance doesn't really matter outside of measuring improvement. Again, we can only wait and see.

I am hoping to see Agbeko actually play in full games this year. Gillmann to perform somewhere down low. Ditto Jolly. Yacoubou to make some jumpers. Bartley to double his assists. Yarbrough to embrace the four while making shots typical of a three. Reynolds to define his role or hit the road. Roby to improve incrementally in all aspects. Neufeld to break a sweat. Welmer to be more than a poster boy for "Hossiers II." Bishop to surprise --some how some way. Crawford to be the knock-down shooter. With team defensive and rebounding to rise equally.

And that coudl all happen and we'd still be mediocre ---- we need a lot of dominoes to fall right this year.

[3star_recruit]

The only things we need to change to be mediocre (.500) this year is to have a legitimate scorer/defender at the 5 and be at least decent at containing dribble penetration. Everything else will take care of itself. Not as simple as it sounds but not a laundry list of things either.

[Old guy]

OK 3 Star, let's say we are mediocre this coming season, it will be an improvement over last year and hopefully indicate further improvement the following year. It is also a doable goal. Anything above and beyond mediocre will be really nice, a sugar coating.

[JMM28]

OK 3 Star, let's say we are mediocre this coming season, it will be an improvement over last year and hopefully indicate further improvement the following year. It is also a doable goal. Anything above and beyond mediocre will be really nice, a sugar coating.

It would be hard to not improve over last year.

[Old guy]

Agree with that but... Let's see what happens and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[Pistol]

Lord Pistol, you are a pessimistic about next season. My answer to your questions is that as long as we do better than last year I will be satisfied to some degree. I expect this modest goal will be met.

Now, let me ask you, what is "not good" to you? Not being in the top half of A10, or not making NIT, or not making NCAA tournament, or no tournament run? What are you basing your pessimism on?

I am serious about this, I think my very modest goals will be met or exceeded this season. What do you consider acceptable goals for this coming season that would satisfy you?

I was asking the optimists to clarify more, but I guess if you guys are answering questions with more questions, I'll elaborate:

-I would define "not good" as missing the postseason in any form: NCAA, NIT, CBI, whatever other goofball tournaments might exist these days. I would add to that very loose definition that it's also based on expectations. Had we gone to the NIT the senior season of Jett, McCall, and Evans, that would've been "not good," for example.

-This team was "not good" by literally every measure in 2014-2015. I don't think that's a subject of any debate, anywhere. 11-21 against a weak schedule, 328th (of 351) in offensive rating, 209th in defensive rating, and so forth. This was a historically bad season by SLU standards.

-My pessimism is based on statistics and data (see above), the fact we have a very similar roster to last season, the fact that this roster was dramatically outplayed by other young teams in and out of conference, and the fact Crews hasn't shown an ability to coach up talent.

In 2004-2005, we went 9-21 against a much better schedule and went 1-12 in close games (defined as margins of 6 points or less, or decided in OT). Had we gone just 6-7 in those 13 close games, we'd have been .500.

However, this team was worse by any measure other than record - not nearly as close to being an average (.500) team. Go back and look at the margins of defeat; these were mostly not close games. Overall, our margins of victory were narrower than the margins of loss. So to say that 5 more wins could've been stolen to get to a .500 record is a serious stretch.

So how do you get to a .500 or better record from last season's debacle?

-Significant improvement from existing players: We need a Conklin Summer® out of several players, and we haven't gotten one yet on Crews' watch. (For the record, I think the whole Conklin Summer thing is overblown by this board in a big way.) You'd hope for marginal improvement out of everyone - which almost never happens across the board on any roster - and I'm not sure even that will be enough, based on what I observe as a disappointingly low level of overall talent.

-Significant contribution from new players (i.e. overall raising of the talent level): I think Neufeld could be a good four-year big, but rare is the big man ready to step in for big numbers right away. And Welmer looks like a project if there ever was one. We'd be foolish to expect much at all out of this pair right away; anything is gravy this season from them. We're down McBroom, Lancona, Glaze, and Manning, and we're up Neufeld and Welmer. I don't necessarily miss the departing players, but I don't see that as a net points gain.

-Weaker schedule: It appears the schedule will be tougher, not weaker, from the early looks of it. I can't imagine the A10 being any worse than last season and we won 3 (!) games.

-Coaching change: Same story here.

tl;dr

So what do the blind optimists see that I don't?

Realistic view: 2015-2016 will be a similar season to 2014-2015 because we have basically the same players (who weren't good last season), same coaching staff, and marginally more difficult schedule.

Unrealistic view: 2015-2016 will show significant improvement because...of a hunch? Incremental improvement across the board? Crews decides in his 60s that he's going to implement a different system that somehow clicks?

Incremental improvement is not the answer! Incremental improvement by our opponents neutralizes that argument (especially when their young players are already better than ours - like Fordham, for example).

[JMM28]

Good post pistol. I think every fan base in the country has this "next year will be better because the players are a year older" syndrome. Older does not mean better.

[Cowboy]

-Pistol, my expectations for the team in 15-16 match your criteria of being not good

-I hope to be surprised......hope

[kshoe]

Good post pistol. I think every fan base in the country has this "next year will be better because the players are a year older" syndrome. Older does not mean better.

Um, actually it typically does. It may not be enough to get materially better but it almost certainly the case that seniors > juniors> sophomores > freshmen. Yes, I'm sure people can find specific examples where that isn't the case but if someone is telling me their expectation is that players won't improve, at all, then that's pretty ignorant.

If people want to argue about how much they'll improve, then have at it.

[NextYearBill]

Um, actually it typically does. It may not be enough to get materially better but it almost certainly the case that seniors > juniors> sophomores > freshmen. Yes, I'm sure people can find specific examples where that isn't the case but if someone is telling me their expectation is that players won't improve, at all, then that's pretty ignorant.

If people want to argue about how much they'll improve, then have at it.

John Manning.

[willie]

John Manning.

Jordair Jett

[Old guy]

OK Pistol, you have provided a very good definition of what being a "good" team means to you, basically making some kind of post season tournament. Given this definition, I would be afraid that we may have a hard time next season and may indeed not be "good" in those terms.

I hope you will not think of me as an eternal pie eyed optimist, however I would be satisfied with a mediocre (not good by your definition) performance next season.

[slufan13]

The problem is that the other teams get better too

[3star_recruit]

I was asking the optimists to clarify more, but I guess if you guys are answering questions with more questions, I'll elaborate:

-I would define "not good" as missing the postseason in any form: NCAA, NIT, CBI, whatever other goofball tournaments might exist these days. I would add to that very loose definition that it's also based on expectations. Had we gone to the NIT the senior season of Jett, McCall, and Evans, that would've been "not good," for example.

-This team was "not good" by literally every measure in 2014-2015. I don't think that's a subject of any debate, anywhere. 11-21 against a weak schedule, 328th (of 351) in offensive rating, 209th in defensive rating, and so forth. This was a historically bad season by SLU standards.

-My pessimism is based on statistics and data (see above), the fact we have a very similar roster to last season, the fact that this roster was dramatically outplayed by other young teams in and out of conference, and the fact Crews hasn't shown an ability to coach up talent.

In 2004-2005, we went 9-21 against a much better schedule and went 1-12 in close games (defined as margins of 6 points or less, or decided in OT). Had we gone just 6-7 in those 13 close games, we'd have been .500.

However, this team was worse by any measure other than record - not nearly as close to being an average (.500) team. Go back and look at the margins of defeat; these were mostly not close games. Overall, our margins of victory were narrower than the margins of loss. So to say that 5 more wins could've been stolen to get to a .500 record is a serious stretch.

So how do you get to a .500 or better record from last season's debacle?

-Significant improvement from existing players: We need a Conklin Summer® out of several players, and we haven't gotten one yet on Crews' watch. (For the record, I think the whole Conklin Summer thing is overblown by this board in a big way.) You'd hope for marginal improvement out of everyone - which almost never happens across the board on any roster - and I'm not sure even that will be enough, based on what I observe as a disappointingly low level of overall talent.

-Significant contribution from new players (i.e. overall raising of the talent level): I think Neufeld could be a good four-year big, but rare is the big man ready to step in for big numbers right away. And Welmer looks like a project if there ever was one. We'd be foolish to expect much at all out of this pair right away; anything is gravy this season from them. We're down McBroom, Lancona, Glaze, and Manning, and we're up Neufeld and Welmer. I don't necessarily miss the departing players, but I don't see that as a net points gain.

-Weaker schedule: It appears the schedule will be tougher, not weaker, from the early looks of it. I can't imagine the A10 being any worse than last season and we won 3 (!) games.

-Coaching change: Same story here.

tl;dr

So what do the blind optimists see that I don't?

Realistic view: 2015-2016 will be a similar season to 2014-2015 because we have basically the same players (who weren't good last season), same coaching staff, and marginally more difficult schedule.

Unrealistic view: 2015-2016 will show significant improvement because...of a hunch? Incremental improvement across the board? Crews decides in his 60s that he's going to implement a different system that somehow clicks?

Incremental improvement is not the answer! Incremental improvement by our opponents neutralizes that argument (especially when their young players are already better than ours - like Fordham, for example).

My core argument, since early in the conference schedule, was that we were going to play 4 on 5 the rest of the season. It was clear that Gillman wasn't physically ready to man the 5 spot, Lancona was mailing it in, and Jolly wasn't talented enough to be effective at at this level. Not only do I believe that Neufeld is an upgrade at the 5 spot, Welmer is further along physically than Gillman was last year and is a better athlete. If you want to play two bigs for a few minutes, there may be occasions you can get away with it. Neufeld + junior Agbeko + sophomore Gillman + freshman Welmer > freshman Gillman + sophomore Agbeko + Lancona + freshman Jolly

Once you are playing 5 on 5 on offense and defense, the entire flow of the game changes. Ash isn't making all those futile dashes to the hoop against two defenders. We have someone in the interior, other than Milik, that the defense is forced to guard. Bartley gets more open looks. We can actually secure an offensive rebound from time to time.

With the addition of Bishop, we have enough team speed on the perimeter to at least be adequate at containing dribble penetration. Do you think he'll give us more offensively than Miles did last year? Based on Bishop being a marked man and still managing to score 20ppg in a very competitive high school league, I'm optimistic. I don't think playing 5 on 5 and being able to contain dribble penetration is a pipe dream. I think it's a very attainable goal. You do that and you'll manage to compile a mediocre record.

[Dwayne's_World]

The problem is that the other teams get better too

Not ones that graduated their starters/leading scorers. The difference is that we've already hit rock bottom, nowhere to go but up....

[Pistol]

The problem is that the other teams get better too

This is important.

And one of my main points is that the whole "they're all freshmen" argument doesn't work as well when other very young teams we played - Vermont (despite our pulling out a win), Vanderbilt, Fordham, etc. - outplayed our young squad. We're starting from a point of having less physically developed, less outwardly talented players. They have a longer way to go and a coach who hasn't shown that he can coach up talent.