WH Begins his Season Previews On The A-10 Board

[davidnark]

WH picks Billikens 11th

http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10...11th-place.html

I can't disagree with anything he wrote. The guy really does his homework. I thought this statement was particularly accurate: "The house cleaning not only has fans reaching for their Who’s Whos, it’s makes it difficult to assess the team. St. Louis is young and inexperienced, to be sure, but it’s also deeper, taller, more athletic and better skilled." If I had to disagree with his substance, it would be that he significantly downplays the impact young players can have in today's game. While the A-10 may be more of an upperclassmen-dominated conference, freshmen routinely make the difference in most other conferences.

That being said, I would be absolutely shocked if we finished as low as 11th in the conference. With two senior stars, an infusion of new talent, and one of the top game coaches in the country, we should be in the top half of the conference.

[jimbofive]

I can't disagree with anything he wrote. The guy really does his homework. I thought this statement was particularly accurate: "The house cleaning not only has fans reaching for their Who’s Whos, it’s makes it difficult to assess the team. St. Louis is young and inexperienced, to be sure, but it’s also deeper, taller, more athletic and better skilled." If I had to disagree with his substance, it would be that he significantly downplays the impact young players can have in today's game. While the A-10 may be more of an upperclassmen-dominated conference, freshmen routinely make the difference in most other conferences.

That being said, I would be absolutely shocked if we finished as low as 11th in the conference. With two senior stars, an infusion of new talent, and one of the top game coaches in the country, we should be in the top half of the conference.

Some schmuck even had the gall to pick us 14th. Yeah, in your bra. I think several of the freshman will have a few outstanding performances in the coming year, and we know that Kevin and Tommie will. The tell-all will be how many different lineups we can get on the floor with enough chemistry and in-game focus to put some points on the board.

[WH]

This is the hardest team in the A-10 to assess and I frankly lack conviction in putting the Bills 11th. My placement is based on record in conference play. After I looked at the team’s A-10 sked, I had STL anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8 before ending up at 6-10 (same record as the team I place 10th).

Like Davidnark, though, I would not be surprised if the Bills finished higher. If I were a betting man, I would take the over (higher-place finish) for the reasons he cites. In fact, I made the very same points in the thread on the Bills at the A-10 board.

I would disagree, however, with the notion that I am underplaying the impact freshmen can have in today’s game. Certainly I remember the boost Lisch and Liddell gave to the Bills as frosh.

I just think most A-10 teams have plenty of talent in their upper classes returning. Generally speaking, if older players have raw talent roughly equal to that of younger players, experience wins out.

The X-factors, of course, are Majerus and the new arena. Majerus should be energized now that he has his own players to work with. If he still is a great coach – and I think he is – he’ll find a way to get the Bills to 8-8 or even 9-7 in conference play. The Chaif should also help in that regard.

Anything better than that would be an astonishing achievement, but after seeing what another great coach, Fran Dunphy, did in his second year at an A-10 program, I am unwilling to bet against RM.

[billiken_roy]

Some schmuck even had the gall to pick us 14th. Yeah, in your bra. I think several of the freshman will have a few outstanding performances in the coming year, and we know that Kevin and Tommie will. The tell-all will be how many different lineups we can get on the floor with enough chemistry and in-game focus to put some points on the board.

imo at least one of the freshmen bigs has to come through. maybe not as a scorer, but defensively and reboundingwise.

if mitchell is what we all think he will be, that will be great, however i wouldnt be afraid of having lisch be the point. but letting kevin stay on the wing will only make kevin more dangerous.

that all said, i dont think anyone can argue with wh at this point because of all the uncertainty all this inexperience brings. hopefully by xmas we have a view of how well we will compete in the a-10.

[NH]

This is the hardest team in the A-10 to assess and I frankly lack conviction in putting the Bills 11th. My placement is based on record in conference play. After I looked at the team’s A-10 sked, I had STL anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8 before ending up at 6-10 (same record as the team I place 10th).

Like Davidnark, though, I would not be surprised if the Bills finished higher. If I were a betting man, I would take the over (higher-place finish) for the reasons he cites. In fact, I made the very same points in the thread on the Bills at the A-10 board.

I would disagree, however, with the notion that I am underplaying the impact freshmen can have in today’s game. Certainly I remember the boost Lisch and Liddell gave to the Bills as frosh.

I just think most A-10 teams have plenty of talent in their upper classes returning. Generally speaking, if older players have raw talent roughly equal to that of younger players, experience wins out.

The X-factors, of course, are Majerus and the new arena. Majerus should be energized now that he has his own players to work with. If he still is a great coach – and I think he is – he’ll find a way to get the Bills to 8-8 or even 9-7 in conference play. The Chaif should also help in that regard.

Anything better than that would be an astonishing achievement, but after seeing what another great coach, Fran Dunphy, did in his second year at an A-10 program, I am unwilling to bet against RM.

WH, I really agree with a lot of what you said except when it comes to the numbers. I think we will be at least 8-8 in conference play but I dont think we will win 10 games in noncon

[ACE]

This is the hardest team in the A-10 to assess and I frankly lack conviction in putting the Bills 11th. My placement is based on record in conference play. After I looked at the team’s A-10 sked, I had STL anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8 before ending up at 6-10 (same record as the team I place 10th).

Like Davidnark, though, I would not be surprised if the Bills finished higher. If I were a betting man, I would take the over (higher-place finish) for the reasons he cites. In fact, I made the very same points in the thread on the Bills at the A-10 board.

I would disagree, however, with the notion that I am underplaying the impact freshmen can have in today’s game. Certainly I remember the boost Lisch and Liddell gave to the Bills as frosh.

I just think most A-10 teams have plenty of talent in their upper classes returning. Generally speaking, if older players have raw talent roughly equal to that of younger players, experience wins out.

The X-factors, of course, are Majerus and the new arena. Majerus should be energized now that he has his own players to work with. If he still is a great coach – and I think he is – he’ll find a way to get the Bills to 8-8 or even 9-7 in conference play. The Chaif should also help in that regard.

Anything better than that would be an astonishing achievement, but after seeing what another great coach, Fran Dunphy, did in his second year at an A-10 program, I am unwilling to bet against RM.

Good write-up. I think it is fair considering all of the unknowns. I certainly think we can exceed it. Temple is a good example - two star players surrounded by a bunch of role players.

I think Cotto and Conklin hold the key to us rising above mediocrity. If they are the first two off the bench and consistently provide production, I think we can exceed expectations... Cotto providing another long range scoring threat and Conklin being a high energy, a little bit of everything frontcourt player, we'll have some fun.

[Taj79]

Count me in the bunch that thinks the review rings true. Everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that all these freshmen will be just as good if not better than what they were in high school. I'd like to think so but also know that more seem to fail then succeed. Or at least that is my perception at this point.

I like what WH did in terms of listing the losses in terms of departing players. There are some good and key questions to ask here .....

#1) Can Barry Eberhardt replace the 8.5 ppg and 5.4 rpg that Luke Meyer took with him? Also, what does playing slimmed down and against other positional players of his caliber do? Right now, I like the way we are lining up in that spot.

#2) Can Brett Thompson replace Husak's numbers? I see the calls of soft and have heard the questions of his competition level in high school, but at first blush, I'v egot to believe that #104 on Rivals can sure do better than a kid, albeit a great kid, who had to redshirt and was only recruited by Elon out of high school. And if not? Holy crap, there is a 6'9" kid on the bench with a write up that reads "is reported more advanced offensively than a typical youngster his age." Can't remember the last time we actually had such an option.

#3) A guy who was at best "a deep reserve" and "never learned to shoot" is being replaced by not one but two kids with higher rankings. Sure, a freshman at point will have tons of learning issues, but so did Aaron Hutchins, so did Drew Lavendar, so did Khalid El-Amin, and so on. And if it ain't Mitchell, much like Reed, we have Cotto. Roy's call for Lisch at the point is understandable but like Eberhardt above this, what is the result of having Kevin at his natural posiiton of shooting guard?

#4) Tommie goes to small forward. I know many have talked about him being the point but I have never bought into that one. I can't wait to see him as a 3. And Conklin is behind him.

#5) Sure, Danny Brown was an irreplacable part at the end of last year. But we have John, and Cassity, and Cotto, and Mitchell that should be better at least in terms of numbers. Not bad as I see it right now.

#6) An probably the mainest point if that is possible, is the depth and the ability to at least, right now on paper, be able to put guys at their more natural positions and go from there. Couple that into the fact that these new guys are all "Rick's kids" and the Billiken Kiddie Corps is much more exciting to me now then any of the two previous years were. I'm Forrest on the bus bench talking about my "box of chocolates" ---- we really don't know what we're going to get, do we?

I like the 11 rating. Let's keep it. Maybe we can use it as motivation, and as a way to surprise and sneak up on some people. I also like the closing reference to Dunphy and his Temple team. That team had two players, plain and simple. It was Christmas and Tyndale. But having them made the Spanish kid better, it made the little point guard better, and it made the freshman kid down low better. Having Ferguson and Calathesis made Nivans better. Let see how they do this year with senior parts no longer there.

Again, the college game is a guard's game. I like that we have two senior wingmen/guards. But hedge that excitement with the reality that these are freshmen -- 17- and 18-year old kids. With the amount of unknown and the inability to apply any formula of production expectations to them, the write-up makes sense.

Nice job, WH. Keep up the good work. I respect it.

[billiken_roy]

Count me in the bunch that thinks the review rings true. Everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that all these freshmen will be just as good if not better than what they were in high school. I'd like to think so but also know that more seem to fail then succeed. Or at least that is my perception at this point.

I like what WH did in terms of listing the losses in terms of departing players. There are some good and key questions to ask here .....

#1) Can Barry Eberhardt replace the 8.5 ppg and 5.4 rpg that Luke Meyer took with him? Also, what does playing slimmed down and against other positional players of his caliber do? Right now, I like the way we are lining up in that spot.

#2) Can Brett Thompson replace Husak's numbers? I see the calls of soft and have heard the questions of his competition level in high school, but at first blush, I'v egot to believe that #104 on Rivals can sure do better than a kid, albeit a great kid, who had to redshirt and was only recruited by Elon out of high school. And if not? Holy crap, there is a 6'9" kid on the bench with a write up that reads "is reported more advanced offensively than a typical youngster his age." Can't remember the last time we actually had such an option.

#3) A guy who was at best "a deep reserve" and "never learned to shoot" is being replaced by not one but two kids with higher rankings. Sure, a freshman at point will have tons of learning issues, but so did Aaron Hutchins, so did Drew Lavendar, so did Khalid El-Amin, and so on. And if it ain't Mitchell, much like Reed, we have Cotto. Roy's call for Lisch at the point is understandable but like Eberhardt above this, what is the result of having Kevin at his natural posiiton of shooting guard?

#4) Tommie goes to small forward. I know many have talked about him being the point but I have never bought into that one. I can't wait to see him as a 3. And Conklin is behind him.

#5) Sure, Danny Brown was an irreplacable part at the end of last year. But we have John, and Cassity, and Cotto, and Mitchell that should be better at least in terms of numbers. Not bad as I see it right now.

#6) An probably the mainest point if that is possible, is the depth and the ability to at least, right now on paper, be able to put guys at their more natural positions and go from there. Couple that into the fact that these new guys are all "Rick's kids" and the Billiken Kiddie Corps is much more exciting to me now then any of the two previous years were. I'm Forrest on the bus bench talking about my "box of chocolates" ---- we really don't know what we're going to get, do we?

I like the 11 rating. Let's keep it. Maybe we can use it as motivation, and as a way to surprise and sneak up on some people. I also like the closing reference to Dunphy and his Temple team. That team had two players, plain and simple. It was Christmas and Tyndale. But having them made the Spanish kid better, it made the little point guard better, and it made the freshman kid down low better. Having Ferguson and Calathesis made Nivans better. Let see how they do this year with senior parts no longer there.

Again, the college game is a guard's game. I like that we have two senior wingmen/guards. But hedge that excitement with the reality that these are freshmen -- 17- and 18-year old kids. With the amount of unknown and the inability to apply any formula of production expectations to them, the write-up makes sense.

Nice job, WH. Keep up the good work. I respect it.

taj, that might be about the most positive post you have made in awhile!

i wanted to point out i dont want lisch to be the point guard. i am hoping that mitchell and cotto and cassity take 100% of the point responsibility away from lisch. i only point out that the three freshmen are freshmen and if they all fail we at least have lisch to be the point. but i am not calling for lisch to be the point. if we have a point that can actually be a credible point guard that can create for his teamates and truly start the offense, and not just a bring it up the court guy as polk was more times than not, i predict that lisch and liddell will have monster seasons as wings.

it will be fun to watch the freshmen develop. it is the story line that any true basketball fan, regardless of whether they are a billiken fan or not, will be very interested watching unfold.

[Clock_Tower]

Count me in the bunch that thinks the review rings true. Everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that all these freshmen will be just as good if not better than what they were in high school. I'd like to think so but also know that more seem to fail then succeed. Or at least that is my perception at this point.

I like what WH did in terms of listing the losses in terms of departing players. There are some good and key questions to ask here .....

#1) Can Barry Eberhardt replace the 8.5 ppg and 5.4 rpg that Luke Meyer took with him? Also, what does playing slimmed down and against other positional players of his caliber do? Right now, I like the way we are lining up in that spot.

#2) Can Brett Thompson replace Husak's numbers? I see the calls of soft and have heard the questions of his competition level in high school, but at first blush, I'v egot to believe that #104 on Rivals can sure do better than a kid, albeit a great kid, who had to redshirt and was only recruited by Elon out of high school. And if not? Holy crap, there is a 6'9" kid on the bench with a write up that reads "is reported more advanced offensively than a typical youngster his age." Can't remember the last time we actually had such an option.

#3) A guy who was at best "a deep reserve" and "never learned to shoot" is being replaced by not one but two kids with higher rankings. Sure, a freshman at point will have tons of learning issues, but so did Aaron Hutchins, so did Drew Lavendar, so did Khalid El-Amin, and so on. And if it ain't Mitchell, much like Reed, we have Cotto. Roy's call for Lisch at the point is understandable but like Eberhardt above this, what is the result of having Kevin at his natural posiiton of shooting guard?

#4) Tommie goes to small forward. I know many have talked about him being the point but I have never bought into that one. I can't wait to see him as a 3. And Conklin is behind him.

#5) Sure, Danny Brown was an irreplacable part at the end of last year. But we have John, and Cassity, and Cotto, and Mitchell that should be better at least in terms of numbers. Not bad as I see it right now.

#6) An probably the mainest point if that is possible, is the depth and the ability to at least, right now on paper, be able to put guys at their more natural positions and go from there. Couple that into the fact that these new guys are all "Rick's kids" and the Billiken Kiddie Corps is much more exciting to me now then any of the two previous years were. I'm Forrest on the bus bench talking about my "box of chocolates" ---- we really don't know what we're going to get, do we?

I like the 11 rating. Let's keep it. Maybe we can use it as motivation, and as a way to surprise and sneak up on some people. I also like the closing reference to Dunphy and his Temple team. That team had two players, plain and simple. It was Christmas and Tyndale. But having them made the Spanish kid better, it made the little point guard better, and it made the freshman kid down low better. Having Ferguson and Calathesis made Nivans better. Let see how they do this year with senior parts no longer there.

Again, the college game is a guard's game. I like that we have two senior wingmen/guards. But hedge that excitement with the reality that these are freshmen -- 17- and 18-year old kids. With the amount of unknown and the inability to apply any formula of production expectations to them, the write-up makes sense.

Nice job, WH. Keep up the good work. I respect it.

Taj. Excellent post. Agree with you fully.

WH. Appreciate your analysis. No one spends more time with the numbers, stats, rosters than you after the season and, I believe, that you do, in fact, personally watch more A10 games than me or nearly anyone else.

With all that said, and despite your acknowledgment that you picked our Bills quite low during Liddell's and Lisch's first year, believe you are doing the same again this year. We will not contend for the title with Xavier, we will have our ups and downs but we will not be fighting to stay out of the basement and for spot at the A-10 Tournament. Why? For the same reasons stated by Taj above.

I don't care who GW, UD, UMass, etc. brings back this year on their rosters. All teams start the season with hopes and aspirations. The simple point is that last yearour Bills, while playing in a half-empty, cavernous building with no college atmosphere, with a new/first year coach implementing a completely different and difficult offense, with a 5'7" point guard who did not even warrant a defense by the other teams b/c he could neither shoot nor score (other teams defended 5 against our other 4), a 6'4" "power forward" who tried his best but could not physically match up at all with other A10 power forwards (not just the likes of Christmas and others who went off on us for season highs), with another Senior guard who played with 1 and 1/2 legs while recoving from major knee surgery and the worst center in the league who had no strength, experience or stamina to even run up and down the floor twice without an oxygen tank nearby, still manageda .500 record (7-9 in the league?).

We will be better this year and therefore deserve a higher rank than 11th. You really think only 3 teams will be worse than us? Not buying it, but I do enjoy the discussions.

[slufanskip]

Count me in the bunch that thinks the review rings true. Everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that all these freshmen will be just as good if not better than what they were in high school. I'd like to think so but also know that more seem to fail then succeed. Or at least that is my perception at this point.

I like what WH did in terms of listing the losses in terms of departing players. There are some good and key questions to ask here .....

#1) Can Barry Eberhardt replace the 8.5 ppg and 5.4 rpg that Luke Meyer took with him? Also, what does playing slimmed down and against other positional players of his caliber do? Right now, I like the way we are lining up in that spot.

#2) Can Brett Thompson replace Husak's numbers? I see the calls of soft and have heard the questions of his competition level in high school, but at first blush, I'v egot to believe that #104 on Rivals can sure do better than a kid, albeit a great kid, who had to redshirt and was only recruited by Elon out of high school. And if not? Holy crap, there is a 6'9" kid on the bench with a write up that reads "is reported more advanced offensively than a typical youngster his age." Can't remember the last time we actually had such an option.

#3) A guy who was at best "a deep reserve" and "never learned to shoot" is being replaced by not one but two kids with higher rankings. Sure, a freshman at point will have tons of learning issues, but so did Aaron Hutchins, so did Drew Lavendar, so did Khalid El-Amin, and so on. And if it ain't Mitchell, much like Reed, we have Cotto. Roy's call for Lisch at the point is understandable but like Eberhardt above this, what is the result of having Kevin at his natural posiiton of shooting guard?

#4) Tommie goes to small forward. I know many have talked about him being the point but I have never bought into that one. I can't wait to see him as a 3. And Conklin is behind him.

#5) Sure, Danny Brown was an irreplacable part at the end of last year. But we have John, and Cassity, and Cotto, and Mitchell that should be better at least in terms of numbers. Not bad as I see it right now.

#6) An probably the mainest point if that is possible, is the depth and the ability to at least, right now on paper, be able to put guys at their more natural positions and go from there. Couple that into the fact that these new guys are all "Rick's kids" and the Billiken Kiddie Corps is much more exciting to me now then any of the two previous years were. I'm Forrest on the bus bench talking about my "box of chocolates" ---- we really don't know what we're going to get, do we?

I like the 11 rating. Let's keep it. Maybe we can use it as motivation, and as a way to surprise and sneak up on some people. I also like the closing reference to Dunphy and his Temple team. That team had two players, plain and simple. It was Christmas and Tyndale. But having them made the Spanish kid better, it made the little point guard better, and it made the freshman kid down low better. Having Ferguson and Calathesis made Nivans better. Let see how they do this year with senior parts no longer there.

Again, the college game is a guard's game. I like that we have two senior wingmen/guards. But hedge that excitement with the reality that these are freshmen -- 17- and 18-year old kids. With the amount of unknown and the inability to apply any formula of production expectations to them, the write-up makes sense.

Nice job, WH. Keep up the good work. I respect it.

I don't know where he got that description of Willie Reed though "more advanced offensively" is not the Willie Reed I saw. The Willie Reed I saw had extreme athleticism, but was fundamentally poor. His range may extend to 12 feet if he has 12 ft long arms and can dunk fron there.

[WH]

I've always said my predicted order of finish is the LEAST valuable part of my previews. I simply do it because fans love to argue about it. Whenever I raise the idea of dropping order of finish, everyone on the A-10 board objects.

In any case, “worse” is a highly relative and subjective term, Clock Tower. I think the Bills could finish anywhere from 5th place to 12th place, assuming every A-10 team maintains good health. I think six or seven teams are clearly better than STL. I would lump the Bills in the second group of about five teams.

I err toward a cautious forecast for a simple reason. I have seen all of the returning players around the league – some quite a bit - but I have seen none of new Bills, save for some web clips.

What’s more, the current A-10 might have the most depth, top to bottom, I have ever seen. The talent level has especially improved among the lesser programs. Easy wins will be harder to come by.

As a result, one extra win, or loss, could be worth several spots in the standings.

My gut told me to rate STL higher, partly because I expect RickMa to outcoach some of his counterparts. Ultimately I went by my “book,” so to speak, valuing experience over youth. My book isn’t always right, but it’s tended to guide me well in the past when writing my previews.

On new players: By and large I rely on second-hand info of people who've seen them play, although I do peruse the video clips on the Web and see a few kids first-hand. In Reed's case, the chief analyst of PrepStars handbook saw him play a number of times and came away impressed with his offensive skills in summer camps. The big knock, as that analyst saw it, was Reed's physical immaturity, which contributed to difficulties on defense.

[Clock_Tower]

I've always said my predicted order of finish is the LEAST valuable part of my previews. I simply do it because fans love to argue about it. Whenever I raise the idea of dropping order of finish, everyone on the A-10 board objects.

In any case, “worse” is a highly relative and subjective term, Clock Tower. I think the Bills could finish anywhere from 5th place to 12th place, assuming every A-10 team maintains good health. I think six or seven teams are clearly better than STL. I would lump the Bills in the second group of about five teams.

I err toward a cautious forecast for a simple reason. I have seen all of the returning players around the league – some quite a bit - but I have seen none of new Bills, save for some web clips.

What’s more, the current A-10 might have the most depth, top to bottom, I have ever seen. The talent level has especially improved among the lesser programs. Easy wins will be harder to come by.

As a result, one extra win, or loss, could be worth several spots in the standings.

My gut told me to rate STL higher, partly because I expect RickMa to outcoach some of his counterparts. Ultimately I went by my “book,” so to speak, valuing experience over youth. My book isn’t always right, but it’s tended to guide me well in the past when writing my previews.

On new players: By and large I rely on second-hand info of people who've seen them play, although I do peruse the video clips on the Web and see a few kids first-hand. In Reed's case, the chief analyst of PrepStars handbook saw him play a number of times and came away impressed with his offensive skills in summer camps. The big knock, as that analyst saw it, was Reed's physical immaturity, which contributed to difficulties on defense.

WH

Understand that the A-10 has depth and alot of returning players. With our team, though, we return only 4 players and 1 (Paul Eckerle), of course, is basically a "walk-on" who has been given a scholarship. TL and KL, no doubt, are 2 of the better returning players in the A-10 and Barry Eberhard (now a Senior and former JUCO) most likely will play better in that he, like most JUCOs, now understands the speed, size and strenghts of the D-1 college game, and will be better prepared this year - by all accounts, he realizes this is his last year, he has slimmed down and has worked on his game. Outside of really these three (3) guys (all Seniors), the rest are talented Freshmen who, unlike last year, have size, speed and skills which our departing guys lacked last year. We really only need true production from 2 of the spots and yet we have 7 guys able to step in and play. Under these circumstances, I just don't think you can dismiss the likely contributions of our 7 incoming freshmen who will be given plenty of time to demonstrate their talent and skills.

I could be wrong as well. That, of course, is why they play the games and prove things on the Court rather than on paper. At the same time, we nearly beat X last year, we lost close and overtime games to UD, and we fell apart down the stretch as our guys tired and were finally exposed and we still won 7 games. This year, with more talent, a deeper bench and led by 3 Seniors, you have us regressing to winning only 6 games.

As to injuries, sure they can happer. Look at UD last year. At the same time, I assume your rankings are based upon all teams staying healthy, right?

Finally, if our team could win a few more games and improve upon the 11th place finish, I assume your rankings also allow room for teams, such as ours to underperform and win less games. If so, we could be 12th, 13th or 14th, right? Even if things don't go like we SLU fans hope and expect, I still don't see us finishing last or even next to last. The A-10 may be better and deeper, but its still not that deep.

Looking forward to the season.

[WH]

You make many excellent points, CT, and I even made some of them myself. (-:

I do allow for most teams to over or underperform, but in the case of STL, I see 11th as a worst-case scenario. I cannot imagine a healthy team with Lisch, Liddell, Majerus and a new arena finishing below Fordham, Duquesne or Bonaventure.

Can the Bills win more A-10 games than last year (7-9)? I am uncertain. Granted, the team is more talented, but younger players do make more mistakes and their defense is usually inconsistent.

Despite the mediocre talent on last year's team, the seniors did play like seniors. In other words, they played good D most of the time and didn't make as many mistakes. That goes a long way in explaining the 7 conference wins.

Whatever the case, it should be a exciting year for the Bills despite the youth. Recruiting is no longer a dead zone and the freshmen class is worthy of the buzz it's generated. Sure beats thinking about Ikeator, Dixon, Maguire, Knollmeyer, Relphorde, Mitchell, etc.

[Cowboy]

WH- I don't who you are, but your contributions and analysis are great stuff, imo

THANKS

[Clock_Tower]

You make many excellent points, CT, and I even made some of them myself. (-:

I do allow for most teams to over or underperform, but in the case of STL, I see 11th as a worst-case scenario. I cannot imagine a healthy team with Lisch, Liddell, Majerus and a new arena finishing below Fordham, Duquesne or Bonaventure.

Can the Bills win more A-10 games than last year (7-9)? I am uncertain. Granted, the team is more talented, but younger players do make more mistakes and their defense is usually inconsistent.

Despite the mediocre talent on last year's team, the seniors did play like seniors. In other words, they played good D most of the time and didn't make as many mistakes. That goes a long way in explaining the 7 conference wins.

Whatever the case, it should be a exciting year for the Bills despite the youth. Recruiting is no longer a dead zone and the freshmen class is worthy of the buzz it's generated. Sure beats thinking about Ikeator, Dixon, Maguire, Knollmeyer, Relphorde, Mitchell, etc.

You are definitely right about some of recent recruiting "misses". In highsight, it's either hard to believe (or maybe we just trying to forget), that each of these misses originally were the source of optomism and hope. Some on this Board still think Relephorde and Mitchell, for example, had things to offer and that RM was too quick to get rid of them. Maybe they will turn out good somewhere and maybe they won't. Still, when you write your analysis, you must hear from avid fans from each program saying "you're forgetting about abc" or "you're underestimating the impact of xyz." From our standpoint, these incoming 7 recruits are on a different level than your list of misses. If a decent percentage of these "unknown" come through, along with the 3 "known" Seniors we have, we should have a really nice season. Frankly, it's been quite awhile since we have had athletic depth.

Thanks again for all your analysis, thoughts and discussions.

[udfan]

Just to point out --- and not cast rocks as we seem to be in the same position this year as the following statement --- but Gregory went 14-1 against a somewhat weak schedule. I've made this statement before so its nothing new --- but no one will come to Dayton to play. Those are the facts. I think they got Pitt last year but that was pretty much it as I recall. Its just a fact of life at the mid-major level. We might expect the same with the 'Fetz as also has been noted. Now, I will give UD their due ---- they have played at Louisville, and against both Kentucky and Purdue at those dreaded "neutral" sites and have won so more power to them. I wish we did the same. But for the most part, nothing worthwhile ever comes into Dayton and they end up with an annual home schedule out of conference that is mush.

I always expect Dayton, even in a bad or average year, to finish the non-conference schedule with double-digit wins and two to four losses. That's an average year for them. On a good year, with two players like Roberts and Wright, you see 14 and 1. On really bad years, its a near-.500 record. The same might have been said of Rhoide Island last year. They peaked at what, #17, came into St. Louis and lost to us, and finished like near .500 in the conference.

I'm glad we don't hve Gregory, frankly. Not that impressed. But even if he was here, even if they had taken him over Brad, and he did the same thing record-wise as Brad, he'd be gone if Majerus was still the wild card in that particular card game. But that's pure speculation with no real answer in sight.

Actually, the non-conf RPI was very high last year, and that propelled UD to #14 in the rankings at the start of the A10 schedule. I'm a fan who really likes Gregory, but don't have much heartburn about his image outside of Dayton. Last year was the beginning of a sustained streak of success for him, IMO. If he leaves Dayton, he is good enough that it will be on his terms.

But onto Wh's predictions. I think the Bills will do a bit better than 11th in the league. I am eager to see all of the new talent on your roster. I'm not a huge fan of Majerus personally, but he is a fine coach. And Saint Louis might be my 2nd favorite school in the A10. I always root for you guys in league games unless it is against UD.

[Quality Is Job 1]

I don't know where he got that description of Willie Reed though "more advanced offensively" is not the Willie Reed I saw. The Willie Reed I saw had extreme athleticism, but was fundamentally poor. His range may extend to 12 feet if he has 12 ft long arms and can dunk fron there.

I don't know about that, Skip. Reed looked good knocking down a 15-footer from the baseline in the DJCF all-star game.

[slufanskip]

I don't know about that, Skip. Reed looked good knocking down a 15-footer from the baseline in the DJCF all-star game.

He knocked it down, but his form wasn't just bad, it was very bad. He will not shoot it consistently at this level without alot of work.

[brianstl]

WH provides some of the best analysis around. I can't argue with his assesment at all, but I think we will finish better. You just can't make that kind of judgement when you are ranking the whole confrence without seeing the kids play yourself. I am happy with the pick....the last few years the Bills always seem to do much better when picked low than they do when picked high.

[kevinfootes]

imo at least one of the freshmen bigs has to come through. maybe not as a scorer, but defensively and reboundingwise.

if mitchell is what we all think he will be, that will be great, however i wouldnt be afraid of having lisch be the point. but letting kevin stay on the wing will only make kevin more dangerous.

that all said, i dont think anyone can argue with wh at this point because of all the uncertainty all this inexperience brings. hopefully by xmas we have a view of how well we will compete in the a-10.

Agree with your thoughts regarding the bigs. I'm hopeful that whatever combination RM puts together in the middle can average something like 10 points and 7 boards per game...and take up some space in the middle on defense.

[davidnark]

Agree with your thoughts regarding the bigs. I'm hopeful that whatever combination RM puts together in the middle can average something like 10 points and 7 boards per game...and take up some space in the middle on defense.

For reference, last year our front court collectively put up more than 20 ppg and 10 rpg, and Luke Meyer alone put up over 8 ppg and 5 rpg. If you are referring to the center spot, last year we put up about a combined 13 ppg and 9 rpg from the center position. I sure hope you are setting your goals way too low.

[Taj79]

Just one other thing I'd like to point out in terms of the reality of the last few seasons ..... we (collectively as a group, not any one person) always seem to "miss" on one team or another. I think it was the Bills in their first year in the league that finished fourth and got a first round conference bye (although we all like to forget that season from about that point forward). The year after that, wasn't it La Salle with Steve Smith sneaking up on all and getting that first round bye? Who walked away with that last year? Richmond I believe. So there is always a surprise somewhere down the line that seems to come through all the expectations and overachieve. Will that be the Bills? Like this year's Phillies and their World Series slogan, "Why Can't Us?" We certainly can but alot has to bounce right. Still, I'm excited.

As for udfan, thanks for rooting for us. Unlike you, I see a down year for Gregory right now. The loss of Roberts will be nearly impossible to prepare for and make up. You lost your leading scorer, your leading point guard, your leader, and the team's heart. All in one player. I hear the same things about Warren (I think that's the pg) that I heard about a recent SLU grad that played point. Wright might be a monster and actually cover baseline to baseline in six steps. But who gets him the ball? Johnson was a nice small forward/second guard. But what happens now now that teams don't have to double and triple team Roberts? Little is pure garbage and lots of guys make success that way. Again, without Roberts, what does that mean. I know you all have a six foot seven point supposedly coming in ----- from Chicago, maybe --- but as I have reservations about our guys, so too do I have that with others. Again, we shall see. And while Dayton may have had the RPI you say it did, that was based solely on beating Louisville and Pitt ---- I know season ticket holders there who b*tch and moan every year about the home schedule. Its just a fact of life. Any team, even a top ranked bunch, will have their hands full going into Dayton and playing in December. Just won't happen.

I don't know nor necessarily agree with WH in the assessment that the talent level across the A10 is that much higher this year then last. We lost a lot in Forbes, Calathesis, Ferguson, the little guard at La Salle, Tyndale, Dunca, Roberts, Lavendar, Burrel, Dunston, and some others. Short of our freshmen, I can't say I know enough about the others to know enough about the freshmen replacements. Also I am unaware of any high profile transfers coming in, ala Lavendar from Oklahoma a few years back or Forbes from Virginia. We shall see.

[WH]

There will always be surprises - it's part of what makes sports so great. And there will be some more in the A-10 this year, to be sure. One reason is because the league is so deep. I didnt actually say the overall level of talent in the A-10 is much higher this year than last year, Taj. It may not be. I don't see any potentially great teams like last year's X squad, for instance.

What I meant is that the caliber of talent has risen leaguewide, especially at the bottom. The result is that the raw level of talent appears to be closer from 1-14 than anytime I can remember. Usually the A-10 has had 2-3 dogs every season. Not this year. The Bonnies have sharply upgraded their talent and Duquesne and Fordham both signed large and talented recruiting classes. The Duquesne class might even rival the Bills class.

That's not to say those teams won't lose lots of games in conference play. Someone has to. What I do hope is that the higher talent base leads to a strong noncon record and hence at-large bids.

As for Dayton, I would point out that UMass got BETTER after losing two A-10 First Team players, Rashaun Freeman and Stephane Lasme (also the conference POY two years ago). I think it's much easier to replace one guy than two or five. Roberts will be missed, but in some ways the team's over reliance on him held his teammates back.

I fully expect other Flyers to step up, just as many STL fans expect their frosh to step up. We'll see.

[Taj79]

Not vehemently disagreeing with you WH. Just pointing out, I guess, that playing the games makes things great. Discussion is always good, heavy, heated, whatever. Again, your stuff is much better than others. Many on here will agree that the others never seem to put any research into their items and that is certainly NOT your case. Again, thanks.

I can see what you are saying about the league, top to bottom. In the past, the Bonnies, La Salle, Duquesne, Fordham and Richmond all seemed lost cause more times than not. I can see where your "talent level across the league" comes from. And its a good point, well taken. In a roundabout way, that could bode ill will for some team, especially one like the Billikens. Anyone who's played any game knows what an advantage the head can be. It can also be a disadvantage. Momentum and confidence are two things you can't really measure. How many times do you hear someone talk about a team that's sitting in its lockerroom waiting. Waiting for the proverbial "oh, no, here it comes again?" Chants of B-O-H-I-C-A (which is military for Bend Over, Here It Comes Again -- visualize that) start to surface and that team is waiting for whatever goes wrong to go again. Its a mind set. Some say the Mets have it right now. Anyway, the mind can play tricks and confidence is easily lost. A roster dominated by 8 freshmen seems a ripe place for this attitude to settle. Lose one to someone you're not supposed to and lose another and the snowball is crashing down the mountain. Same can be said for the other way as well. This circumstance, given what you've said about very little room separating one team from another this coming year, and the whole season could be one fantastic jumble and journey. That's another exciting aspect of it all as the Madness kicks off.

A final note on the Flyers --- Dayton lost a lot. It was one guy, sure, but it was a lot of categories gone. If you will somewhat agree with me that the college game is more a guard's game, then I think replacing Roberts will be much more difficult than what Umass had to do with Freeman and Laslie. Neitehr of those two was an integral part of bringing the ball downcourt and initiating the offense. Hell, Laslie didn't even have an offense to speak of as I recall. But given the dearth of interior talent in the A10 from year to year, someone like him could dominate very easily given that he wasn't seeing reciprocal talent against him night after night. Even Ian and Husak neutralized those guys in the tourney in Atlantic City that year. I don't believe that was as much talent as it was equal physical size.

I'll get off that wagon and just wait and see how UD does. Again, I think they will break very fast in November and December. They always seem to. Plus no one comes to their place anyway. You saw an old post of mine --- double digit wins with about four losses is what I consider normal for them. Growing pains will show in a .500 record. And UD has never played all that well away from home most years. With the talent level as you say, another "wait-n-see" is in my books.

WH -- do you attend the tournament in AC at all? Just curious.

[udfan]

UD is losing Roberts, and that is big, but the talent level will be higher on this squad as a whole, IMO. We will be looking for a shooter or two in the group of newcomers, and that will determine a lot about how far we can go. Also, we need good pg play from London Warren, Rob Lowery or Stephen Thomas. But the rest of this team is extremely solid, IMO.

BG says we will be pressuring the ball more this year, hoping to lead to a faster tempo and some running.