Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
RiseAndGrind

Mike Lewis going Pro

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

We have much less coming back than 4 of the teams ahead of us and two of the teams right behind us.

Ok. What do the other teams have coming in? I also felt we underachieved until the end. Roy’s comment was we would be lucky to be north of 500. Without seeing our schedule I will be disappointed if we don’t win 20. Jordan and French are 2 of the best players in the league. As I said they need to clean up their throws and I believe they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost our two leading scorers and our only big behind French.  One of those players gave a Justin-Love level performance the last 10 games. Four of the teams ahead of us return practically everybody. Same with two of the teams right behind us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, willie said:

Ok. What do the other teams have coming in? I also felt we underachieved until the end. Roy’s comment was we would be lucky to be north of 500. Without seeing our schedule I will be disappointed if we don’t win 20. Jordan and French are 2 of the best players in the league. As I said they need to clean up their throws and I believe they will. 

I really hope you are right on the FT.  Really, really, really.  But both regressed this past season, French from 36.4% to 34.9%, and Goodwin from a nice 69.1% to 51.1%.  If they can clean up their free throws, why didn't they do it this past off season?   Whatever they did, it didn't work.  

I would have been happy with French at 50% coming into last season.  Now, 40% this next season would be a nice uplift.  Goodwin getting back to 69% that he hit his freshman season would be wonderful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect we'll have our growing pains. But one thing we've seen from Ford's 3 seasons the team gets better as the season goes on. I don't think B'roys projection of .500 is out of bounds. But hopefully we get St B type performances from our FR. And recall I don't think St B's came on until A10 play started. Keeping my fingers crossed. If JGood and French were guys who averaged around 15 ppg, I'd be a lot more optimistic. But from what we know today we're gonna be offensively challenged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

I really hope you are right on the FT.  Really, really, really.  But both regressed this past season, French from 36.4% to 34.9%, and Goodwin from a nice 69.1% to 51.1%.  If they can clean up their free throws, why didn't they do it this past off season?   Whatever they did, it didn't work.  

I would have been happy with French at 50% coming into last season.  Now, 40% this next season would be a nice uplift.  Goodwin getting back to 69% that he hit his freshman season would be wonderful.  

 

36 minutes ago, slu72 said:

I fully expect we'll have our growing pains. But one thing we've seen from Ford's 3 seasons the team gets better as the season goes on. I don't think B'roys projection of .500 is out of bounds. But hopefully we get St B type performances from our FR. And recall I don't think St B's came on until A10 play started. Keeping my fingers crossed. If JGood and French were guys who averaged around 15 ppg, I'd be a lot more optimistic. But from what we know today we're gonna be offensively challenged. 

Remember "the dreaded sophomore slump."  I think Goodwin and French will both turn some heads in 2019-20.  They're among the conference's top 10-15 players.  (Heck, French was 3rd team this past season.)

As for Goodwin's off-season, remember that a year ago he was dealing with some major, life-altering off-the-court turmoil, and he didn't get to work with the coaches during the spring.  That had an effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

We lost our two leading scorers and our only big behind French.  One of those players gave a Justin-Love level performance the last 10 games. Four of the teams ahead of us return practically everybody. Same with two of the teams right behind us.

I think a four day run at the end of last season has caused many people to think we were much better than we actually were last season.  We finished outside the top 100 in most computer ranking last season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I think a four day run at the end of last season has caused many people to think we were much better than we actually were last season.  We finished outside the top 100 in most computer ranking last season.  

I’ll take sub 100 and tourney every year. Just sayin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RiseAndGrind said:

I’ll take sub 100 and tourney every year. Just sayin 

I don't think a top 100 earns you one Red Cent, but a dance invite gets your program a bundle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ACE said:

This is an interesting topic that probably deserves its own thread. I am in favor of signed players being immediately eligible ONLY if a coaching change is prompted by a coach getting fired.

BUT, If a coach is hired away to a "better" job, I don't want to see those signed players be allowed to leave and be immediately eligible. Under that scenario, the school that lost its coach (typically a mid-major) potentially gets screwed twice. The school could have done everything right, treating their coach well and playing by the rules, only to have a power school come in and steal their coach AND players.  

Yes, probably deserves its own thread. I am more concerned about the players than the schools, though. This scenario also leaves too much ambiguity about what it is to be fired. A lot of coaches are forced to resign, for example. I'd hate to be a player stuck somewhere because of a technicality like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brianstl said:

I think a four day run at the end of last season has caused many people to think we were much better than we actually were last season.  We finished outside the top 100 in most computer ranking last season.  

People are way too optimistic about this upcoming season. If we can finish above .500 in the A10 and grab an NIT bid, that would be a successful season. This is really a development year, and hopefully we're in a better position to compete for a Tournament bid again the following year.

VCU, Davidson, Dayton, URI, St. Bonaventure, and Duquesne are all probably going to be better than us. We're in a peer group with Richmond and Mason, the 7th-9th place range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have five returning players 3 are proven significant contributors at a high level.  I have high expectation for Hankton and Jacobs, both have a lot to prove. When last season first started I could not wait to see Jacobs on the floor and I was disappointed.  Jacobs showed nothing last season and Hankton showed glimpses that he might be a pretty good player.  Both players now understand what it takes to be a successful college player and I think both will pick up their game and be a big part of the success of our team especially when the team leaders are French and Goodwin telling you to work harder like Thatch.

I really think the newcomers will contribute and make our team deep with the exception of the 4 and 5 position and that will probably have players playing out of position and that is where I see the problem.

I measure this team as being successful by hitting the following milestones, winning record in conference and non conference, and winning at least 20 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CBFan said:

We have five returning players 3 are proven significant contributors at a high level.  I have high expectation for Hankton and Jacobs, both have a lot to prove. When last season first started I could not wait to see Jacobs on the floor and I was disappointed.  Jacobs showed nothing last season and Hankton showed glimpses that he might be a pretty good player.  Both players now understand what it takes to be a successful college player and I think both will pick up their game and be a big part of the success of our team especially when the team leaders are French and Goodwin telling you to work harder like Thatch.

I really think the newcomers will contribute and make our team deep with the exception of the 4 and 5 position and that will probably have players playing out of position and that is where I see the problem.

I measure this team as being successful by hitting the following milestones, winning record in conference and non conference, and winning at least 20 games.

I like Thatch a lot but I think it's premature to call him a "proven significant contributor at a high level" offensively. Defensively, absolutely. His offensive numbers as a freshman weren't great, though: 4.3 points on a slashline of .359/.269/.611. I think he can get there - he just isn't proven.

Goodwin and French are the only proven players on the roster and both of them have major things to work on.

We need Perkins' major production at SWIC to translate.

We have a lot of freshmen with complementary skill sets but in addition to being unproven, all of them have things we know they need to work on, as well.

The newcomers have no choice but to be contributors; we have 5 returners, and I'd say 2.5 of them are "proven".

This is going to be a fun, interesting, frustrating, exciting season. It's all about development, though. We need to remove the burden of expectations even though this team just made the Tournament a few months ago. 20 games would be a pleasant surprise to me, but it probably would mean that the A10 isn't as good as we think it's going to be and that our non-conference schedule is also pretty weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before our run in the conference tournament, we'd only won 19 games. If a team that loses it's top 2 scorers, including the best defender in the league, and plays a rotation where 50% of the players have never played D-1 ball manages to win 20 games, they've had a helluva season. 

If the conference is as tough as we expect it to be, Coach Ford would be the obvious choice for Coach of the Year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pistol said:

I like Thatch a lot but I think it's premature to call him a "proven significant contributor at a high level" offensively. Defensively, absolutely. His offensive numbers as a freshman weren't great, though: 4.3 points on a slashline of .359/.269/.611. I think he can get there - he just isn't proven.

Goodwin and French are the only proven players on the roster and both of them have major things to work on.

We need Perkins' major production at SWIC to translate.

We have a lot of freshmen with complementary skill sets but in addition to being unproven, all of them have things we know they need to work on, as well.

The newcomers have no choice but to be contributors; we have 5 returners, and I'd say 2.5 of them are "proven".

This is going to be a fun, interesting, frustrating, exciting season. It's all about development, though. We need to remove the burden of expectations even though this team just made the Tournament a few months ago. 20 games would be a pleasant surprise to me, but it probably would mean that the A10 isn't as good as we think it's going to be and that our non-conference schedule is also pretty weak.

Unfortunately I am with you on your assessment.  I'll be happy with a 0.500 finish.  Losing two who have been with the program for 3 years, plus 2 other NCAA experienced players is a hit.  You look at most of the top teams in the NCAA (minus the one and doner's) and they all are heavy on experience.  We all remember how long it took this team to mesh.  Gordon and French never did, and it took Isabell 3/4 of the season to fit in.  I'm not sure if Goodwin was ever comfortable with his continuously modified role.

I would like to see Thatch improve his short game.  We need another penetrator who can finish at the bucket. He hit for 44% of his 2's, but only took 2 of those shots per game.  The three pointer should improve. If he had made two more of his 67 attempts, he would have been at a Wiley level 30%.  Thatch hit 41% of his three's in HS, but that was HS.  Thatch started out 2 of 17 from the Arc in the first 8 games.  That is 12%.  So he finished the bulk of the schedule at 32%.  That would be just fine for a full year.

For me, Hankton and Jacobs get mulligans on last season and I'm looking at them as incoming freshmen.  Everyone has a prediction on each newcomer, but some will work out and some will wash out.  I'll assume Ford will bring in another body, maybe a 'difference maker' or maybe a bench player.  I'm also guessing that Ford didn't totally fold his tent on recruiting as Lewis' eligibility was never a sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pistol said:

Yes, probably deserves its own thread. I am more concerned about the players than the schools, though. This scenario also leaves too much ambiguity about what it is to be fired. A lot of coaches are forced to resign, for example. I'd hate to be a player stuck somewhere because of a technicality like that.

As a SLU fan, I am most concerned about protecting the interests of mid-major schools, which continue to get squeezed on things like scheduling and the ever changing criteria for earning NCAA at-large bids. Allowing players to leave with no restriction each time a coach gets hired away to a P5 school would further cripple mid-major schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ACE said:

As a SLU fan, I am most concerned about protecting the interests of mid-major schools, which continue to get squeezed on things like scheduling and the ever changing criteria for earning NCAA at-large bids. Allowing players to leave with no restriction each time a coach gets hired away to a P5 school would further cripple mid-major schools.

It would also allow players from power conference schools to transfer down a level or two.

It's basically the same way it is now - players transfer in both directions - just without a one-year sit period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pistol said:

It would also allow players from power conference schools to transfer down a level or two.

It's basically the same way it is now - players transfer in both directions - just without a one-year sit period.

And there are a lot more players transferring down than there are transferring up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pistol said:

It would also allow players from power conference schools to transfer down a level or two.

It's basically the same way it is now - players transfer in both directions - just without a one-year sit period.

The difference is that P5 programs are much more likely to hire coaches from the mid-major level. Usually the only time a "mid-major" program gets a former P5 coach is on the rebound... after he has been fired.

Mid major coaches who put together outstanding recruiting classes can then leverage that into landing P5 jobs... you hire me, my recruits become free agents and can instantly come along with me to my new school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pistol said:

I like Thatch a lot but I think it's premature to call him a "proven significant contributor at a high level" offensively. Defensively, absolutely. His offensive numbers as a freshman weren't great, though: 4.3 points on a slashline of .359/.269/.611. I think he can get there - he just isn't proven.

Goodwin and French are the only proven players on the roster and both of them have major things to work on.

We need Perkins' major production at SWIC to translate.

We have a lot of freshmen with complementary skill sets but in addition to being unproven, all of them have things we know they need to work on, as well.

The newcomers have no choice but to be contributors; we have 5 returners, and I'd say 2.5 of them are "proven".

This is going to be a fun, interesting, frustrating, exciting season. It's all about development, though. We need to remove the burden of expectations even though this team just made the Tournament a few months ago. 20 games would be a pleasant surprise to me, but it probably would mean that the A10 isn't as good as we think it's going to be and that our non-conference schedule is also pretty weak.

This season kind of has the feel of the Lisch-Liddell/Mitchell-Reed-Conklin overlap season.  Hopefully without a 20-point game.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ACE said:

The difference is that P5 programs are much more likely to hire coaches from the mid-major level. Usually the only time a "mid-major" program gets a former P5 coach is on the rebound... after he has been fired.

Mid major coaches who put together outstanding recruiting classes can then leverage that into landing P5 jobs... you hire me, my recruits become free agents and can instantly come along with me to my new school.

And the players in that new school could transfer downward or laterally. Equilibrium will be found.

Schools at our level don't like to be stepping stones. I get it. But coaches get fired more quickly a level up from us. There would be no shortage of opportunities for power conference players.

By the way, Dayton has four transfers coming online this season - from Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and Chattanooga. Our recent transfers have been from Maryland, Drexel/Mizzou, Seton Hall, Michigan State, Rutgers (and I'm not sure we can count the ones from UCF, USF, Nevada/Duquesne, and Boston College, but we did land players from those schools). I don't think instant eligibility from coaching changes would change this dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

Unfortunately I am with you on your assessment.  I'll be happy with a 0.500 finish.  Losing two who have been with the program for 3 years, plus 2 other NCAA experienced players is a hit.  You look at most of the top teams in the NCAA (minus the one and doner's) and they all are heavy on experience.  We all remember how long it took this team to mesh.  Gordon and French never did, and it took Isabell 3/4 of the season to fit in.  I'm not sure if Goodwin was ever comfortable with his continuously modified role.

I would like to see Thatch improve his short game.  We need another penetrator who can finish at the bucket. He hit for 44% of his 2's, but only took 2 of those shots per game.  The three pointer should improve. If he had made two more of his 67 attempts, he would have been at a Wiley level 30%.  Thatch hit 41% of his three's in HS, but that was HS.  Thatch started out 2 of 17 from the Arc in the first 8 games.  That is 12%.  So he finished the bulk of the schedule at 32%.  That would be just fine for a full year.

For me, Hankton and Jacobs get mulligans on last season and I'm looking at them as incoming freshmen.  Everyone has a prediction on each newcomer, but some will work out and some will wash out.  I'll assume Ford will bring in another body, maybe a 'difference maker' or maybe a bench player.  I'm also guessing that Ford didn't totally fold his tent on recruiting as Lewis' eligibility was never a sure thing.

Great points.  I think next year's team is very talented.  I will defer to others about the strength of Conference but I think this team has the potential to surprise some folks.

And that guess was spot-on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Box and Won said:

This season kind of has the feel of the Lisch-Liddell/Mitchell-Reed-Conklin overlap season.  Hopefully without a 20-point game.   

So the 20-point game actually came in 2007-2008, the year before Mitchell, Reed, and Conklin showed up. But we were still ugly in the season you're talking about, 2008-2009. We scored in the 40s 5 times that season - 6 if you include UMSL, which we won 48-33. Those two seasons were all about Majerus teaching his fundamentals and not at all concerned about wins and losses.

Somehow it was the following season, 2009-2010, when we went to Richmond and scored 36 on only 2-pointers - no made FTs or 3-pointers. I'm pretty sure Ken Pomeroy said it was the only instance he could find since the 3-point line was created (although I bet there are a couple other ones hiding out somewhere in the early 3-point line days). We were pretty decent that year, too - that was the CBI run and we finished 23-13.

I can't get over the amount of strangely bad games we've had to endure over the years, across all coaching eras.

I'm not heading into this season with high expectations. With a team this young and inexperienced, we're going to have some rough nights. It's all about development and setting us up for the following season and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pistol said:

And the players in that new school could transfer downward or laterally. Equilibrium will be found.

Schools at our level don't like to be stepping stones. I get it. But coaches get fired more quickly a level up from us. There would be no shortage of opportunities for power conference players.

By the way, Dayton has four transfers coming online this season - from Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and Chattanooga. Our recent transfers have been from Maryland, Drexel/Mizzou, Seton Hall, Michigan State, Rutgers (and I'm not sure we can count the ones from UCF, USF, Nevada/Duquesne, and Boston College, but we did land players from those schools). I don't think instant eligibility from coaching changes would change this dynamic.

But I'm talking about the increased likelihood of players coming along with the coach from the mid-major to the new P5 school he was hired to.

Imagine a program like Nebraska or Alabama, on the lookout for a quick rebuild. They look to the mid-major level and see which coaches have put together the best recruiting classes.

Example, Travis Ford signs a couple of Top 100 recruits in the same recruiting class (let's say Goodwin and French). A P5 school comes along and makes the coach an offer he can't refuse - not so much because they think the coach is great, but rather because of the possibility that the coach could bring some high level immediately eligible players along with him. Coaches will be able to more easily leverage strong recruiting classes at one school, into a better job at another.

I think a distinction needs to be made in how the coaching change occurred. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ACE said:

But I'm talking about the increased likelihood of players coming along with the coach from the mid-major to the new P5 school he was hired to.

Imagine a program like Nebraska or Alabama, on the lookout for a quick rebuild. They look to the mid-major level and see which coaches have put together the best recruiting classes.

Example, Travis Ford signs a couple of Top 100 recruits in the same recruiting class (let's say Goodwin and French). A P5 school comes along and makes the coach an offer he can't refuse - not so much because they think the coach is great, but rather because of the possibility that the coach could bring some high level immediately eligible players along with him. Coaches will be able to more easily leverage strong recruiting classes at one school, into a better job at another.

I think a distinction needs to be made in how the coaching change occurred. 

We're fundamentally going to disagree here. "How the coaching change occurred" depends on who you ask, and again, I never want the NCAA to have to rule on an ambiguous situation if it can be avoided.

Plus, as another example to go along with yours above, a coach might be fired from a power program - like Oklahoma State - and be hired a level down - like Saint Louis - and be able to bring his players from OSU along. So while the outgoing coach might take a bunch of promising recruits with him, the incoming coach might be able to bring a higher level of recruit along with him, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...