Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dane Pound

Recruiting - 2020

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Clickclack said:

I'm just going to wait and see...this other wing coming is the kid that really has me excited. 

Is it official? Do we have a name? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are still 3 scholarships left if my count is correct. 2 if there is another wing signing this week as reported in this thread.

Team still has zero bigs after Hank and Lulka.

I am not a fan of a team that is constructed with 6-7 players for 2 floor positions (7th being walk-on Carter), 3 players for 1 position, and 4 players for 2 positions (assuming both remaining spots go to bigs).

Hopefully whatever wing that is supposed to sign this week is 6'6" or 6'7" so they can play the 4 as well or this team will have a lot of problems down low. Especially if Lulka isn't 100% or if there was another injury.

I would have to think that considering the current makeup, this would be an attractive situation for a big grad transfer or incoming freshman that wants to play right away.

Edited by godanesgo99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, godanesgo99 said:

I think there are still 3 scholarships left if my count is correct. 2 if there is another wing signing this week as reported in this thread.

Team still has zero bigs after Hank and Lulka.

I am not a fan of a team that is constructed with 6-7 players for 2 floor positions (7th being walk-on Carter), 3 players for 1 position, and 4 players for 2 positions (assuming both remaining spots go to bigs).

Hopefully whatever wing that is supposed to sign this week is 6'6" or 6'7" so they can play the 4 as well or this team will have a lot of problems down low.

you can't pigeon hole kids into positions... It's really 6 players for 3 positions. For instance Amica can play PG, but a bigger guard like Rizzuto,  Champion, Holmes, Horton can play 2 and 3 and in the case of Holmes even some 1. You'll see Hutch play 4 and 3. You'll see Lulka play 5 and 4. They needed to address penetration and ball handling with this class and add significant amount of athleticism. I think so far these areas of concern at least on paper look improved. You now have a plethora of guards and wings who can really attack the paint which should help keep defenses off Rizzuto and Healy. If I'm Rizzuto, I work my a$$ off shooting from long range. I have no concerns regarding Healy to be honest, that kid didn't forget to shoot, I see his value RISING on a roster constructed like this. He will run off screens all day long. 

 

What we really now need is some toughness and defense inside as well as ability to clean up glass and finish (read good hands, not Lulka and Hanks hands). Get two strong bigs that can really defend and rebound and we'll be OK. Albany HAS to go back to their roots, strong defensive identity, rebounding the hell out of the ball, solid (read not wild PG) play and at least one decent wing slasher. 

Edited by Clickclack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think wb will let horton and chuck champion go from the get go based on there talent and there is no reason to show loyalty to last years group. Any idea if sam shaffer is staying? He isnt in the top 3 at any position. Agreed team desparately needs two athletic bigs even if like vermonts all they can do is dunk and rebound, hank and lulka cannot play major minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bball2020 said:

I think wb will let horton and chuck champion go from the get go based on there talent and there is no reason to show loyalty to last years group. Any idea if sam shaffer is staying? He isnt in the top 3 at any position. Agreed team desparately needs two athletic bigs even if like vermonts all they can do is dunk and rebound, hank and lulka cannot play major minutes.

I'm not giving up on Lulka...that kid put in 10/7 as a freshman. Hanks unfortunately is probably limited in terms of growth but he's a good stop gap on defense in a reserve role. Sam is staying from what I hear. People forget he was injured most of last year but had a stellar HS career. He needs to stay healthy and I believe he can carve out a role for himself here. There was a play athletically he made in his limited minutes last year that caught my eye...not sure anyone else remembers it where he flew in for an offensive put back ( he missed it) but showed some major hops. He didn't commit out of HS to a good Salukis program because he couldn't play. His health has been a real issue...if that doesn't improve, then he won't play. I'm sure it sucks to be injured for going on 2 years. 

 

http://www.hudl.com/v/2CjY1s

Edited by Clickclack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Clickclack said:

you can't pigeon hole kids into positions... It's really 6 players for 3 positions. For instance Amica can play PG, but a bigger guard like Rizzuto,  Champion, Holmes, Horton can play 2 and 3 and in the case of Holmes even some 1. You'll see Hutch play 4 and 3. You'll see Lulka play 5 and 4. They needed to address penetration and ball handling with this class and add significant amount of athleticism. I think so far these areas of concern at least on paper look improved. You now have a plethora of guards and wings who can really attack the paint which should help keep defenses off Rizzuto and Healy. If I'm Rizzuto, I work my a$$ off shooting from long range. I have no concerns regarding Healy to be honest, that kid didn't forget to shoot, I see his value RISING on a roster constructed like this. He will run off screens all day long. 

 

What we really now need is some toughness and defense inside as well as ability to clean up glass and finish (read good hands, not Lulka and Hanks hands). Get two strong bigs that can really defend and rebound and we'll be OK. Albany HAS to go back to their roots, strong defensive identity, rebounding the hell out of the ball, solid (read not wild PG) play and at least one decent wing slasher. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly, with one exception. I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to roster formation. Have 2 players or even 4 that are sized for the 4 and the 5 just doesn't work if you want to focus on defense and rebounding. As this roster sits now, I see more of the same thing we have seen the last few years: guard oriented chuck the 3. 

The players you put at the 3 spot are the ones that are guards, but are bigger than traditional guards and not quite big enough to bang down low. Lamb at 6'6" was really undersized as a 4 in the AE. He was strong enough to do it, but in all reality was a 3. Travis Charles was great for us, and played the 4 ok, but he was undersized for the position as well. He was great because his 10-12 footer was deadly, but he was overmatched defending most 4s. He was really a 3. I see Hutch the same way. Play him at the 4 and we lose a lot rebounding and defensively. He might do ok himself, but I bet the team rebounding and team defensive rating is down when he is in that role. 

Get me a 6'8" athlete for the 4 and a Kirsten Zoellner clone for the 5, then we can talk about what players slotted for the 3 can move to the 4 when needed, and what 4s can move to the 5 when needed. What 2s could play the 3. Etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, godanesgo99 said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly, with one exception. I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to roster formation. Have 2 players or even 4 that are sized for the 4 and the 5 just doesn't work if you want to focus on defense and rebounding. As this roster sits now, I see more of the same thing we have seen the last few years: guard oriented chuck the 3. 

The players you put at the 3 spot are the ones that are guards, but are bigger than traditional guards and not quite big enough to bang down low. Lamb at 6'6" was really undersized as a 4 in the AE. He was strong enough to do it, but in all reality was a 3. Travis Charles was great for us, and played the 4 ok, but he was undersized for the position as well. He was great because his 10-12 footer was deadly, but he was overmatched defending most 4s. He was really a 3. I see Hutch the same way. Play him at the 4 and we lose a lot rebounding and defensively. He might do ok himself, but I bet the team rebounding and team defensive rating is down when he is in that role. 

Get me a 6'8" athlete for the 4 and a Kirsten Zoellner clone for the 5, then we can talk about what players slotted for the 3 can move to the 4 when needed, and what 4s can move to the 5 when needed. What 2s could play the 3. Etc.

Good post except I don't agree with the chuck and duck the 3 assessment. Last year they had no one to drive the ball other then Clark. I think you'll agree this roster at least on paper looks very different in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Clickclack said:

but a bigger guard like Rizzuto,  Champion, Holmes, Horton can play 2 and 3 and in the case of Holmes even some 1. You'll see Hutch play 4 and 3. You'll see Lulka play 5 and 4. 

Did we sign Holmes? Is that the other player being mentioned lately as someone signing this week?

Share this post


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

Good post except I don't agree with the chuck and duck the 3 assessment. Last year they had no one to drive the ball other then Clark. I think you'll agree this roster at least on paper looks very different in that regard. 

I guess that is my assessment simply because there is no capable depth at the big position. Penetrate and dish is great, but if the other team isn't concerned about that dish going to a big for a dunk or layup, or assumes the pass will go through the bigs hands, the other teams big can converge on the penetrating guard. This ends up in a circus shot layup, blocked shot, turnover, or a dish out for a 3.

Clark and Nichols both attacked and penetrated. We gave them crap on this board for desicion making, but in reality, that's really all they could do. The other teams converged on them forcing the silly shots and bad passes because there weren't real capable bigs that the other team was concerned with offensively.

Teams need balance on the floor. They need the other team to be concerned with at least 4 of the 5 guys on the floor, if not all 5 or penetrating will lead to what you saw from Clark and Nichols.

Edited by godanesgo99
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, godanesgo99 said:

I guess that is my assessment simply because there is no capable depth at the big position. Penetrate and dish is great, but if the other team isn't concerned about that dish going to a big for a dunk or layup, or assumes the pass will go through the bigs hands, the other teams big can converge on the penetrating guard. This ends up in a circus shot layup, blocked shot, turnover, or a dish out for a 3.

Clark and Nichols both attacked and penetrated. We gave them crap on this board for desicion making, but in reality, that's really all they could do. The other teams converged on them forcing the silly shots and bad passes because there weren't real capable bigs that the other team was concerned with offensively.

Teams need balance on the floor. They need the other team to be concerned with at last 4 of the 5 guys on the floor, if not all 5 or penetrating will lead to what you saw from Clark and Nichols.

Agreed...that's why these two scholarships left are so critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ctdanes said:

So does this leave us with one open scholarship for a big?

2

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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...