Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
- AGGIEinIOWA
- Posts: 3493
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 10:50 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 1631 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
My thoughts ...for what they are worth:
- At least to start with, I don't see any of the new guys usurping the returners. I think Bean starts at the 4. I expect a significant step forward in both his and Brock's games this year. They started playing with more and more confidence towards the end of last season. So did Brito and Abel. The game is starting to slow down for them and they are thinking less and being more aggressive and they know what Coach Smith expects. Coach Smith did a great job of building the confidence and showing trust in those 4 last season and it will pay dividends this year.
- I see Grootfraam as more of an energy guy coming off the bench and being a bull in a china shop. I also don't see Alphonso logging major minutes at the 4 except when we go small. He seems like more of a 3 to me so I can see him backing up Brock. Alphonso may not be quite the threat from the 3 as Brock but his well rounded all around game will be valuable.
- Liam and Sean are future stars in my opinion but will need some time to get stronger and catch up to the speed of the game. I think we have the luxury of easing them in a bit. If we get more out of the Juco guys than we expect, we may be able to redshirt Liam and let him bulk up for a year. Sean could get some minutes at the 3 guard/wing spots. If Liam is truly too good to redshirt, I see him taking minutes as both a stretch 4 and at the 3.
- If Queta comes back, I don't see Stall seeing the floor much as I see Kuba being Neemis primary back up. If Queta leaves, Stall will play a bigger role and split time with Kuba. I'm cheering for Stall to come in and surprise some people though the odds are against him due to injuries.
- I agree with a lot of the posters on here. I think we need another point guard, even if it's just someone to red shirt and groom for the future. Sam and Diogo could very well back up Abel but they are both seniors and it'd be nice to get another PG into the system now. Perhaps they are thinking of Bairstow as a PG but I see him more as our future SG when Sam leaves..
GO AGS!
- At least to start with, I don't see any of the new guys usurping the returners. I think Bean starts at the 4. I expect a significant step forward in both his and Brock's games this year. They started playing with more and more confidence towards the end of last season. So did Brito and Abel. The game is starting to slow down for them and they are thinking less and being more aggressive and they know what Coach Smith expects. Coach Smith did a great job of building the confidence and showing trust in those 4 last season and it will pay dividends this year.
- I see Grootfraam as more of an energy guy coming off the bench and being a bull in a china shop. I also don't see Alphonso logging major minutes at the 4 except when we go small. He seems like more of a 3 to me so I can see him backing up Brock. Alphonso may not be quite the threat from the 3 as Brock but his well rounded all around game will be valuable.
- Liam and Sean are future stars in my opinion but will need some time to get stronger and catch up to the speed of the game. I think we have the luxury of easing them in a bit. If we get more out of the Juco guys than we expect, we may be able to redshirt Liam and let him bulk up for a year. Sean could get some minutes at the 3 guard/wing spots. If Liam is truly too good to redshirt, I see him taking minutes as both a stretch 4 and at the 3.
- If Queta comes back, I don't see Stall seeing the floor much as I see Kuba being Neemis primary back up. If Queta leaves, Stall will play a bigger role and split time with Kuba. I'm cheering for Stall to come in and surprise some people though the odds are against him due to injuries.
- I agree with a lot of the posters on here. I think we need another point guard, even if it's just someone to red shirt and groom for the future. Sam and Diogo could very well back up Abel but they are both seniors and it'd be nice to get another PG into the system now. Perhaps they are thinking of Bairstow as a PG but I see him more as our future SG when Sam leaves..
GO AGS!
- These users thanked the author AGGIEinIOWA for the post (total 2):
- sneed • Pacobag
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19233
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23202 times
- Been thanked: 14831 times
- Contact:
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
I like what you have to say. I'd like to just add a bit to each one.AGGIEinIOWA wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 8:27 amMy thoughts ...for what they are worth:
- At least to start with, I don't see any of the new guys usurping the returners. I think Bean starts at the 4. I expect a significant step forward in both his and Brock's games this year. They started playing with more and more confidence towards the end of last season. So did Brito and Abel. The game is starting to slow down for them and they are thinking less and being more aggressive and they know what Coach Smith expects. Coach Smith did a great job of building the confidence and showing trust in those 4 last season and it will pay dividends this year.
- I see Grootfraam as more of an energy guy coming off the bench and being a bull in a china shop. I also don't see Alphonso logging major minutes at the 4 except when we go small. He seems like more of a 3 to me so I can see him backing up Brock. Alphonso may not be quite the threat from the 3 as Brock but his well rounded all around game will be valuable.
- Liam and Sean are future stars in my opinion but will need some time to get stronger and catch up to the speed of the game. I think we have the luxury of easing them in a bit. If we get more out of the Juco guys than we expect, we may be able to redshirt Liam and let him bulk up for a year. Sean could get some minutes at the 3 guard/wing spots. If Liam is truly too good to redshirt, I see him taking minutes as both a stretch 4 and at the 3.
- If Queta comes back, I don't see Stall seeing the floor much as I see Kuba being Neemis primary back up. If Queta leaves, Stall will play a bigger role and split time with Kuba. I'm cheering for Stall to come in and surprise some people though the odds are against him due to injuries.
- I agree with a lot of the posters on here. I think we need another point guard, even if it's just someone to red shirt and groom for the future. Sam and Diogo could very well back up Abel but they are both seniors and it'd be nice to get another PG into the system now. Perhaps they are thinking of Bairstow as a PG but I see him more as our future SG when Sam leaves..
GO AGS!
Thought 1: Highly doubtful Bean is the starter next year. The guys that are coming in are not being thought of as highly as they should.
Thought 2: Grootfaam could absolutely start for us next year. Again, with the torn ACL no one outside of the locker room has seen what he is capable of. Anderson basically missed an entire year of JuCo ball and the coaching staff is going to apply for a medical redshirt to get a year of eligibility back for him. That would make him a sophomore instead of a junior.
Thought 3: Liam McChesney is definitely a stretch 4 but Sean Bairstow can play the 2-4 spots and can effectively play the 1 IF he needed to.
Thought 4: In the event that Queta remains in the draft you will see us snag a grad transfer big man than can come in a play right away. Right now, I don't think a grad transfer wants to come in and risk having to spend his senior year backing up Neemias.
Thought 5: I'm losing that argument. I don't see us adding a point guard that will play next season. When I have reason to believe that has changed, I'll say so.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
I don't disagree with that, but it is virtually impossible to find a five-tool player to plug in at this point. I'd love a player who can do three or four of those things well -- particularly if two of them are passing and shooting.brownjeans wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 12:37 amWhat we need: Players who can drive, pass, defend, rebound, and shoot
What we don't need: A "PG" who dominates the ball using tons of possessions pounding the ball while the best group of players USU has had in years watches.
Next year's team looks amazingly good. Lots of skilled players. If we defend and share the ball, we'll win a lot of games.
While I was extremely pleasantly surprised with Porter's play last season, he did lead the team in turnover percentage by a fairly wide margin (okay, Fakira, Ainge, and Alek Johnson were actually worse, but they were bench players for a reason). His TOV% was a whopping 23.2% (by comparison, turnover machine Tauriawn Knight's TOV% was 20.8%; Miller was 7.7%, Merrill was 10.0%). He also assisted on a lower percentage of teammates' FGs than Merrill while more than doubling his TOV%. Nor was he a good rebounder: 2nd worst on the team in terms of RB% ahead of only Brock Miller. He was also ahead of only Fakira, Johnson, and Miller in Defensive Rating. So I wouldn't characterize Porter as someone who can drive, pass, defend, rebound, and shoot. I don't say any of this by way of complaint; simply to point out that finding a player to fill the primary distributor role who can do all five well is not as simple as saying this is the type of player we want.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
-
- Posts: 420
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:26 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Logan would be a great place to coach. I follow 247 boards for several other schools and see the moderators / writers objectively assess coaches and programs. I appreciate your information and efforts (which by definition of 247 is for profit) but am surprised by the apologist approach to supporting coaching. The idea that we can’t get better is a bit disheartening. I hope you and the coaches are right...Would be disappointed to see lack at athleticism at the point be exploited next year:aggies22 wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 6:53 pmThe coaching staff is VERY particular about who they offer the opportunity to play basketball at Utah State to. Suppose none of the point guards that all of you are clamoring for don't fit the standard that the coaching staff holds their players to? Should they bring the kid in anyway for $hits and giggles and hope the kid figures out how to fit in? Or should they wait for the kid they want and do things their way? It sure as hell worked out last year.2004AG wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 6:29 pmSomeone at one of these road trips should ask Smith about this. Again, I know you have sources, but it just doesn’t make sense.aggies22 wrote:IF we take a guard in this class, as it currently stands he will NOT be in next year's rotation. As the great Norman Dale once said, "my team is on the floor."
It borders on insanity to not bring one in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
We need a PG for a lot of reasons already mentioned in this thread. But the main reason we need a PG is if Sam, Diogo, or Abel get hurt. Yep, I know, Barstow can play the 2 and maybe the 1, but can he defend a quick guard on the perimeter? We need depth.
- ratofallaggies
- Posts: 3844
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:29 pm
- Location: Farmington
- Has thanked: 300 times
- Been thanked: 845 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
22 is getting the information directly from the staff in private (with permission). Why would someone asking in a public setting in the form of an open Q and A be more solid?2004AG wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 6:29 pmSomeone at one of these road trips should ask Smith about this. Again, I know you have sources, but it just doesn’t make sense.aggies22 wrote:IF we take a guard in this class, as it currently stands he will NOT be in next year's rotation. As the great Norman Dale once said, "my team is on the floor."
It borders on insanity to not bring one in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12395
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 774 times
- Been thanked: 1587 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Straight from a coaching staff member? Fair enough. I take it back. NOBODY ask the question.ratofallaggies wrote:22 is getting the information directly from the staff in private (with permission). Why would someone asking in a public setting in the form of an open Q and A be more solid?2004AG wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 6:29 pmSomeone at one of these road trips should ask Smith about this. Again, I know you have sources, but it just doesn’t make sense.aggies22 wrote:IF we take a guard in this class, as it currently stands he will NOT be in next year's rotation. As the great Norman Dale once said, "my team is on the floor."
It borders on insanity to not bring one in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ratofallaggies
- Posts: 3844
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:29 pm
- Location: Farmington
- Has thanked: 300 times
- Been thanked: 845 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Not saying "NOBODY ask the question", I'm saying that I hold more confidence in what was told to 22 from a member of the staff in that private conversation than I would a question in a public Q and A. Just my opinion.2004AG wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:05 amStraight from a coaching staff member? Fair enough. I take it back. NOBODY ask the question.ratofallaggies wrote:22 is getting the information directly from the staff in private (with permission). Why would someone asking in a public setting in the form of an open Q and A be more solid?2004AG wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 6:29 pmSomeone at one of these road trips should ask Smith about this. Again, I know you have sources, but it just doesn’t make sense.aggies22 wrote:IF we take a guard in this class, as it currently stands he will NOT be in next year's rotation. As the great Norman Dale once said, "my team is on the floor."
It borders on insanity to not bring one in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- These users thanked the author ratofallaggies for the post:
- ChicAggie
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
One guy with five tools is nice, but not necessary.ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 9:08 amI don't disagree with that, but it is virtually impossible to find a five-tool player to plug in at this point. I'd love a player who can do three or four of those things well -- particularly if two of them are passing and shooting.brownjeans wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 12:37 amWhat we need: Players who can drive, pass, defend, rebound, and shoot
What we don't need: A "PG" who dominates the ball using tons of possessions pounding the ball while the best group of players USU has had in years watches.
Next year's team looks amazingly good. Lots of skilled players. If we defend and share the ball, we'll win a lot of games.
While I was extremely pleasantly surprised with Porter's play last season, he did lead the team in turnover percentage by a fairly wide margin (okay, Fakira, Ainge, and Alek Johnson were actually worse, but they were bench players for a reason). His TOV% was a whopping 23.2% (by comparison, turnover machine Tauriawn Knight's TOV% was 20.8%; Miller was 7.7%, Merrill was 10.0%). He also assisted on a lower percentage of teammates' FGs than Merrill while more than doubling his TOV%. Nor was he a good rebounder: 2nd worst on the team in terms of RB% ahead of only Brock Miller. He was also ahead of only Fakira, Johnson, and Miller in Defensive Rating. So I wouldn't characterize Porter as someone who can drive, pass, defend, rebound, and shoot. I don't say any of this by way of complaint; simply to point out that finding a player to fill the primary distributor role who can do all five well is not as simple as saying this is the type of player we want.
Several drive/distribute players is a great way to go. A good defender can take one player away. Redundancy in skills is ideal.
We need a team that collectively possesses all tools with redundancy. I think we have that.
As for depth chart, Bairstow and Karwowski are going to play a lot.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Again, I don't disagree, but I don't know that we have redundancy in those skills in the "primary distributor" (PD) ranks (I'll use that abbreviation rather than PG as it is certainly possible the Aggies will run a lot of offense next season without a traditional PG if Porter is the only one on the roster).brownjeans wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 12:18 pmSeveral drive/distribute players is a great way to go. A good defender can take one player away. Redundancy in skills is ideal. We need a team that collectively possesses all tools with redundancy. I think we have that.
As others have speculated, perhaps Bairstow can step into that role and contribute meaningfully as a PD early in his career, in which case we might be okay, but if not, I do think we tend to struggle in the assist-to-turnover column against teams with superior defenders and speed. See, e.g., 23 TOVs against New Mexico vs. 19 ASTs (12 by PDs - Porter, Merrill, and Brito), 21 TOVs against Washington vs. 13 ASTs (including 12 TOVs by PDs), 20 TOVs against Nevada vs. only 9 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs), and 17 TOVs against each of Arizona State vs. 15 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs) and Houston vs. 8 ASTs (11 TOVs by PDs). While the turnovers against those teams paint a less than positive picture of our ball handling, penetration, and passing skills when facing players with speed, athleticism, and defensive tenacity, perhaps even more telling is that in each of those games we had more turnovers than assists. The only other games the entire season where we had more turnovers than assists were against SDSU (10 TOVs, 9 ASTs) and BYU-P (15 TOVs, 6 ASTs).
Long story short: our PDs tended to do well against the less athletic or less defensively-minded teams, but tended to struggle more against athleticism, speed, and defensive intensity. While I understand that this differential is going to be true for EVERYONE -- including the best of the best at the highest levels of basketball -- the difference seemed particularly stark for the Aggie PDs last season.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
-
- Posts: 1666
- Joined: December 7th, 2013, 6:04 pm
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
- Has thanked: 667 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Just to add to the discussion, Coach Smith said at the Scottsdale roadshow that he thinks Bairstow will eventually play PG but didn’t think he would be ready by this season to handle that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19233
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23202 times
- Been thanked: 14831 times
- Contact:
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Pretty much backs up the info that I was trying to convey. Thanks for the info Don!donlarson8 wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 4:31 pmJust to add to the discussion, Coach Smith said at the Scottsdale roadshow that he thinks Bairstow will eventually play PG but didn’t think he would be ready by this season to handle that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- donlarson8
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
I agree that we could always use more players with PD skills but I don't get too hung up over raw turnover stats. Raw turnover stats don't provide much insight into what really happened. Many turnovers have the same result as a missed shot and a defensive rebound. The turnovers that bother me are the ones that lead to transition baskets.ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 3:48 pmAgain, I don't disagree, but I don't know that we have redundancy in those skills in the "primary distributor" (PD) ranks (I'll use that abbreviation rather than PG as it is certainly possible the Aggies will run a lot of offense next season without a traditional PG if Porter is the only one on the roster).brownjeans wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 12:18 pmSeveral drive/distribute players is a great way to go. A good defender can take one player away. Redundancy in skills is ideal. We need a team that collectively possesses all tools with redundancy. I think we have that.
As others have speculated, perhaps Bairstow can step into that role and contribute meaningfully as a PD early in his career, in which case we might be okay, but if not, I do think we tend to struggle in the assist-to-turnover column against teams with superior defenders and speed. See, e.g., 23 TOVs against New Mexico vs. 19 ASTs (12 by PDs - Porter, Merrill, and Brito), 21 TOVs against Washington vs. 13 ASTs (including 12 TOVs by PDs), 20 TOVs against Nevada vs. only 9 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs), and 17 TOVs against each of Arizona State vs. 15 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs) and Houston vs. 8 ASTs (11 TOVs by PDs). While the turnovers against those teams paint a less than positive picture of our ball handling, penetration, and passing skills when facing players with speed, athleticism, and defensive tenacity, perhaps even more telling is that in each of those games we had more turnovers than assists. The only other games the entire season where we had more turnovers than assists were against SDSU (10 TOVs, 9 ASTs) and BYU-P (15 TOVs, 6 ASTs).
Long story short: our PDs tended to do well against the less athletic or less defensively-minded teams, but tended to struggle more against athleticism, speed, and defensive intensity. While I understand that this differential is going to be true for EVERYONE -- including the best of the best at the highest levels of basketball -- the difference seemed particularly stark for the Aggie PDs last season.
A player can have 0 turnovers and 3 assists but never make a single forceful, penetrating pass that challenges a defense. A good offense has to make those kind of passes. If you play it too safe to avoid turnovers I think you end up with an offense that's pretty easy to defend.
I think next year's team is fantastic. Could adding a traditional PG improve it? Maybe, but IMO it's a risk. A ball-dominating PG will reduce ball movement and touches for our team and if we get one who uses a lot of possessions and is inefficient, we'll be worse, not better.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Two things:brownjeans wrote:I agree that we could always use more players with PD skills but I don't get too hung up over raw turnover stats. Raw turnover stats don't provide much insight into what really happened. Many turnovers have the same result as a missed shot and a defensive rebound. The turnovers that bother me are the ones that lead to transition baskets.ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 3:48 pmAgain, I don't disagree, but I don't know that we have redundancy in those skills in the "primary distributor" (PD) ranks (I'll use that abbreviation rather than PG as it is certainly possible the Aggies will run a lot of offense next season without a traditional PG if Porter is the only one on the roster).brownjeans wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 12:18 pmSeveral drive/distribute players is a great way to go. A good defender can take one player away. Redundancy in skills is ideal. We need a team that collectively possesses all tools with redundancy. I think we have that.
As others have speculated, perhaps Bairstow can step into that role and contribute meaningfully as a PD early in his career, in which case we might be okay, but if not, I do think we tend to struggle in the assist-to-turnover column against teams with superior defenders and speed. See, e.g., 23 TOVs against New Mexico vs. 19 ASTs (12 by PDs - Porter, Merrill, and Brito), 21 TOVs against Washington vs. 13 ASTs (including 12 TOVs by PDs), 20 TOVs against Nevada vs. only 9 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs), and 17 TOVs against each of Arizona State vs. 15 ASTs (9 TOVs by PDs) and Houston vs. 8 ASTs (11 TOVs by PDs). While the turnovers against those teams paint a less than positive picture of our ball handling, penetration, and passing skills when facing players with speed, athleticism, and defensive tenacity, perhaps even more telling is that in each of those games we had more turnovers than assists. The only other games the entire season where we had more turnovers than assists were against SDSU (10 TOVs, 9 ASTs) and BYU-P (15 TOVs, 6 ASTs).
Long story short: our PDs tended to do well against the less athletic or less defensively-minded teams, but tended to struggle more against athleticism, speed, and defensive intensity. While I understand that this differential is going to be true for EVERYONE -- including the best of the best at the highest levels of basketball -- the difference seemed particularly stark for the Aggie PDs last season.
A player can have 0 turnovers and 3 assists but never make a single forceful, penetrating pass that challenges a defense. A good offense has to make those kind of passes. If you play it too safe to avoid turnovers I think you end up with an offense that's pretty easy to defend.
I think next year's team is fantastic. Could adding a traditional PG improve it? Maybe, but IMO it's a risk. A ball-dominating PG will reduce ball movement and touches for our team and if we get one who uses a lot of possessions and is inefficient, we'll be worse, not better.
The turnover argument is exactly right for distributors who make semi-risky passes that lead to a lot of high-percentage shots and a fair number of turnovers along the way. But I do not believe it is right for PDs who have either a low A/TO ratio or a high number of A, but without simultaneously creating high percentage shot opportunities. Volume assists are somewhat like volume scoring: it doesn’t mean much if it’s not efficient.
Second, not a single poster on this forum has argued in favor of a “ball-dominating” PG, so that’s a red herring. We all want a team player to take the 13th scholarship: some just happen to be more in favor of someone who can handle PG duties than others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: November 13th, 2010, 7:34 pm
- Has thanked: 625 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
^This
I think it goes without saying that we always want unselfish team players that fit our team culture. I’m glad the staff seems to be very selective in that regard.
We probably shouldn’t sign a really good athlete if he is likely to hurt the team chemistry (subtraction by addition).
In my limited view, given our current roster, and especially if Queta returns, I think we could be even better if we use our 13th scholly on an athletic ballhandler/distributor that makes it difficult for opposing teams to press. Probably difficult to find and sign the right guy. How did Washington’s “amazing” defense do against NC? Why were they so successful against USU? I’m sure the staff has a plan but being in the dark a bit, I’m a little surprised to hear some stating that we’re not looking for a PG/PD type player. If we have a chance at signing the right type of player, PG/PD seems like an area where we are really lacking against top 50 type competition. I think we’ll do well in the MW either way, but I’m greedy and would like to see a sweet 16 run.
We’re probably into overkill, beating a dead horse territory. Maybe Ashworth is our longer term solution.
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
PG: Abel Porter, Diogo Brito, Tauriawn Knight
SG: Sam Merrill, Sean Bairstow, Alek Johnson
SF: Brock Miller, Alphonso Anderson, Sean Bairstow (Justin Bean)
PF: Justin Bean/Liam Mccheseney, Cade Porter
C: (Neemias Queta), Jakub Karwowski, Klay Stall (Justin Bean)
*I didn't put starters as backups with the exception of Bean even though I anticipate playing time for some players at other positions.
The offense we ran last year isn't really one that you need a principle PG passing the ball around the whole game. PG,SG, and SF all too turns acting as passers and that will continue next year.
I think Justin Bean and Mccheseney will split time pretty evenly at PF, but Bean will play a lot of SF and some C. Bean is a great defender and a monster rebounder on the offensive side. Bean had slightly more rebounds on the offensive side than Queta per minute played.
I think most of Bairstow's playing time will be at the SG position when Sam Merrill is playing PG. He will also be a valuable asset at SF when Brock Miller is having bad games. It will be interesting to see how Alphonso does coming off his injury last season.
SG: Sam Merrill, Sean Bairstow, Alek Johnson
SF: Brock Miller, Alphonso Anderson, Sean Bairstow (Justin Bean)
PF: Justin Bean/Liam Mccheseney, Cade Porter
C: (Neemias Queta), Jakub Karwowski, Klay Stall (Justin Bean)
*I didn't put starters as backups with the exception of Bean even though I anticipate playing time for some players at other positions.
The offense we ran last year isn't really one that you need a principle PG passing the ball around the whole game. PG,SG, and SF all too turns acting as passers and that will continue next year.
I think Justin Bean and Mccheseney will split time pretty evenly at PF, but Bean will play a lot of SF and some C. Bean is a great defender and a monster rebounder on the offensive side. Bean had slightly more rebounds on the offensive side than Queta per minute played.
I think most of Bairstow's playing time will be at the SG position when Sam Merrill is playing PG. He will also be a valuable asset at SF when Brock Miller is having bad games. It will be interesting to see how Alphonso does coming off his injury last season.
Last edited by BeHURD on May 15th, 2019, 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3844
- Joined: November 9th, 2010, 5:04 pm
- Has thanked: 1227 times
- Been thanked: 1084 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Dude, Tauriawn Knight is long gone.BeHURD wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:44 pmPG: Abel Porter, Diogo Brito, Tauriawn Knight
SG: Sam Merrill, Sean Bairstow, Alek Johnson
SF: Brock Miller, Alphonso Anderson, Sean Bairstow (Justin Bean)
PF: Justin Bean/Liam Mccheseney, Cade Porter
C: (Neemias Queta), Jakub Karwowski, Klay Stall (Justin Bean)
*I didn't put starters as backups with the exception of Bean even though I anticipate playing time for some players at other positions.
The offense we ran last year isn't really one that you need a principle PG passing the ball around the whole game. PG,SG, and SF all too turns acting as passers and that will continue next year. Tauriwan Knight could be the athletic PG many on this board want that would be able to beat the press (assuming he can improve his ball handling this off-season.)
I think Justin Bean and Mccheseney will split time pretty evenly at PF, but Bean will play a lot of SF and some C. Bean is a great defender and a monster rebounder on the offensive side. Bean had slightly more rebounds on the offensive side than Queta per minute played.
I think most of Bairstow's playing time will be at the SG position when Sam Merrill is playing PG. He will also be a valuable asset at SF when Brock Miller is having bad games. It will be interesting to see how Alphonso does coming off his injury last season.
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
oh... I missed that.bluegrouse wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:58 pmDude, Tauriawn Knight is long gone.BeHURD wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:44 pmPG: Abel Porter, Diogo Brito, Tauriawn Knight
SG: Sam Merrill, Sean Bairstow, Alek Johnson
SF: Brock Miller, Alphonso Anderson, Sean Bairstow (Justin Bean)
PF: Justin Bean/Liam Mccheseney, Cade Porter
C: (Neemias Queta), Jakub Karwowski, Klay Stall (Justin Bean)
*I didn't put starters as backups with the exception of Bean even though I anticipate playing time for some players at other positions.
The offense we ran last year isn't really one that you need a principle PG passing the ball around the whole game. PG,SG, and SF all too turns acting as passers and that will continue next year. Tauriwan Knight could be the athletic PG many on this board want that would be able to beat the press (assuming he can improve his ball handling this off-season.)
I think Justin Bean and Mccheseney will split time pretty evenly at PF, but Bean will play a lot of SF and some C. Bean is a great defender and a monster rebounder on the offensive side. Bean had slightly more rebounds on the offensive side than Queta per minute played.
I think most of Bairstow's playing time will be at the SG position when Sam Merrill is playing PG. He will also be a valuable asset at SF when Brock Miller is having bad games. It will be interesting to see how Alphonso does coming off his injury last season.
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
That's fair.ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 8:47 pmTwo things:
The turnover argument is exactly right for distributors who make semi-risky passes that lead to a lot of high-percentage shots and a fair number of turnovers along the way. But I do not believe it is right for PDs who have either a low A/TO ratio or a high number of A, but without simultaneously creating high percentage shot opportunities. Volume assists are somewhat like volume scoring: it doesn’t mean much if it’s not efficient.
Of course they haven't. I mean, they aren't going to argue against themselves. Acknowledging that adding a PG introduces a risk of less ball movement would weaken the NOT-bringing-in-a-PG-is-crazy argument.
I'm pointing out the risk that a new big-britches PG might be worse, not better, for this team. Maybe it's stating the obvious, but I didn't see anyone else acknowledge the risk so I did. It's not a red herring, it's casting light into the shadow.
I think I also tend to reject the "we need a PG" concept because of the trend toward positionless basketball:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... a-playoffs
http://positionlessbasketball.com/
https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/180929- ... basketball
http://sportsretriever.com/basketball/f ... tball-nba/
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12395
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 774 times
- Been thanked: 1587 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
As long as Smith isn't an idiot, its not a risk at all Just bring in the right guy. That's all anybody is saying, and yes, it was a red herring.brownjeans wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 1:05 amThat's fair.ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 8:47 pmTwo things:
The turnover argument is exactly right for distributors who make semi-risky passes that lead to a lot of high-percentage shots and a fair number of turnovers along the way. But I do not believe it is right for PDs who have either a low A/TO ratio or a high number of A, but without simultaneously creating high percentage shot opportunities. Volume assists are somewhat like volume scoring: it doesn’t mean much if it’s not efficient.Of course they haven't. I mean, they aren't going to argue against themselves. Acknowledging that adding a PG introduces a risk of less ball movement would weaken the NOT-bringing-in-a-PG-is-crazy argument.
I'm pointing out the risk that a new big-britches PG might be worse, not better, for this team. Maybe it's stating the obvious, but I didn't see anyone else acknowledge the risk so I did. It's not a red herring, it's casting light into the shadow.
I think I also tend to reject the "we need a PG" concept because of the trend toward positionless basketball:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... a-playoffs
http://positionlessbasketball.com/
https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/180929- ... basketball
http://sportsretriever.com/basketball/f ... tball-nba/
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: November 13th, 2010, 7:34 pm
- Has thanked: 625 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
I believe Cade Potter is a mission kid who won’t be on next year’s roster.BeHURD wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 12:07 amoh... I missed that.bluegrouse wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:58 pmDude, Tauriawn Knight is long gone.BeHURD wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 11:44 pmPG: Abel Porter, Diogo Brito, Tauriawn Knight
SG: Sam Merrill, Sean Bairstow, Alek Johnson
SF: Brock Miller, Alphonso Anderson, Sean Bairstow (Justin Bean)
PF: Justin Bean/Liam Mccheseney, Cade Porter
C: (Neemias Queta), Jakub Karwowski, Klay Stall (Justin Bean)
You’re missing Roche Grootfaam.
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
What about Abel Potter? Let's talk about him.
Warning! Don't read this post. It's garbage.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Actually, without going back through this thread, I had the distinct impression that several posters seemed to imply (without expressly stating it) that adding a Koby McEwen-type PG to this team could mess with chemistry. Again, no one seems to be arguing in favor of that. Nor is anyone advocating for adding a "big-britches" player at ANY position (assuming your use of that particular pejorative implies a player who feels the need to put himself above the team and dominate the ball). Everyone is on the same page in that respect, so I'm not sure there any shadows upon which light needs to be cast.brownjeans wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 1:05 amI'm pointing out the risk that a new big-britches PG might be worse, not better, for this team. Maybe it's stating the obvious, but I didn't see anyone else acknowledge the risk so I did. It's not a red herring, it's casting light into the shadow.
As a related aside, I would note that the Aggies' Offensive Rating last season was 111.5 (for the few of you that may not understand Offensive Rating, it simply refers to the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions) -- good for 34th in the country. What is particularly amazing is that Crew Ainge's Offensive Rating was 88.5 (which for a player alludes to the number of points the player "produces" per 100 possessions through all of his contributions at the offensive end), and he started the first 18 games of the season. To understand just how truly detrimental Ainge's (lack of) contribution was to the Aggies' offense, note that MWC Defensive Player of the Year Neemias Queta had a Defensive Rating of 88.8 (BEST in the MWC and 17th nationally). What this means is that Ainge had a MORE negative impact on the Aggies' offense while he was on the court than Queta's defense had on the opposing team's offense. That is just how bad Ainge was. Queta - Defensive MVP. Ainge - Offensive LVP.
Somewhat less problematically, but still a problem, Abel Porter's Offensive Rating was 109.0. What this means is that he was responsible for producing 2.5 points per 100 possessions fewer than the Aggies team scored while he was on the court. While 2.5 points per 100 possessions doesn't seem terrible, it is magnified significantly when you consider that ALL of Porter's minutes came when Mr. Offensive LVP Crew Ainge WAS NOT ON THE COURT. So, Porter's negative impact on the Aggies' offensive efficiency without Ainge on the court is actually significantly more glaring than 2.5 points per 100 possessions. Without taking the time to put together a program to calculate the Aggies' offensive efficiency without either Porter or Ainge on the court, I would estimate that it was probably something like 117 points per 100 possessions or more keeping in mind that Porter and Ainge played a combined 978 minutes over a 35-game season, or roughly 28 minutes per game out of 40 minutes. So neither player was on the court for only 12 minutes out of 40 per game. Looking at it that way, Porter's negative impact on the Aggies' offensive efficiency was significantly worse than 2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Another advanced statistic that attempts to estimate the actual number of wins a particular player contributes to his team is Win Shares. Since players who play more minutes may have more Win Shares than another more impactful player who plays fewer minutes, it is important when comparing multiple players to equalize Win Shares by looking at Win Shares per 40 minutes (or WS/40). Abel Porter's WS/40 number was .115, which isn't terrible, but it was ahead of ONLY Brock Miller (.102), Tauriawn Knight (.088), Crew Ainge (.068), and Alek Johnson (.032). Even Fakira (.117) had a higher WS/40 number than Porter. The rest of the Aggies were Merrill (.242), Bean (.200), Queta (.191), Taylor (.170), DBJ (.159), Brito (.143), and JKIII (.115).
The reason I point all of these things out is not to suggest that Porter was a poor player for the Aggies last season. Indeed, I think he was one of the most pleasant surprises on a team full of surprises (Queta and Bean in particular). But his overall performance and impact on the Aggies' offense and wins WAS below average for the Aggies, and I DO think it may be more important to the Aggies' success next season than we realize to find a player who can take some of Porter's minutes -- whether it be in a traditional PG role or as a PD in a more "positionless" offense. Is that someone already on the roster? Perhaps, but I just don't know enough about the new players' actual abilities at the DI level to predict anything about their immediate contribution.
Last edited by ChicAggie on May 15th, 2019, 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- t_creer54
- Posts: 50
- Joined: May 15th, 2019, 9:36 am
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 28 times
- Contact:
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Any word on Sedrick Hammonds yet? 247 still has us as 67% favorites to land him. He’s a 3 star PG out of Las Vegas. I heard it was possibly academics but not sure what the hold up on his commitment is.
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19233
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23202 times
- Been thanked: 14831 times
- Contact:
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
The hold up is we are not actively recruiting Sedrick at this time.
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Not saying it won't happen, but doubt that Bairstow will play any point here. He was 6'7" last year, he's 6'8" on the official USU announcement, so it doesn't look like he's finished growing. It isn't likely he'll stay at 185 lbs, especially if he takes after his brother. He could very easily end up being 6'9" or 6'10" and 220 going into his junior year. He won't be playing any PG if that happens.donlarson8 wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 4:31 pmJust to add to the discussion, Coach Smith said at the Scottsdale roadshow that he thinks Bairstow will eventually play PG but didn’t think he would be ready by this season to handle that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Warning! Don't read this post. It's garbage.
-
- Posts: 12435
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1186 times
- Been thanked: 2226 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Bairstow's height reminds me of my dad's favorite basketball story (who is also a Beaver fan) AC Green (who grew like 6" in his senior of HS) at Oregon State. AC Green was a 6'9" forward who played like a guard that played in the NBA because he was that good.I.M.Noone wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 10:51 amNot saying it won't happen, but doubt that Bairstow will play any point here. He was 6'7" last year, he's 6'8" on the official USU announcement, so it doesn't look like he's finished growing. It isn't likely he'll stay at 185 lbs, especially if he takes after his brother. He could very easily end up being 6'9" or 6'10" and 220 going into his junior year. He won't be playing any PG if that happens.donlarson8 wrote: ↑May 14th, 2019, 4:31 pmJust to add to the discussion, Coach Smith said at the Scottsdale roadshow that he thinks Bairstow will eventually play PG but didn’t think he would be ready by this season to handle that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Good stuff. There were times it seemed that our best lineups were ones without one of our PGs on the floor (e.g. Merrill, Miller, Brito, Bean, Queta or similar). I don't know where you get your stats - do they show how our offense rated with specific personnel packages? Maybe you know which package was rated highest?ChicAggie wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 8:56 amAs a related aside, I would note that the Aggies' Offensive Rating last season was 111.5 (for the few of you that may not understand Offensive Rating, it simply refers to the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions) -- good for 34th in the country. What is particularly amazing is that Crew Ainge's Offensive Rating was 88.5 (which for a player alludes to the number of points the player "produces" per 100 possessions through all of his contributions at the offensive end), and he started the first 18 games of the season. To understand just how truly detrimental Ainge's (lack of) contribution was to the Aggies' offense, note that MWC Defensive Player of the Year Neemias Queta had a Defensive Rating of 88.8 (BEST in the MWC and 17th nationally). What this means is that Ainge had a MORE negative impact on the Aggies' offense while he was on the court than Queta's defense had on the opposing team's offense. That is just how bad Ainge was. Queta - Defensive MVP. Ainge - Offensive LVP.
Somewhat less problematically, but still a problem, Abel Porter's Offensive Rating was 109.0. What this means is that he was responsible for producing 2.5 points per 100 possessions fewer than the Aggies team scored while he was on the court. While 2.5 points per 100 possessions doesn't seem terrible, it is magnified significantly when you consider that ALL of Porter's minutes came when Mr. Offensive LVP Crew Ainge WAS NOT ON THE COURT. So, Porter's negative impact on the Aggies' offensive efficiency without Ainge on the court is actually significantly more glaring than 2.5 points per 100 possessions. Without taking the time to put together a program to calculate the Aggies' offensive efficiency without either Porter or Ainge on the court, I would estimate that it was probably something like 117 points per 100 possessions or more keeping in mind that Porter and Ainge played a combined 978 minutes over a 35-game season, or roughly 28 minutes per game out of 40 minutes. So neither player was on the court for only 12 minutes out of 40 per game. Looking at it that way, Porter's negative impact on the Aggies' offensive efficiency was significantly worse than 2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Another advanced statistic that attempts to estimate the actual number of wins a particular player contributes to his team is Win Shares. Since players who play more minutes may have more Win Shares than another more impactful player who plays fewer minutes, it is important when comparing multiple players to equalize Win Shares by looking at Win Shares per 40 minutes (or WS/40). Abel Porter's WS/40 number was .115, which isn't terrible, but it was ahead of ONLY Brock Miller (.102), Tauriawn Knight (.088), Crew Ainge (.068), and Alek Johnson (.032). Even Fakira (.117) had a higher WS/40 number than Porter. The rest of the Aggies were Merrill (.242), Bean (.200), Queta (.191), Taylor (.170), DBJ (.159), Brito (.143), and JKIII (.115).
The reason I point all of these things out is not to suggest that Porter was a poor player for the Aggies last season. Indeed, I think he was one of the most pleasant surprises on a team full of surprises (Queta and Bean in particular). But his overall performance and impact on the Aggies' offense and wins WAS below average for the Aggies, and I DO think it may be more important to the Aggies' success next season than we realize to find a player who can take some of Porter's minutes -- whether it be in a traditional PG role or as a PD in a more "positionless" offense. Is that someone already on the roster? Perhaps, but I just don't know enough about the new players' actual abilities at the DI level to predict anything about their immediate contribution.
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Awesome. Then we're in agreement that the only people out there introduce too much risk and likely won't improve our team. Because Smith isn't an idiot and he's not brought anyone in - and if/when he does bring someone in, it will be the right guy.
-
- SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
- Posts: 23328
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
- Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
- Has thanked: 1400 times
- Been thanked: 3128 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Just remember how much of an impact JK3 had on the game while he was here. It would be nice to have that available.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Thanks, brownjeans. I typically get my college basketball stats from Sports-Reference. They unfortunately don't show "top 5" lineups or anything like that. I know there are sites that do show how teams perform with specific personnel packages on the court for the NBA, and there are probably advanced statistical sites out there that do similar things for college basketball as well, but I don't either know which they are or subscribe to any of them.brownjeans wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 11:29 amGood stuff. There were times it seemed that our best lineups were ones without one of our PGs on the floor (e.g. Merrill, Miller, Brito, Bean, Queta or similar). I don't know where you get your stats - do they show how our offense rated with specific personnel packages? Maybe you know which package was rated highest?
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12395
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 774 times
- Been thanked: 1587 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
No. We’re not. According to aggies22, Smith isn’t even looking.brownjeans wrote:Awesome. Then we're in agreement that the only people out there introduce too much risk and likely won't improve our team. Because Smith isn't an idiot and he's not brought anyone in - and if/when he does bring someone in, it will be the right guy.
And you guys act like it’s all or nothing like it’s a forgone conclusion that anybody brought it will screw up the team. That’s ridiculous.
I love Smith but he’s not perfect, he brought in Fakira, JK3, and TK. I believe he will get things right more often than he gets them wrong, but he’s fallible and it’s entirely possible he could screw this one up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
2004AG wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 1:59 pmNo. We’re not. According to aggies22, Smith isn’t even looking.brownjeans wrote:Awesome. Then we're in agreement that the only people out there introduce too much risk and likely won't improve our team. Because Smith isn't an idiot and he's not brought anyone in - and if/when he does bring someone in, it will be the right guy.
And you guys act like it’s all or nothing like it’s a forgone conclusion that anybody brought it will screw up the team. That’s ridiculous.
I love Smith but he’s not perfect, he brought in Fakira, JK3, and TK. I believe he will get things right more often than he gets them wrong, but he’s fallible and it’s entirely possible he could screw this one up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12395
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 774 times
- Been thanked: 1587 times
Re: Projecting Next Season's Depth Chart
Come on now, I thought you and I were on the same team !!! We gotta stick together.ChicAggie wrote:2004AG wrote: ↑May 15th, 2019, 1:59 pmNo. We’re not. According to aggies22, Smith isn’t even looking.brownjeans wrote:Awesome. Then we're in agreement that the only people out there introduce too much risk and likely won't improve our team. Because Smith isn't an idiot and he's not brought anyone in - and if/when he does bring someone in, it will be the right guy.
And you guys act like it’s all or nothing like it’s a forgone conclusion that anybody brought it will screw up the team. That’s ridiculous.
I love Smith but he’s not perfect, he brought in Fakira, JK3, and TK. I believe he will get things right more often than he gets them wrong, but he’s fallible and it’s entirely possible he could screw this one up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk