Wow. Interesting to start putting names to faces.

3 good sized guys at the 3, all reputed to be very athletic:
David Burrell we know at 6'6" 200
Andre Edwards comes in as JUCO JR at 6'6" 190 with a decent sophomore year at 10.9 points and 5.0 rebounds, but an oddly better freshman year at 15.4 points and 7.6 rebounds. Anybody know the story there??
And the Vermont freshman, Kendrick Gray, who appears to have bulked up to 6'6" and 220 (was 200 on verbal commits). He's the guy who turned down offers from Winthrop, Youngstown State, St. Bonaventure, Vermont, Wagner and Eastern Michigan to walk on for Steve Forbes and ETSU. Now that's a kid who wants to be here.

To say nothing of the 4's and 5's - Rodriguez, Harrison, Armus - even Overstreet.

Or 5th yr point guard Jalan McCloud.

And 2 time TN "AA" Mr. Basketball and track and football all-stater Bo Hodges.

And a welcome home for Patrick Good.

It's Christmas morning in August.

We need one of Forbes open practices. Something to introduce us to the crew.

This roster also gives us possibilities for next year:

Guard:
6-3 190 Kanayo Obi-Rapu
6-0 165 Patrick Good
5-11 185 Jason Williams
6-4 195 Bo Hodges

Front Court:
6-10 230 Mladen Armus
6-7 225 Jeromy Rodriguez
6-8 225 James Harrison
6-6 190 Andre Edwards
6-6 220 Kendrick Gray

Does anyone know if Gray is a walk on or scholarship?

3 good sized guys at the 3, all reputed to be very athletic:
David Burrell we know at 6'6" 200

Not to be picky but Burrell is a 4 man. Not sure why but have seen him referenced as a 3 in several posts even though he hasn't played a minute at that spot.

Share your excitement though. This looks to be a work in progress to me. Suspect they'll be much better in Jan-Feb than Nov-Dec. Much like 2 yrs ago. Believe McKie will be huge for backcourt development. Rodriguez and Armus are key bigs to my eye. Can't wait!

His skills are 3 skills, not 4 - 40% from 3, a slim body that doesn't bang effectively inside and rather modest rebounding (3.3 compared to 6.2 for Tevin Glass). The slim, athletic, perimeter shooting Burrell is just not a typical 4. Line him up as one and you still don't have a real 4 in there. Compare him to other similar players and you are comparing him to 3's, not 4's. I suppose you could call him a stretch 4, but you'd be kind of 'stretching' the definition.

(08-29-2017 05:49 PM)bucs77 Wrote:  Does anyone know if Gray is a walk on or scholarship?

Gray has never been announced as a scholarship player. He is listed on Verbal Commits as a walk on at ETSU despite having a string of midmajor offers and some high major interest.
https://verbalcommits.com/players/kendrick-gray

That said, I have no inside information on his status.

WJHL's Kane O'Neill, a Vermont native, back on July 10 tweeted about speaking to Forbes about Gray walking on. https://twitter.com/WJHL_Kane

(08-29-2017 08:30 PM)swvabucsfan Wrote:  His skills are 3 skills, not 4 - 40% from 3, a slim body that doesn't bang effectively inside and rather modest rebounding (3.3 compared to 6.2 for Tevin Glass). The slim, athletic, perimeter shooting Burrell is just not a typical 4. Line him up as one and you still don't have a real 4 in there. Compare him to other similar players and you are comparing him to 3's, not 4's. I suppose you could call him a stretch 4, but you'd be kind of 'stretching' the definition.

Absolutely all on-target.

Gray is indeed a walk-on, a d1 scholarship worthy walk-on from Vermont of all places. Oh the expectations have been raised. #Forbes

(08-30-2017 05:22 AM)Bucfaithful Wrote:  Gray is indeed a walk-on, a d1 scholarship worthy walk-on from Vermont of all places. Oh the expectations have been raised. #Forbes

They don't have his full bio up yet, but I'm interested in his major then. Perhaps he got some academic scholarships relating to that, or ETSU had a better program for his major than other schools that offered him full rides? Or heck, maybe he has a rich parent, grandparent, relative or benefactor, that told him to pick wherever he wanted and they'd pay? Maybe he just liked the mountains here? I'd love to know the story though. Our program is definitely better, but there has to be more to it than just the draw of Forbes and playing ball here.

I'd like to know his story too. You have to think that maybe there is a possibility of a scholarship after this season. Even though none of us have seen him play yet he does appear to be a Division I talent and as it's been mentioned he turned down several D1 scholarships to play at ETSU as a walkon. This article says Rhode Island was interested in him as well: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story...421647001/

And now begins the matching of faces, names and numbers. Dang it for the guys that switch numbers between seasons too (Desonta - I'm looking at you!) When I'm watching an away game on my phone, it's sometimes hard to see features, so I depend on the numbers for guys with similar builds. Oh well! It may be a few games in before I have this massive list all matched up in my head, especially the new guys, but I'll get there.

(08-29-2017 08:30 PM)swvabucsfan Wrote:  His skills are 3 skills, not 4 - 40% from 3, a slim body that doesn't bang effectively inside and rather modest rebounding (3.3 compared to 6.2 for Tevin Glass). The slim, athletic, perimeter shooting Burrell is just not a typical 4. Line him up as one and you still don't have a real 4 in there. Compare him to other similar players and you are comparing him to 3's, not 4's. I suppose you could call him a stretch 4, but you'd be kind of 'stretching' the definition.

Ok. Call him whatever you desire and I agree he's not a typical 4 but he's never been on the floor at the 3 position - game or practice. So to talk about line-ups or depth charts and include him as a 3 is just not accurate. Maybe just go 1, 2, 3A, 3B and 5.

The old labels don't always do a good job of describing how players are used nowadays when guards might share the assist duties and nobody gets 10 assists, when a point forward might set the offense and sometimes nobody looks like a traditional four. It might be better to skip the numbers if they mislead.

So, how about them small forwards?

(08-30-2017 10:57 AM)PreacherPurl Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 08:30 PM)swvabucsfan Wrote:  His skills are 3 skills, not 4 - 40% from 3, a slim body that doesn't bang effectively inside and rather modest rebounding (3.3 compared to 6.2 for Tevin Glass). The slim, athletic, perimeter shooting Burrell is just not a typical 4. Line him up as one and you still don't have a real 4 in there. Compare him to other similar players and you are comparing him to 3's, not 4's. I suppose you could call him a stretch 4, but you'd be kind of 'stretching' the definition.

Ok. Call him whatever you desire and I agree he's not a typical 4 but he's never been on the floor at the 3 position - game or practice. So to talk about line-ups or depth charts and include him as a 3 is just not accurate. Maybe just go 1, 2, 3A, 3B and 5.

Burrell was definitely more a 3 than a 4. HMP was the 5, most of the time (spelled by Banks). Glass was the 4 (occasionally that was Banks, too). Many were the times that Burrell was on the floor at the same time as both HMP and either Banks or Glass. Heck, he was leading the team in 3-pt. % almost all year. Not counting Reppart's 2/3, and A.J.'s late surge, he was the top gun outside, in terms of proficiency. While it's true that sometimes (oftentimes?), for the sake of chemistry, or to counter what the opponent was doing, such labels don't matter so much, I'm really puzzled that anyone would think Burrell is more of a 4 than a 3.

(08-30-2017 01:44 PM)shampoo Wrote:  So, how about them small forwards?

Who knows? Other than Burrell, the proof is in the pudding, so we'll just have to wait and see.

(08-31-2017 12:48 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Burrell was definitely more a 3 than a 4. HMP was the 5, most of the time (spelled by Banks). Glass was the 4 (occasionally that was Banks, too). Many were the times that Burrell was on the floor at the same time as both HMP and either Banks or Glass. Heck, he was leading the team in 3-pt. % almost all year. Not counting Reppart's 2/3, and A.J.'s late surge, he was the top gun outside, in terms of proficiency. While it's true that sometimes (oftentimes?), for the sake of chemistry, or to counter what the opponent was doing, such labels don't matter so much, I'm really puzzled that anyone would think Burrell is more of a 4 than a 3.

Not trying to belabor the point, but since you mentioned it, Burrell was never on the floor with HMP and Glass at the same time. I've spent much of my rainy retired morning going through the play by play logs of every game last year and can't find any of these "many" times you speak of. If you have clips or game logs that show otherwise I'd be appreciative if you'd show me. Given that, I don't understand your puzzlement since Forbes and the entire staff obviously believe he should play the 4 spot exclusively.

This whole little debate reminds me of this too...Anybody remember when Pearl played Dane Bradshaw at the 4? He may have been a PG or SG based on his height and skills but he was absolutely a 4 guy in that system those years and they exploited the mismatch it created often. Its the same thing with Burrell. One can look at his size, numbers, etc and say he's a 3 but it doesn't change the fact that he plays the 4 spot in this system and therefore that's what he is when discussing line-ups, rotations, depth charts, etc.

When you insist on calling a 6-4 guard like Bradshaw a "4" you have made that designation totally meaningless. Call him what you want, but what he's doing on the court is nothing like what a traditional 4 does.

Lots of teams have played without a traditional 4 - Villanova has started 4 guards a lot over the years. Calling one of those guards a 4 does not make him a 4.

It reminds me of a riddle that Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have asked"
Question: if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

You can't call a guy a "3" if he can't defend the position. Hence why he was never on the court with HMP and Glass together. He's a stretch four, stop putting him a category with the SF's.

(08-31-2017 01:22 PM)PreacherPurl Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 12:48 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Burrell was definitely more a 3 than a 4. HMP was the 5, most of the time (spelled by Banks). Glass was the 4 (occasionally that was Banks, too). Many were the times that Burrell was on the floor at the same time as both HMP and either Banks or Glass. Heck, he was leading the team in 3-pt. % almost all year. Not counting Reppart's 2/3, and A.J.'s late surge, he was the top gun outside, in terms of proficiency. While it's true that sometimes (oftentimes?), for the sake of chemistry, or to counter what the opponent was doing, such labels don't matter so much, I'm really puzzled that anyone would think Burrell is more of a 4 than a 3.

Not trying to belabor the point, but since you mentioned it, Burrell was never on the floor with HMP and Glass at the same time. I've spent much of my rainy retired morning going through the play by play logs of every game last year and can't find any of these "many" times you speak of. If you have clips or game logs that show otherwise I'd be appreciative if you'd show me. Given that, I don't understand your puzzlement since Forbes and the entire staff obviously believe he should play the 4 spot exclusively.

This whole little debate reminds me of this too...Anybody remember when Pearl played Dane Bradshaw at the 4? He may have been a PG or SG based on his height and skills but he was absolutely a 4 guy in that system those years and they exploited the mismatch it created often. Its the same thing with Burrell. One can look at his size, numbers, etc and say he's a 3 but it doesn't change the fact that he plays the 4 spot in this system and therefore that's what he is when discussing line-ups, rotations, depth charts, etc.

Really not trying to belabor the point either (and I certainly don't have the time to scour through the play-by-play of each game (I admire your persistence!)), but I just looked at a couple of early-season games quickly.
During the second half of the Detroit Mercy game, Glass comes in for Burrell at the 08:01 mark. Burrell comes back in at the 06:41 mark, with Glass remaining in the game (at least according to the play-by-play, with Walters and A.J. leaving). HMP is also in the game at that time. Banks came in for him at the 05:08 mark. So that's just one example, with Burrell, HMP, and Glass all in together. I'm sure there were others, but perhaps "many" was an exaggeration. We know the usual substitution was Banks and HMP for each other, and very frequently, Glass and Burrell for each other. So it wasn't common, let's say - although it may not really be rare - I just don't know quantitatively.

That said.....yes, Glass was definitely a 4, but just because he and Burrell interchanged a great deal of the time doesn't make Burrell a 4. I guess he's a "tweener", but his skill set more fits the 3 than the 4, imo. This really is quibbling, tho. Most coaches, Forbes included, will not always have a 1,2,3,4,5 squad on the court at all times, as I'm sure you're hep to. We know that from the "small ball" stretches, for example.

--------

As to the Dane Bradshaw situation, actually, I agree with you on that one. Pearl clearly had him in the 4, attempting to do '4' things, sometimes decently, other times failing nearly completely, especially defensively (although I didn't watch massive amounts of UT then). He (Pearl) didn't have many options, and it was an interesting experiment. I *don't* think it's the same thing with Burrell at all. I think the Bradshaw 'experiment' was much closer to the way ETSU used Kevin Tiggs. Or more accurately, the way Tiggs was able to fit himself into scoring situations.
(Tiggs, btw, is still playing pro ball in Germany.)