The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-02-2018 09:00 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 08:54 AM)skyblade Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:50 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:30 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 08:29 PM)skyblade Wrote:  We have replacements in the forms of 3* or 4* recruits who have been on the bench for a year (or more), UK and Duke have incoming freshman 5*'s. Look at UK, the 5* approach works out sometimes, but just as often it doesn't. The advantage of bench guys is they should adjust quicker (though obviously the ceiling is generally lower) and they stay for multiple years. Using one-and-dones as every year is high risk - high reward. We will miss Evans but I think top 25 team is still very realistic for next year (though I thought we were top 10 if Evans returned).

The big question is who will step up. Will it be small ball with Jenifer and Broome starting and Logan Johnson as the backup PG. Or will Williams, Moore, Hardnett or Diarra win the starting SF role. The early season development of players will be more interesting to watch with Evans gone.

Evans has been a great Bearcat and we all should wish him well. It's not his fault that there isn't a "ready now" or "ready soon" replacement waiting to fill his shoes and assume his scoring.

Your first bolded comment, regarding UK and Duke, I don't think anyone here reasonably expects UC to stockpile talent the way those schools do. Both are at the top of the food chain and pretty consistently make deep runs in the tournament. How often should we expect UC to make a deep run (say Elite Eight)? Once a decade when a rare combination of talent and experience come together? By the way, I think the folks at that little school in Norwood expect more. Looking at their past ten years worth of trips to the second weekend, I think it's fair to expect more in Clifton.

Regarding your second bolded comment, I agree "one and dones" may be high risk/high reward. Many here will gladly take a one and done in the mix if the coaching staff can blend that talent with experience to advance in March. I'm ready for some "high reward" results.

Looking at Michigan and Villanova, it's not a fluke that both teams can really shoot the ball from deep and are playing for the national championship. Evans and Cumberland were excellent recruits because they could clearly shoot the ball when they walked on campus. Conversely, turning athletic wings into shooters has had decidedly mixed results for UC and many programs.

The question I have, is the lack of "shooters" more a factor of them not seeing themselves as a good fit with our program, or our staff not seeing them as a good fit with our program, or equal? It's nice to see the Dontaie Allen kid in Pendelton County is starting to get looked at, but yet to receive an offer. He is considered a really good shooter and offensive minded player. I could see him going somewhere like WKU and averaging 20+.

We just had a team with a shooter at every position. Even without Evans, it's not like we have no one else to score. Williams, Hardnett, Diarra and Johnson were all big time scorers in HS and Moore was recruited for his 3 point shooting. We have 3 guys on the team who aren't 3-point shooters (Scott, Brooks, Nsoseme) and athletic centers who can shoot the 3 are very hard to come by. Sure it's nice to have guys who can shoot from every position, but it's not the only way to win. Kansas made the final four starting Udoka Azubuike who shoots about as well as Brooks. Loyola started Krutwig who had a nice inside game, but didn't attempt a 3 on the season.

Michigan needed a fluke to make it past a Houston team that isn't exactly packed with shooters. The NCAA tournament is so full of luck in games and matchups that it's really hard to judge what wins by looking at the two teams in the finals.

I'd say movement and passing are the keys to offensive success, if you have those then you will get open shots and open shots tend to go in.

None of the afore mentioned players on this team have ever been a double figure scorer against big time college opponents. Neither Clark, Evans or Cumberland avg. double figures their first year of starting. You are assuming way too much. Also, not much movement and passing in Micks offense.

Hard to be a double figure scorer when you're on the bench behind two guys who are likely first round NBA picks. The comment was about lack of shooters on the team, and "shooters' not considering themselves a good fit for the program. That's what I was replying to. Considering we have only 3 non-shooters on the team (and Scott has potential to become a shooter by next season), I'd say we don't lack shooters.

If your criteria is about scoring at the college level, it's hard to judge considering Williams/Moore were sitting on the bench behind two likely first round NBA draft picks. Freshmen who average double figures are pretty rare. Williams/Moore haven't had much game time, but they get a year in practice and the weight room to prepare for the college level, that makes it a lot more likely one of them will average double figures. Hardnett looks promising as well, he scored over half his teams points in his teams championship win.

I agree that our offense has been stagnent and I'm hoping that will change next year. Our bigs will be much more athletic, but less capable scorers, that should mean they spend more time moving and setting screens and less time trying to post their man up while the guards throw the ball around the perimeter. Last year, Cronin's game plan was to play through the bigs. I think Cronin will be wise enough to realize that's not going to work this year. Our offense should be about playing through the guards (Broome, Cumberland and whoever the 3rd starter is) with the bigs setting screens and serving as threats to catch passes for easy scores and grab offenseive rebounds.