(04-24-2019 11:48 AM)Bucfaithful Wrote:  If I had my druthers, I would have preferred both Rodriguez and Armus stay - if, and only if, they wanted to be here. They, of course, did not, for reasons that are immaterial at this point.

They are leaving AND that does not preclude our chances at winning the league next year. Consider the possibility that we'll be better without them. Unequivocally, they will go down as an all-time great rebounding tandem. I thought they were both solid defenders, too. Still, they were not without limitations. I think we're on track to add some diverse frontcourt players who will not likely be the prolific rebounding tandem of Armus/Rodriguez, but might give us more offensive versatility and an equal level of defensive presence. Joe Hugley, for starters, gives us a stretch-4 who shoots efficiently from everywhere on the floor. Having a guy like Joe who can pull out defenders has a compounding effect for the whole offense. We did not have that this year.

Also, I think our returning core is as good as any returning core in the league: Daivien seems to be on the brink of stardom; Pun exudes toughness, consistency, and cerebral play; a healthy Bo might be the most versatile player in the league; a healthy Pat gives us perimeter scoring and steady ball-handling; a year under Tray's belt might be what he needs to become more consistent; and Lucas and Octavian will give us rim protection.

Finally, from a chemistry standpoint, we seemed to wax and wane throughout this season. So, it's plausible to say we'll be more cohesive without them than with them. To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that they negatively impacted chemistry - only to say that group dynamics are unpredictable at times.

The rebounding from the two will be missed for sure. The silver lining....our team FT% just went up!

Shoot, we got two 7 footers returning. Albeit, they're no thicker than tent poles, but they're up there.

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)squeak Wrote:  Shoot, we got two 7 footers returning. Albeit, they're no thicker than tent poles, but they're up there.

one is a pure project and the other is limited.

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)squeak Wrote:  Shoot, we got two 7 footers returning. Albeit, they're no thicker than tent poles, but they're up there.

Well hopefully we can get a beefy guy to help them.

So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

(04-24-2019 08:56 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)squeak Wrote:  Shoot, we got two 7 footers returning. Albeit, they're no thicker than tent poles, but they're up there.

Well hopefully we can get a beefy guy to help them.

So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

I would agree with this JW

For what it is worth, Ed Miller of the Virginia Pilot is suggesting that Armus has drawn attention from ODU.

https://twitter.com/edmillervp

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Basket...ferPortal/

From day one, Armus proved to be a very good rebounder. His defense developed considerably his second year, to the point I consider him a very good defender. I give full credit to Armus for the rebounding skills, and I give a large portion of the credit to the coaching staff for his defensive improvement.

From day one, Armus' offensive skills have been non-existent. He has no moves, he turns the ball over or gets his shot blocked, and he's a poor free throw shooter. I really don't know whether to blame Armus or the coaches (or both) for his complete lack of development. Without question it has been highly disappointing.

So, if another coaching staff can turn Armus into a weapon on offense, then he is making a smart move by transferring. If not, sitting out a year is a waste of his time and an all-round losing proposition.

(04-25-2019 01:32 PM)squeak Wrote:  https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Basket...ferPortal/

Bunch of folks on the move these days. Back in them ‘good ol days’, people seemed to play college ball at the same place for 4 years, while focused a great deal on finishing their degrees. Remember back then the ACC, for example, was described as disadvantaged in athletics because of its admission standards for athletes. South Carolina pulled out primarily over this. Then the ACC evolved ($$$) from that to the recent UNC-CH academic fraud scandal, with no penalty, again motivated by the ($$$).

Anyway, with these scholarships freed up at ETSU, how long does Forbes have on the calendar to fill them? Is he looking at people on this growing transfer list?

(04-25-2019 05:29 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 01:32 PM)squeak Wrote:  https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Basket...ferPortal/

Bunch of folks on the move these days. Back in them ‘good ol days’, people seemed to play college ball at the same place for 4 years, while focused a great deal on finishing their degrees. Remember back then the ACC, for example, was described as disadvantaged in athletics because of its admission standards for athletes. South Carolina pulled out primarily over this. Then the ACC evolved ($$$) from that to the recent UNC-CH academic fraud scandal, with no penalty, again motivated by the ($$$).

Anyway, with these scholarships freed up at ETSU, how long does Forbes have on the calendar to fill them? Is he looking at people on this growing transfer list?

I hope Forbes has something up his sleeve

(04-24-2019 08:56 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)squeak Wrote:  Shoot, we got two 7 footers returning. Albeit, they're no thicker than tent poles, but they're up there.

Well hopefully we can get a beefy guy to help them.

So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

I hope for ETSU's sake that they work out. From my experience watching Mercer, all of the project 7 footers have not developed into anything. The game is just so physical inside that height does not outduel power and strength.

This is going to be an interesting offseason given how many scholarships ETSU and Mercer have open (4 each?)

(04-24-2019 08:56 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

Not to be snarky......but what have you seen from Corley? He played 14 minutes against Hiwassee, and looked great: 4/5 and 5 rebounds. And yes, I know, it was Hiwassee - but I thought he looked very good doing it. And then he played 3 minutes vs. Chicago St., and took no shots. That's it.
And his juco highlights looked pretty impressive - and we all thought so when he signed. He's got moves, good footwork, can run the floor, dunks when called for, is a rim protector, and even seems to have good touch in close. He needs some weight, esp. upper body, but we just don't have much to go on to *not* be impressed. Or maybe you came away from the Hiwassee game with a different take on him than I did?

For those who didn't see it, Avento summarizes the mass exodus with apparently some tidbits of inside info:

Rundown on each departure

Some tidbits:

At least some of this was apparently surprising to Forbes and staff - altho he doesn't give particulars. Seems like Armus would be in that category.

The "closer to home" comment about Curtis jibes with what I've heard. I've heard of one school very much in particular but it's either 2nd- or 3rd-hand (not sure which, but I think 2nd) so won't throw it out there.
[edit before posting: Let me also say his name is getting talked about at a few pretty high-level D1 programs. Discussions ongoing........]
I have a feeling he lands somewhere in the top 75 RPI/NET, if not well up in that category. Something went "wrong" with this situation here; I hope he gets a chance to show what he's got and prove Forbes wrong. I don't like to say something like that, but in this case I will. (And no, we don't need to go down that road again here.)

Apparently Avento got access to some of the players, for their input on Corley's improvement.

Appreciate the link to the JC Press article. Provides a little more info. I know there's more to each situation, but Mr. Avento did a nice job.
Rodriguez, Bernard, and Curtis I completely get. I can't blame Bernard with one season left, wanting more assurance of playing time. Curtis is early in his career and I suppose didn't see a path at ETSU to consistent minutes; and given Coach Forbes' reliance on transfers, freshmen can't assume that putting in the work as freshmen and sophomores will result in playing time as juniors and seniors.
Kevan's situation is tough. It's late in a college career to be changing schools - I'm assuming, of course, that he's not graduating and not eligible to play immediately. He must have seen (or was told) no hope in playing much.
Armus is still curious to me. Not sure what his current situation doesn't have that he thinks he can get somewhere else.
I think every college team's fans can reasonably expect 1 or 2 players leaving every year. College coaches have to overbook, if you will, their rosters, knowing that there are simply not enough minutes for everyone on the roster. Coaches have to have more players than minutes to account for injuries or players just not developing into contributors. However, five departures is more than most would have expected.

(04-26-2019 01:20 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:56 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

Not to be snarky......but what have you seen from Corley? He played 14 minutes against Hiwassee, and looked great: 4/5 and 5 rebounds. And yes, I know, it was Hiwassee - but I thought he looked very good doing it. And then he played 3 minutes vs. Chicago St., and took no shots. That's it.
And his juco highlights looked pretty impressive - and we all thought so when he signed. He's got moves, good footwork, can run the floor, dunks when called for, is a rim protector, and even seems to have good touch in close. He needs some weight, esp. upper body, but we just don't have much to go on to *not* be impressed. Or maybe you came away from the Hiwassee game with a different take on him than I did?

To be a bit snarky I see a very tall skinny 7 footer whose biggest asset is that he is 7 feet tall. The fact we got him shows he is a project. I hope he works out but I am not going to rely on him to contribute a lot.
I would take 1 6'8 Gerald Fields over N'Gussan and Corely both.

(04-26-2019 06:30 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 01:20 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:56 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  So far I have not been too impressed with the 2 seven footers but I would rather have 2 project ,skinny 7 footers than 2 project , skinny 6 foot 6 guys .

Not to be snarky......but what have you seen from Corley? He played 14 minutes against Hiwassee, and looked great: 4/5 and 5 rebounds. And yes, I know, it was Hiwassee - but I thought he looked very good doing it. And then he played 3 minutes vs. Chicago St., and took no shots. That's it.
And his juco highlights looked pretty impressive - and we all thought so when he signed. He's got moves, good footwork, can run the floor, dunks when called for, is a rim protector, and even seems to have good touch in close. He needs some weight, esp. upper body, but we just don't have much to go on to *not* be impressed. Or maybe you came away from the Hiwassee game with a different take on him than I did?

To be a bit snarky I see a very tall skinny 7 footer whose biggest asset is that he is 7 feet tall. The fact we got him shows he is a project. I hope he works out but I am not going to rely on him to contribute a lot.
I would take 1 6'8 Gerald Fields over N'Gussan and Corely both.

I am hoping Coach will bring in at least one like that over the summer. And hopefully two.

(04-26-2019 01:47 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I have a feeling he lands somewhere in the top 75 RPI/NET, if not well up in that category. Something went "wrong" with this situation here; I hope he gets a chance to show what he's got and prove Forbes wrong. I don't like to say something like that, but in this case I will. (And no, we don't need to go down that road again here.)

You keep saying "we dont need to go down that road again" yet you constantly keep going down that road.

(04-26-2019 01:47 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  For those who didn't see it, Avento summarizes the mass exodus with apparently some tidbits of inside info:

Rundown on each departure

Some tidbits:

At least some of this was apparently surprising to Forbes and staff - altho he doesn't give particulars. Seems like Armus would be in that category.

The "closer to home" comment about Curtis jibes with what I've heard. I've heard of one school very much in particular but it's either 2nd- or 3rd-hand (not sure which, but I think 2nd) so won't throw it out there.
[edit before posting: Let me also say his name is getting talked about at a few pretty high-level D1 programs. Discussions ongoing........]
I have a feeling he lands somewhere in the top 75 RPI/NET, if not well up in that category. Something went "wrong" with this situation here; I hope he gets a chance to show what he's got and prove Forbes wrong. I don't like to say something like that, but in this case I will. (And no, we don't need to go down that road again here.)

Apparently Avento got access to some of the players, for their input on Corley's improvement.

5 years — $12.5 million at Arkansas! $600,000.00 currently. If Arkansas can pay this kind of cash, just think of all the others who can beat the $600,000.00 ETSU pays by a country mile. That old dilemma — what’s a mid-major to do in order to have a winning, stable program with relation to coaches AND players? With Forbes looking to move on (and he will), along with Noland (and he will), how much did that factor into these players’ decisions?

(04-26-2019 05:13 AM)frankenheimer Wrote:  Appreciate the link to the JC Press article.

I think every college team's fans can reasonably expect 1 or 2 players leaving every year. College coaches have to overbook, if you will, their rosters, knowing that there are simply not enough minutes for everyone on the roster. Coaches have to have more players than minutes to account for injuries or players just not developing into contributors. However, five departures is more than most would have expected.

You're of course welcome.

I saw somewhere quoted that the current 'rate' of departures is 2.1 players/year/team. I assume that's with this new 'portal' availability and new climate. That's staggering, but seems like it's about what we've been seeing the last 2 years. So yes, 5 >> 2.1.

(04-26-2019 07:12 AM)brock20 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 01:47 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I have a feeling he lands somewhere in the top 75 RPI/NET, if not well up in that category. Something went "wrong" with this situation here; I hope he gets a chance to show what he's got and prove Forbes wrong. I don't like to say something like that, but in this case I will. (And no, we don't need to go down that road again here.)

You keep saying "we dont need to go down that road again" yet you constantly keep going down that road.

You are correct - and I plead guilty. However, now with new information, it only increases my feelings about this. We'll see.....