While I *hope* I'm wrong about this, from what I've seen so far, this year's team is strikingly similar to the '00-'01 team, except probably a grade up in most aspects. Granted the '00-'01 team was hardly a dud -- they won a MAAC title and gave a serious scare to Ole Miss in the dance -- but they were a symbol of "what could have been" at Iona in the 90's and 00's and I think we would all agree that this year would be a pretty major disappointment if we finished on similar ground.
Beyond the obvious similarities (Star Power...Dyree/Miller vs. Glover/Machado; Highly Touted Transfer...Johnson vs. Momo; Somewhat undersized lineups, etc.), that team was extremely talented (probably the most talented of the Ruland-Willard era, and maybe even Welsh too), but dealt with complacency and chemistry issues all year long.
As a result, a team that *could* have been a special team and went 26-5 or so, went 22-11, snagged a 14 seed and exited in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament after they finally showed a glimpse of what their true potential could be.
Let's hope this team doesn't get caught in the same trap that that team did. My sense is that this team is a notch above in every category -- talent, chemistry, coaching, etc. -- but NOT so much better that a few slip-ups along the way can't turn a *historic* year into a *good* year.
I really hope these guys realize how unique the opportunity is that's right in front of them. While I know everyone is saying that Hofstra was "just one game" let's not forget that taking a few nights off against the Hofstras and Loyola's of the world is literally the difference between going 27-3 and making some noise in the dance versus going 23-7 and getting ousted as a 13 seed.
Hopefully this team is different, but I guess I still have some of that post-Ruland era skepticism flowing through my system. When we constantly beat down the rest of the MAAC like we did with Siena last night than I'll be convinced. Only time will tell.
I still fear that this team's lack of defense is going to hurt them. That said, we DID get better defensively last year, so I'm hoping for a similar February surge in that regard.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
While I *hope* I'm wrong about this, from what I've seen so far, this year's team is strikingly similar to the '00-'01 team, except probably a grade up in most aspects. Granted the '00-'01 team was hardly a dud -- they won a MAAC title and gave a serious scare to Ole Miss in the dance -- but they were a symbol of "what could have been" at Iona in the 90's and 00's and I think we would all agree that this year would be a pretty major disappointment if we finished on similar ground.
Beyond the obvious similarities (Star Power...Dyree/Miller vs. Glover/Machado; Highly Touted Transfer...Johnson vs. Momo; Somewhat undersized lineups, etc.), that team was extremely talented (probably the most talented of the Ruland-Willard era, and maybe even Welsh too), but dealt with complacency and chemistry issues all year long.
As a result, a team that *could* have been a special team and went 26-5 or so, went 22-11, snagged a 14 seed and exited in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament after they finally showed a glimpse of what their true potential could be.
Let's hope this team doesn't get caught in the same trap that that team did. My sense is that this team is a notch above in every category -- talent, chemistry, coaching, etc. -- but NOT so much better that a few slip-ups along the way can't turn a *historic* year into a *good* year.
I really hope these guys realize how unique the opportunity is that's right in front of them. While I know everyone is saying that Hofstra was "just one game" let's not forget that taking a few nights off against the Hofstras and Loyola's of the world is literally the difference between going 27-3 and making some noise in the dance versus going 23-7 and getting ousted as a 13 seed.
Hopefully this team is different, but I guess I still have some of that post-Ruland era skepticism flowing through my system. When we constantly beat down the rest of the MAAC like we did with Siena last night than I'll be convinced. Only time will tell.
Well said, and all true including the sentiment. We can't, though, keep bringing our baggage as fans up with respect to this team. That was then, this is now.
While I *hope* I'm wrong about this, from what I've seen so far, this year's team is strikingly similar to the '00-'01 team, except probably a grade up in most aspects. Granted the '00-'01 team was hardly a dud -- they won a MAAC title and gave a serious scare to Ole Miss in the dance -- but they were a symbol of "what could have been" at Iona in the 90's and 00's and I think we would all agree that this year would be a pretty major disappointment if we finished on similar ground.
Beyond the obvious similarities (Star Power...Dyree/Miller vs. Glover/Machado; Highly Touted Transfer...Johnson vs. Momo; Somewhat undersized lineups, etc.), that team was extremely talented (probably the most talented of the Ruland-Willard era, and maybe even Welsh too), but dealt with complacency and chemistry issues all year long.
As a result, a team that *could* have been a special team and went 26-5 or so, went 22-11, snagged a 14 seed and exited in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament after they finally showed a glimpse of what their true potential could be.
Let's hope this team doesn't get caught in the same trap that that team did. My sense is that this team is a notch above in every category -- talent, chemistry, coaching, etc. -- but NOT so much better that a few slip-ups along the way can't turn a *historic* year into a *good* year.
I really hope these guys realize how unique the opportunity is that's right in front of them. While I know everyone is saying that Hofstra was "just one game" let's not forget that taking a few nights off against the Hofstras and Loyola's of the world is literally the difference between going 27-3 and making some noise in the dance versus going 23-7 and getting ousted as a 13 seed.
Hopefully this team is different, but I guess I still have some of that post-Ruland era skepticism flowing through my system. When we constantly beat down the rest of the MAAC like we did with Siena last night than I'll be convinced. Only time will tell.
The 2000-2001 team had tons of height. They were not undersized at all. Miller, Fields, Henson, Jenkins, Grant and even Carruthers. They had height and were a completely different team as they say, IMO. We have a great big now and one that is OK.
While I *hope* I'm wrong about this, from what I've seen so far, this year's team is strikingly similar to the '00-'01 team, except probably a grade up in most aspects. Granted the '00-'01 team was hardly a dud -- they won a MAAC title and gave a serious scare to Ole Miss in the dance -- but they were a symbol of "what could have been" at Iona in the 90's and 00's and I think we would all agree that this year would be a pretty major disappointment if we finished on similar ground. Beyond the obvious similarities (Star Power...Dyree/Miller vs. Glover/Machado; Highly Touted Transfer...Johnson vs. Momo; Somewhat undersized lineups, etc.), that team was extremely talented (probably the most talented of the Ruland-Willard era, and maybe even Welsh too), but dealt with complacency and chemistry issues all year long. As a result, a team that *could* have been a special team and went 26-5 or so, went 22-11, snagged a 14 seed and exited in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament after they finally showed a glimpse of what their true potential could be. Let's hope this team doesn't get caught in the same trap that that team did. My sense is that this team is a notch above in every category -- talent, chemistry, coaching, etc. -- but NOT so much better that a few slip-ups along the way can't turn a *historic* year into a *good* year. I really hope these guys realize how unique the opportunity is that's right in front of them. While I know everyone is saying that Hofstra was "just one game" let's not forget that taking a few nights off against the Hofstras and Loyola's of the world is literally the difference between going 27-3 and making some noise in the dance versus going 23-7 and getting ousted as a 13 seed. Hopefully this team is different, but I guess I still have some of that post-Ruland era skepticism flowing through my system. When we constantly beat down the rest of the MAAC like we did with Siena last night than I'll be convinced. Only time will tell. The 2000-2001 team had tons of height. They were not undersized at all. Miller, Fields, Henson, Jenkins, Grant and even Carruthers. They had height and were a completely different team as they say, IMO. We have a great big now and one that is OK.
Now it stands out:
The 2000-2001 team had tons of height. They were not undersized at all. Miller, Fields, Henson, Jenkins, Grant and even Carruthers. They had height and were a completely different team as they say, IMO. We have a great big now and one that is OK.
The 2000-2001 team had tons of height. They were not undersized at all. Miller, Fields, Henson, Jenkins, Grant and even Carruthers. They had height and were a completely different team as they say, IMO. We have a great big now and one that is OK.
If I recall correctly we didn't have Henson or Carruthers that year (I think Henson's frosh year was 01-02 and Carruthers was redshirted in 00-01). Regardless, I'm pretty certain at the very least we didn't have them toward the end of the year when the games counted. I believe our bench was Norris, Matthews and Wofford (all guards) that year. Also, Fields was tall but played around the perimeter, and Grant was a 3-point shooter, so size really didn't factor in for either of those two guys. Miller and Jenkins were for sure, but much in the same way that Glover and Taaj are for this team.
Post by St. Louis Gael on Jan 4, 2012 13:49:15 GMT -5
I was at the Ole Miss game. We were able to neutralize the Ole Miss interior with the combination of Miller and Jenkins. When Jenkins broke his hand, the pendulum moved to Ole Miss.
Jenkins and Miller was an effective interior defensive tandem in that game. This team has a weak interior D. Because we are weak on the interior D, guards have to collapse thereby opening many of the trey opportunities for opponents' career nights. In my humble opinion, good D is played from the inside out - Syracuse.
In the Dance against the BCS teams, we will see them pound it inside in the second half. Ole Miss did it, LSU did it. Mike can not be Mike and put himself at risk on D. He will foul out in 15 minutes. Taaj has to have Mike's back on D, and we need help from Digs and maybe even Josh.
Jenkins was a freshman that year, and he was effective in spelling Miller.
I don't see this one. I think two very different teams and I think 11-12 will end up better.
Miller and Glover are very different and Machado has played well pretty much all year while Johnson slept through the entire season and woke up when it mattered come Maac tourney and NCAA play.
For now 00-01 has leg up because they got to the Dance but I think this team can and will finish with a much better record and may win a few in the dance, but until that happens we can only hope they can get to the dance as the 00-01 team did.
SLG brought up a good point re Greg Jenkins' frosh year--he was able to provide suitable minutes. Right now, we can't get that from Diggs or Gomez. And I think we need to.
There are quite a few bad teams in the MAAC, as we know, and we saw one last night. I would like to see Cluess do with the bigs a little bit what he does with the guards, playing particular ones in one game and others the next, as we saw with his use of James vs Hofstra and Jenkins vs Siena. I get that Glove and Ridley are the without-question starters, and he'll go to either Randy or James when he needs frontcourt minutes, but, again, with so many bad teams in the MAAC why not make a commitment to alternating games between Diggs and Gomez in terms of getting more valuable minutes? I mean, if we have a lineup of Machado, Smyth, Momo, Glover and, say, Gomez for 10 minutes against, say, Niagara, you mean to tell me we can't win?
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
I don't see this one. I think two very different teams and I think 11-12 will end up better.
Miller and Glover are very different and Machado has played well pretty much all year while Johnson slept through the entire season and woke up when it mattered come Maac tourney and NCAA play.
For now 00-01 has leg up because they got to the Dance but I think this team can and will finish with a much better record and may win a few in the dance, but until that happens we can only hope they can get to the dance as the 00-01 team did.
I agree that 11-12 is a better team, but I still see some of the same flashes of inconsistency and challenges that handicapped the 00-01 team.
Post by hawaii bill on Jan 4, 2012 14:56:10 GMT -5
Unless we're talking about the 4 or 5 elite teams in the country, every team has flaws and weaknesses that have to be overcome. But what all teams can do equally is apply effort and prepare in practice. I think that's been highlighted here and in order for this team to go anywhere that must be done.
The 2000-2001 team had tons of height. They were not undersized at all. Miller, Fields, Henson, Jenkins, Grant and even Carruthers. They had height and were a completely different team as they say, IMO. We have a great big now and one that is OK.
If I recall correctly we didn't have Henson or Carruthers that year (I think Henson's frosh year was 01-02 and Carruthers was redshirted in 00-01). Regardless, I'm pretty certain at the very least we didn't have them toward the end of the year when the games counted. I believe our bench was Norris, Matthews and Wofford (all guards) that year. Also, Fields was tall but played around the perimeter, and Grant was a 3-point shooter, so size really didn't factor in for either of those two guys. Miller and Jenkins were for sure, but much in the same way that Glover and Taaj are for this team.
All the guys I mentioned were on the team and the following were the leading rebounders:
Miller- 6'9- 8.8 reb, Fields- 6'9, 5.7 reb., Jenkins-6'9- 4.6 reb., Wilson-6'7-4.7 rebs. My point was that we had a lot more length and were a much different team. Not undersized.
Wilson was 6'5. Grant at 6'7 pulled down 3.7 rebs. Sorry ;D
What ever happened to Fields? I feel like he only played 3 years at Iona, but had one more year of eligibility left? He had some solid seasons with us, but I always felt that he could have been a much better player in the MAAC than the 13 and 5 (or whatever it was) that he poured in consistently. I remember Big Jeff hyping him up big time before he arrived, saying that he was a poor man's Lamar Odom. Fields had a really awkward playing style -- hard to remember anyone else like him in recent memory.
Post by ghostofwillard on Jan 4, 2012 18:31:45 GMT -5
Agree turning point in the Ole Miss game was Jenkins breaking his hand, if he plays the whole game Iona wins. Having said that, though this team is undersized they are far more dangerous because of their ability to score, their quickness and Cluess is a far better coach than Ruland. I like Ruland, but I got to be honest.
