Post by gaelnation22 on Feb 11, 2020 20:53:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses fellas! I had a very similar list myself and could not help but notice that its gone from longest ago(Glover/Laury) to most recent(Agee/2018 year) in rank
Thanks for the responses fellas! I had a very similar list myself and could not help but notice that its gone from longest ago(Glover/Laury) to most recent(Agee/2018 year) in rank
Yeah, I noticed the same thing, which was the topic in another thread on recruiting not being as strong.
Laury developed very much as a player. Not saying others didn't. But Laury's improvement was so obvious. I also liked his story. Like the original IW, those guys overcame more than most could. Cluess gets some credit for that.
Post by gaelnation22 on Feb 11, 2020 21:37:42 GMT -5
Yea I've always thought it was curious how Laury missed a three at the buzzer in the 2014 maac championship game to tie it when he had hadn't taken one all year and then the next year he was a 38% 3PT shooter making 1 a game, his development was impressive!
This is one of my first posts on the board but have followed it for years, big Iona fan since mid-2000's. Wasn't sure where to put this but just had a thought I would like your guys' opinion on. I'm not trying to nitpick any one player's performance over the years but since 2012, our at-large year I can't help but notice the trend of our big man in our typical 4-1 lineup with one true bigman. Starting then we had Mike Glover, then David Laury for two years(14 and 15), then Jordan Washington for two years(16 and 17), then Roland Griffin even though that year was more of a by comittee type deal but I know we all had fairly high expectations for Griffin the next year before the unfortunate incident, and now Tajuan Agee the last two. I guess what I was wondering was how you guys would rank these big men over the years and how it compared to our success as a team. Again, I know every one of these players left a sustained impact on the program and I'm not trying to take away from any of that, just curious of your guys' thoughts. I have been following this board very consistently since Cluess took over and just interested in conversation!
Interesting post, I’ll go: 1. Laury- I think the best because he did everything. 2. Glover- as close a second as someone could possibly be. his senior year just wasn’t quite as strong as his junior year 3. Washington- never played enough minutes to be higher, but his two NCAA games were dominant, and he played very well in the Maac tourneys as well. 4. Agee- has had moments of brilliance, his story isn’t over, but nearly impossible to overtake the 3 above him. 5. Griffin/Edogi- Griffin wasn’t the true solo big man and his great play was very short lived, but the Duke and Maac championship game he was as good as any Iona big man in the Cluess era.
Watched Griffin last night on espnu as Jackson State beat Southern. Solid game for him. Made a number of difficult shots, played solid defense and was 10/10 from the foul line.
I really liked his game. Unfortunate incident with Coach Johns.
This is one of my first posts on the board but have followed it for years, big Iona fan since mid-2000's. Wasn't sure where to put this but just had a thought I would like your guys' opinion on. I'm not trying to nitpick any one player's performance over the years but since 2012, our at-large year I can't help but notice the trend of our big man in our typical 4-1 lineup with one true bigman. Starting then we had Mike Glover, then David Laury for two years(14 and 15), then Jordan Washington for two years(16 and 17), then Roland Griffin even though that year was more of a by comittee type deal but I know we all had fairly high expectations for Griffin the next year before the unfortunate incident, and now Tajuan Agee the last two. I guess what I was wondering was how you guys would rank these big men over the years and how it compared to our success as a team. Again, I know every one of these players left a sustained impact on the program and I'm not trying to take away from any of that, just curious of your guys' thoughts. I have been following this board very consistently since Cluess took over and just interested in conversation!
Good post. I would remind you that when we had the “4-1” formula (i.e. 4 versatile guards with 1 dominant big man) everybody on here was bitching that that formula worked in the MAAC but would never translate into success in the OOC or NCAA and postseason games. At some point - probably around the time we recruited Griffin - the staff made a switch to balancing out the lineup and roster with a more even distribution of bigs and guards, and we were no longer as dominant in the MAAC as we once were. Presumably they did this either because they felt that the more balanced formula would translate better into NCAA success (highly likely IMO) or because they were no longer able to recruit the same caliber of guards that they once were and as a result were forced to take average/role player level bigs instead of the high impact guards (unlikely IMO).
I don’t have all the data in front of me, but look at our MAAC results and I think this will support this theory.
2013-14 (17-3, 1st in MAAC, lost in MAAC finals, lost in NIT) 2014-15 (17-3, 1st in MAAC, lost in MAAC finals, lost in NIT) 2015-16 (16-4, 2nd in MAAC, won MAAC tourney, lost in NCAA 64) 2016-17 (12-8, 3rd in MAAC, won MAAC tourney, lost in NCAA 64) 2017-18 (11-7, 4th in MAAC, won MAAC tourney, lost in NCAA 64) 2018-19 (12-6,1st in MAAC, won MAAC tourney, lost in NCAA 64)
Washington was probably our last true dominant big (I thought we were there with Agee, but must admit I was probably wrong about that) and was the last of the “4-1” era, and graduated in 16-17. Probably not a coincidence that our MAAC reg season performance and dominance has declined since then. I believe it was a concerted effort by the staff to recruit a more balanced roster that would set them up for better success in 3-day tournament settings like the conf tourney, equip them to compete in OOC up games to snag better seeds and also to set up the lineup for better matchups in the NCAAs, but it came at the expense of continuing to dominate the MAAC since the “4-1” formula was proven at that level.
05, I don't think you were wrong about Agee. The guy is a talent, but he needs a special kind of coaching, imo, and TC is that guy. Just think of all the good things TA can do: score from inside and outside; pass the ball; and rebound. He just can't keep his head in the game at all times and TC would have changed that. JMO.
I agree,but most important he would have helped him reduce his turnovers which is a major issue,TC and TA are very tight.
If it wasn't for the turnovers he is an very good player and I also agree Cluess would have greatly reduced these. Also Agee wouldn't be afraid and unsure of when to take the 3 and he would be quicker at swinging the ball when he's not open or someone else is. Way too many times he drives to the basket 1 vs. 2 or 3, instead of shooting or passing, and many of these result in turnovers. The drive to the basket should be the last alternative, and only done when he truly has an opening. Amazing how much smarter of a player Agee was with Cluess there everyday.
Was always against, and never understood, the new philosophy, in recruiting big. It's not like Iona was going to be able to recruit multiple "bigs" that were nearly good enough to compete against higher level programs. Like going to a gun fight with a knife. Just never made any sense. Glad to see the staff back to targeting athletic perimeter kids, and yes they need to recruit ONE impact (hopefully) big to join Brown and Van Eyck. The rest guards..guards..guards.
Was always against, and never understood, the new philosophy, in recruiting big. It's not like Iona was going to be able to recruit multiple "bigs" that were nearly good enough to compete against higher level programs. Like going to a gun fight with a knife. Just never made any sense. Glad to see the staff back to targeting athletic perimeter kids, and yes they need to recruit ONE impact (hopefully) big to join Brown and Van Eyck. The rest guards..guards..guards.
I would rather have four 6'6" - 6'7" guys that can run and get off the floor vs guys that are 6'9" to 6'11" and are rooted to the floor. Give me four Isaiah Williams types... is that so much to ask for?
Was at a dinner event with Vitale on Wednesday. Knowing we were there, he gave a shout out for TC's return. He'll try to do the same at today's ND/Duke game. (Two daughters played tennis at ND. Two grandkids going to Duke; one to ND.)