A question for Guy, Super and anyone else who attended, how was it? Was it well attended, and did any info (BB) come out of it? Inquiring minds want to know.
The dinner was well-attended (4 inductees will do that). Golf participation seemed down. Kash was terrific--someone who is proud of Iona and should make all alum feel proud.
I really don't have a relationship with the new staff, although I spoke with the 3 who were there. They didn't reveal names but strongly hinted at another "big." They're very pleased with Pelcher's progress. It's not appropriate--nor legal--for them to discuss Keon's status.
My report is similar, got a couple more morsels. I asked Cluess what type of skill set he was recruiting, and without hesitation he said he wanted more pure scorers. No question our roster is filled with guys with strong all-around games, but the team needs pure scorer types (Armand seems to fit this mold) and he's looking for those types of players now. Although bigs are the focus, he's just looking for pure scorers at this point, regardess of position, to create balance with the all-around player types we have on the roster now.
Re the schedule, they're working on a game at Syracuse. Other than that, nothing new.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
Forgot to mention that Cluess and Calzonetti indicated they had just reviewed the film of the Baylor game--where we played at a very high level. They were impressed with McFadden then--but were circumspect about his potential.
I know he's been discussed here before, but I think that kid would thrive in the offense that Tau believes Cluess will implement here.
Agree, Super. There are some (not all) who are down on our frontcourt, feeling that guys like Pelch, McFadden and even McGill aren't the answers. Common theme with those three guys: THEY WERE ALL FRESHMEN. Geez, give them time to develop their games. Yes, we can use another big. But an offseason in the weight room for McFadden and Pelcher will pay dividends for their soph seasons.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
It may be related to the overall development of "big" men in college hoops, but I was speaking with Kash last night about my perception that Iona has been very reluctant to play the true "bigs" when they're freshmen, since the departure of Pat Kennedy. I complained frequently when Kash was a freshman that he deserved more time. (Last night his father recalled my yelling at the bench to put Kash into the game when it was pretty clear that the kid had talent.) I thought Nakiea Miller and Mikkel Larsen could have had even more impressive stats/careers if they had played more.
I agree with Guy about the potential of the bodies up front. We saw glimpses of that last year against some pretty good competition.
Guy, it is not a question of being "down" on the frontcourt. It is a question of having only one known quality rebounder. The others may or may not develop. It would have been nice to have a second guy that is proven. I think McFadden and Pelch may be very good, but unlike the guards, there is only one proven big man.
Guy, it is not a question of being "down" on the frontcourt. It is a question of having only one known quality rebounder. The others may or may not develop. It would have been nice to have a second guy that is proven. I think McFadden and Pelch may be very good, but unlike the guards, there is only one proven big man.
How many teams in the MAAC have "proven" big men, though? In fact, the one that would come to mine first is Rossiter--but I'm not buying it, as he played next to Franklin the past couple years. I'm not saying he's not good, but I don't think he's the superstar Siena fans believe he is. Franklin couldn't be guarded 1 on 1, making it much easier for Rossiter to get any Franklin misses, find an open man when he had the ball and was well guarded, etc. This year, when the ball goes to Rossiter, he'll see double-teams. None of Siena's 4s are even remotely close to Franklin in ability.
As Super noted, bigs DO take more time to develop. Even if you like Rossiter, recall that he did NOTHING his frosh season. No, there's no guarantee that Pelch and McFadden will step up and be very strong frontcourt players this year. But, at least with Pelch, the staff is very high on him, so that's good enough for me. As for McFadden, whoever said above that McFadden's game may be a great fit for Cluess' offense (Tau?) may be right on the mark.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
I have no info. to add to that already presented by Super and Guy. However, just a couple comments: 1) As to numbers, Will mentioned that there were somewhere in excess of 160 golfers - I'm not sure how that stacks up with past years; but, I suspect that is a good number. 2) Total for dinner was around 230. At one time, the main dining area was sufficient to accomodate everyone. Last night the place was packed, including the back area. 3) It really is sad that so few board regulars show for this event. I recognize that it is somewhat pricey; however, the fact is that the same few board regulars who were able to afford yesterday's price tag were, for the most part, the same regulars who also paid $30.00 to meet the coaches at Mo's a few weeks back. While $500.00 + is a lot, $30.00 is far more reasonable and yet very few additional opted for that. 4) Whoever, was responsible for the weather (rumor has it that it was Monica Judge) gets an A+! 5) Finally, last night included the awarding of the Don Walsh Award to Joe Reese who was the original founder of the Goal Club as a group of Iona alums who wanted to join forces, with no formal ties to Iona, to help support Iona College athletics. We all know how that small organization has grown into what is now the primary fund raising and support organization for Iona College Athletics. IT SEEMS MORE THAN APPROPRIATE THAT AN AWARD IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE GREATEST SUPPORTERS OF IONA COLLEGE ATHLETICS BE GIVEN TO A MAN WHO STARTED THE GOAL CLUB ON ITS MISSION!
This is just my opinion, and it's based on what little I was able to see him play last season, but I think Pelcher is going to be a star. He has some talent, he's got size and he works hard. I'm a believer.
Guy, it is not a question of being "down" on the frontcourt. It is a question of having only one known quality rebounder. The others may or may not develop. It would have been nice to have a second guy that is proven. I think McFadden and Pelch may be very good, but unlike the guards, there is only one proven big man.
How many teams in the MAAC have "proven" big men, though? In fact, the one that would come to mine first is Rossiter--but I'm not buying it, as he played next to Franklin the past couple years. I'm not saying he's not good, but I don't think he's the superstar Hayseed Nation fans believe he is. Franklin couldn't be guarded 1 on 1, making it much easier for Rossiter to get any Franklin misses, find an open man when he had the ball and was well guarded, etc. This year, when the ball goes to Rossiter, he'll see double-teams. None of Hayseed Nation's 4s are even remotely close to Franklin in ability.
As Super noted, bigs DO take more time to develop. Even if you like Rossiter, recall that he did NOTHING his frosh season. No, there's no guarantee that Pelch and McFadden will step up and be very strong frontcourt players this year. But, at least with Pelch, the staff is very high on him, so that's good enough for me. As for McFadden, whoever said above that McFadden's game may be a great fit for Cluess' offense (Tau?) may be right on the mark.
I think the point of many posters including me is that this team was coming into 2010/11 with a promising front court and with two commits. The two commits have moved on, and we have two surgeries and/or one possible transfer. We have replaced one of the commits with what I will assume is equal talent. That leaves us down two bigs on a team that showed weakness off the boards last season. In addition, If Alejo is going to be Alejo, he will have a tendency to get in foul trouble.
I would like to see us add at least one boarder (not the Mayflower Avenue type) to this team. To not do so exposes an otherwise very talented team.
Personally, I think Keon fits that bill if he regains his health. Alas, Keon may feel otherwise. I guess that is why TC gets paid to do what he does, while I sit here on my arse in St. Louis.
I agree that we need another paint guy, as stated above. But I've decided to run some numbers. We were not an awful rebounding team by any means. For the season we were -2.3 per game, which is not awful, and in fact was good enough for 6th in the MAAC. And looking at our stats, I have tabulated last year's average rebounds per minutes played for every player:
Alejo 0.34 Keon 0.25 Pelch 0.24 Huff 0.18 McGill 0.17 McFadden 0.15 Machado, Smyth and Dwight 0.12 The rest, less than 0.1
Some theories based on the above: 1. Not a secret, but we pretty much rebounded by committee last year, particulary when you consider Alejo's foul trouble and the lack of minutes played by Keon and Pelch. 2. Our rebounding woes, as some feel we had, were primarily due to a 7-foot center who didn't care for working the paint. Not knocking him per se, just stating a fact. 3. Though I did not research this, McFadden's minutes last year were usually in the first halves of games--the same time Alejo was usually on the floor. So, in a way, I am theorizing that McFadden's rebounding numbers aren't great simply because he often had Alejo next to him. Conversely, Pelch and Keon, being low-post players, were rarely if ever on the floor with Alejo next to them, as they were usually on the floor when Alejo was in foul trouble, thus providing a bit more opportunity to rebound.
What am I getting at? The following: 1. Keon's departure as it affects our frontcourt situation is minimal. There is a reason he did not see time last year, and as Willard and staff went from a 2-win team to a 21-win team in 3 years, and now with Keon leaving under the new staff's watch, I'm going to assume these guys know and understand the flaws in his game FAR more than any of us do. 2. Both McFadden and Pelcher (and probably McGill as well) will average more rebounds per minute this season, simply based on a year in the gym as well as a year of experience under their belts. 3. I'll go on a limb and guess that, in terms of rebounds per minute, the new Serbian will be an upgrade over Huffman. This kid may not be the banger we'd all like to see in there, but he's NOT another Huffman in terms of perimeter hanging. I think many here are forgetting him and just considering him Huffman Lite or something.
Now, ALL of this said, YES, we should be bringing in another paint guy. But not because we're desperate for interior help--unless he's a stud, it would be more for depth.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
Post by ghostofwillard on Jun 8, 2010 13:48:01 GMT -5
-2.3 boards a game can easily translate to 4 to 6 pts a game, if you have a competitive team that ( and FT's) could turn some close games against you. IMO Rebounds win games, there is no "in the zone" or "hot streaks" like there is with shooting; you either are capable of getting boards or not. Now I'm not saying you need bigs to rebound well (case in point Rondo on the Celtics) but I would like to see Iona get on the + side of that rebounding stat.
