Archive for Lafayette Sports Fan Forum This forum is not affiliated in any way with Lafayette College, Lafayette College Athletics, The Maroon Club or any other official organization. Please be respectful of other posters as well as the athletes, coaches and administrators.
 


       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> Men's Basketball
Pard4Life

Yale Game

Is this game even going to take place given the snow?  The Connecticut governor advised people to not travel after noon.  That stretch of 95 is God awful on a Sunday afternoon, even without it being the heaviest travel day of the year and a snowstorm.
NewXbo

The team went up last night, so they are there. This will be tough game
Kpard

Being that it is the night before the holiday and the weather, there will probably be a lot of echoing in the arena. And chirping of crickets.
Andy

Tens of billions in endowment and they charge to watch Ivy sports.  Makes me appreciate what we get from Lafayette and the PL. Guess it will cost me 10 bucks tonight.  Go Pards!
NewXbo

Andy wrote:
Tens of billions in endowment and they charge to watch Ivy sports.  Makes me appreciate what we get from Lafayette and the PL. Guess it will cost me 10 bucks tonight.  Go Pards!


Put on your chains and drive over.
Andy

NewXbo wrote:
Andy wrote:
Tens of billions in endowment and they charge to watch Ivy sports.  Makes me appreciate what we get from Lafayette and the PL. Guess it will cost me 10 bucks tonight.  Go Pards!


Put on your chains and drive over.


Very Happy  probably would if I didnt have to pick up various children at various train stations.
carney2

NewXbo wrote:
This will be tough game


We agree again.  This is not going well.

Yale is 4-1, but I don't know how to interpret that.  They lost to Quinnipiac in OT, but beat the University of Illinois Chicago (2-4 with a one point loss at Depaul) and Kent State (3-1 with no notable victories) in a tournament.  

I checked PLN and we are not getting this game.  Instead we will be fed Penn State Harrisburg @ Navy and Albany @ Colgate.  The latter might be worth watching since Albany also lost to Quinnipiac in OT.  I'd rather be watching Lafayette - even on the small screen.  Does anyone know if there are any alternatives?
Andy

carney2 wrote:
NewXbo wrote:
This will be tough game


We agree again.  This is not going well.

Yale is 4-1, but I don't know how to interpret that.  They lost to Quinnipiac in OT, but beat the University of Illinois Chicago (2-4 with a one point loss at Depaul) and Kent State (3-1 with no notable victories) in a tournament.  

I checked PLN and we are not getting this game.  Instead we will be fed Penn State Harrisburg @ Navy and Albany @ Colgate.  The latter might be worth watching since Albany also lost to Quinnipiac in OT.  I'd rather be watching Lafayette - even on the small screen.  Does anyone know if there are any alternatives?


Ivy Network - $9.95 is the cheapest "plan" I see.
jonnymo

Lehigh plays DePaul at 8PM on Fox Sports 1.  Might watch that with an eye on the Lafayette score.  Was hoping espn3 might pick it up but no go.
Steve

Other than the West Virginia game, this will be our toughest game so far.  I'm not sure whether we have a defender who matches up well with Yale's best player, Justin Sears; I wonder if we'll play much of the 2-3 zone that we saw for significant stretches of the Robert Morris game.  Last year's game at Kirby went right down to the wire, and both teams have most of their players back.  It would be a nice win if we can get it.

I won't be able to see tonight's game, but I am planning on going to the game at FDU on Sunday.  I hope to be able to post my thoughts about that game afterwards.
pards123

Getting outrebounded horribly and have been unable to establish any sort of inside presence.
bethlehempard

38-22 with three minutes left in the half. Dan leads the team in rebounds with: three.
bethlehempard

51-28 at the half. Our leaders: Seth has seven points. Dan has three rebounds.
The rebound edge for Yale, 19-11. That's about what we are used to.
They're shooting 50 percent, we are around 45 percent.
It happens.
Tonight's decision: invest $9.95 in the game or get another cheap bottle of nouveau. I'm glad I picked the wine.
Yale is a good team and our stats look a lot like last year's. Get to the league at .500 and we could be alright.

***now almost 30 minutes into the game and no leopard has more than three rebounds. This is just the Lafayette way.
Kpard

[quote="Steve:44732"]Other than the West Virginia game, this will be our toughest game so far.  I'm not sure whether we have a defender who matches up well with Yale's best player, Justin Sears; I wonder if we'll play much of the 2-3 zone that we saw for significant stretches of the Robert Morris game.  Last year's game at Kirby went right down to the wire, and both teams have most of their players back.  It would be a nice win if we can get it.

I won't be able to see tonight's game, but I am planning on going to the game at FDU on Sunday.  I hope to be able to post my thoughts about that game afterwards.[/quote

This was a winnable one and I am more disappointed that we didin't compete than the loss. Apparently FOH felt the same way judging from his comments in the recap article. With a senior laden team my expectations were a little higher. Can understand getting outplayed on the boards by WVU, but, Yale?
Hope we rebound, literally on Sun. Looking forward to Steve's recap.
Happy Thanksgiving!
bison137

[quote="Kpard:44741"]
Steve wrote:
Can understand getting outplayed on the boards by WVU, but, Yale?



It was a certainty that Yale would have a rebounding edge, since they are a very good rebounding team (top ten in the nation last year) and LC is a very poor one, but LC clearly had to keep the rebounding margin lower than it was.   Both Penn and Princeton also outrebounded LC - and they are significantly weaker rebounding teams than Yale - but the margin wasn't as wide, and LC won those games so it wasn't noticed much.

LC has a good group of players and they do a lot of things well - but right now, by my quick count, they are 346th in the nation in overall rebounding (Pomeroy).    It will be hard to consistently overcome that sort of stat if it doesn't improve.
LC Fan

Once again FOH shows no confidence in his big men. Getting killed on the boards, our three JUNIOR big men once again combined for less than 10 minutes of playing time. Why recruit any size if they'll never see the floor?
carney2

LC Fan wrote:
Once again FOH shows no confidence in his big men. Getting killed on the boards, our three JUNIOR big men once again combined for less than 10 minutes of playing time. Why recruit any size if they'll never see the floor?


I have hopes for Dunkum, and not just because of the name.  But alas, that is a year away and this year's seniors will be gone.
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
Once again FOH shows no confidence in his big men. Getting killed on the boards, our three JUNIOR big men once again combined for less than 10 minutes of playing time. Why recruit any size if they'll never see the floor?



I imagine he hoped they'd be better when he recruited them - at least the two he used scholarships on.  The third was a walk-on and I doubt FOH had any great expectations.  In any event, I think it's pretty clear that those three are not nearly as good as the guys who are seeing most of the playing time.   I don't think FOH is going to give out playing time based on expectations/hopes from three years ago.
NewXbo

LC Fan wrote:
Once again FOH shows no confidence in his big men. Getting killed on the boards, our three JUNIOR big men once again combined for less than 10 minutes of playing time. Why recruit any size if they'll never see the floor?




Musters, Murphy, Freeland, and Newman played 13 minutes and had 1 rebound.

Hoffman played 11 minutes and had 4 rebounds.
Kleniewski  played 12 minutes and had 2 rebounds.

Why would you expect the  first group to play more than the others?

This is college basketball. not a pickup game, you earn your minutes.
LC Fan

So we go with three shrimps, Dan and Seth...and expect to neutralize athletic teams on the glass? How many points will Kempton have if he has no one to physically challenge him?
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
So we go with three shrimps, Dan and Seth...and expect to neutralize athletic teams on the glass? How many points will Kempton have if he has no one to physically challenge him?



The three you suggested playing certainly can't challenge Kempton.  As Xbo points out, Hoffman and Klinewski are significantly better players.   The LC starting lineup, btw, is not that small by Patriot League standards and is actually slightly taller than Lehigh's starting lineup.   Also bigger than Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Navy.
carney2

bison137 wrote:
LC Fan wrote:
So we go with three shrimps, Dan and Seth...and expect to neutralize athletic teams on the glass? How many points will Kempton have if he has no one to physically challenge him?



The three you suggested playing certainly can't challenge Kempton.  As Xbo points out, Hoffman and Klinewski are significantly better players.   The LC starting lineup, btw, is not that small by Patriot League standards and is actually slightly taller than Lehigh's starting lineup.   Also bigger than Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Navy.


That's a welcome surprise.  Still, I noted at one game or the other this year our starting lineup was listed as G G G G F.  We are what we are and should be competitive in the League.  For whatever reason this is how Fran chooses to play the game.
bison137

carney2 wrote:
bison137 wrote:
LC Fan wrote:
So we go with three shrimps, Dan and Seth...and expect to neutralize athletic teams on the glass? How many points will Kempton have if he has no one to physically challenge him?



The three you suggested playing certainly can't challenge Kempton.  As Xbo points out, Hoffman and Klinewski are significantly better players.   The LC starting lineup, btw, is not that small by Patriot League standards and is actually slightly taller than Lehigh's starting lineup.   Also bigger than Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Navy.


That's a welcome surprise.  Still, I noted at one game or the other this year our starting lineup was listed as G G G G F.  We are what we are and should be competitive in the League.  For whatever reason this is how Fran chooses to play the game.


Hard to believe they would list 6-8 Hinrichs as a guard. In any event, he clearly is not a guard - nor is Trist.
LC Fan

Why recruit size if it never sees the light of day? The team has no bangers, thus no rim protection. Klinewski can help but Musters, for example, provides more physicality and can help Dan stay out of foul trouble. After all, the three 6'10"s are all juniors (not underclassmen) and except for Murphy were recruited for their defense according to the descriptions at their LOI signings. Bottom line is that their lack of use is a mystery inside an enigma especially when you are significantly out rebounded.
Steve

Although Nate Musters obviously has very good size and gives a good effort when he's in the game, he is limited in terms of mobility, and his lack of quickness has limited his effectiveness in defending and rebounding against opposing bigs who are quicker than him.  Nate struggled in defending Kempton in our game at Kirby last year (although none of our big men were particularly effective in defending him).  I've seen considerably less of Ben Freeland playing, but his lack of bulk and strength has hurt him on defense and rebounding.  (Again, I'm not disparaging the level of effort that Ben gives.)   Michael Hoffman is very thin as well, but he's by far our most athletic big man, and his quickness and jumping ability can help compensate for his lack of bulk.  

What we need most are big men who have good size and at least average mobility.  Klinewski has good size for a PL big man and appears to be reasonably mobile.  Although I haven't seen him play a great deal, he may be our best hope to increase his contributions on defense and rebounding as he gains experience.  Alan Flannigan hasn't gotten much playing time this year, and I'm not entirely certain why (whether he's 100 percent healthy), but he has pretty good bulk and moves fairly well, and might be able to help contribute more, although he's not especially tall for a big man.

I'm inclined to trust our coaching staff, who see the players every day in practice and games, to know the relative abilities of our big men the best, and to play those who put us in the best position to win.  

I was hoping for a win against Yale, although I wasn't necessarily expecting it.  However, I did expect us to give them a much more competitive game than we did.  I didn't see the game, so I can't comment on the reasons for Yale's big margin of victory.  Kpard pointed to Fran's comments after the game.  Fran tends to be pretty bland in his post-game comments to the press.  The most he usually says in terms of a negative performance by the team is that the team needs to get better.   Although far from being over the top, his comments after the Yale game were as critical as I can recall him being of  the team's effort (He seemed to be referring to the starters in particular.) in post-game comments to the press in quite some time.  It will be interesting to see how the players respond to the loss and to the coach's comments.
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
Why recruit size if it never sees the light of day? The team has no bangers, thus no rim protection. Klinewski can help but Musters, for example, provides more physicality and can help Dan stay out of foul trouble. After all, the three 6'10"s are all juniors (not underclassmen) and except for Murphy were recruited for their defense according to the descriptions at their LOI signings. Bottom line is that their lack of use is a mystery inside an enigma especially when you are significantly out rebounded.



It is not at all an enigma.   First of all, the great majority of mid-major big men are mysteries and/or projects when they commit - which is usually prior to their senior year in HS.   You hope they develop but you have no idea.  Of the three you address, two were clearly projects when they entered LC and additionally were very thin.  One of those two was a walk-on, meaning a good chance he would never play much. The third was an Aussie, and I'm not sure if the LC staff had ever seen him in person (Xbo?).   As is the case with most big men at this level, FOH took a chance on development.   Looking back at PL big men, as I said, the majority were mysteries and/or projects.   Some turn into Tim Clifford or Jared Mintz - and some don't.  Even Mike Muscala on the day he committed had no better offer than Bucknell or Santa Clara.  In his case, it was clear he was special by the end of his senior year in H.S. - but that is long after a coach has to make a decision on offering a scholarship.

In any event, as of right now it is clear Hoffman and Klinewski are better.   Should FOH play weaker players solely due to their class?
LC Fan

I'm not sure how you know that Hoffman and Klinewski are better at defending the rim since no one on the floor has done that this year, last year, or Well before that, and that's our problem...rebounding and defending. We have enough scoring but can't stop any team that can touch the rim since we're extremely soft.

I don't want to coach from my armchair but you know the definition of insanity, and I know the feeling of frustration. A $200,000 free education should at least get us more than 4 minutes a game.
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
. A $200,000 free education should at least get us more than 4 minutes a game.




It's clear you don't understand D1 college recruiting.  When it comes to judging HS big men who have just finished their junior year in H.S, it is extremely difficult to anticipate how good they will be in three or four years.   Some projects work out, some don't.  Just because a player gets a scholarship doesn't mean he should automatically play.

If you don't like that approach, the alternative would be to simply not recruit any players over 6-5.   It's a lot easier to evaluate 16-year olds who are smaller.   Don't think you'll win many games with that approach however.
Kpard

Steve wrote:
Although Nate Musters obviously has very good size and gives a good effort when he's in the game, he is limited in terms of mobility, and his lack of quickness has limited his effectiveness in defending and rebounding against opposing bigs who are quicker than him.  Nate struggled in defending Kempton in our game at Kirby last year (although none of our big men were particularly effective in defending him).  I've seen considerably less of Ben Freeland playing, but his lack of bulk and strength has hurt him on defense and rebounding.  (Again, I'm not disparaging the level of effort that Ben gives.)   Michael Hoffman is very thin as well, but he's by far our most athletic big man, and his quickness and jumping ability can help compensate for his lack of bulk.  

What we need most are big men who have good size and at least average mobility.  Klinewski has good size for a PL big man and appears to be reasonably mobile.  Although I haven't seen him play a great deal, he may be our best hope to increase his contributions on defense and rebounding as he gains experience.  Alan Flannigan hasn't gotten much playing time this year, and I'm not entirely certain why (whether he's 100 percent healthy), but he has pretty good bulk and moves fairly well, and might be able to help contribute more, although he's not especially tall for a big man.

.   Although far from being over the top, his comments after the Yale game were as critical as I can recall him being of  the team's effort (He seemed to be referring to the starters in particular.) in post-game comments to the press in quite some time.  It will be interesting to see how the players respond to the loss and to the coach's comments.



I found FOH's comments interesting as well. I thought this class would display some senior sense of urgency and I hope we don't have senioritis.
LC Fan

The past ten years FOH has had 6 players 6'10" or taller excluding Murphy: Hughes, Leszycynski, Kolton, Pelham,  Musters, and Freeland. In the 14 player-years they had at Lafayette they averaged a little over 5 minutes per game with only two seasons when they averaged more than 10 minutes/game, and there was never a season that one of the big men played more than 11 minutes per game.

In each of those ten seasons we have been out rebounded. The average deficit was 4.3 rebounds per game with a whopping 8.1 one year. In those ten years we have had two seasons when we won more than we lost. Is it possible that there's a connection between our lack of size on the court, our rebounding deficit, and our won-loss record? BTW, we're playing against St. Francis, LIU, NJIT, etc. not Big Ten or ACC teams.

If you look at the bios of each of our big men when they were recruited, each had strong high school careers with multiple accolades. What happens when they get to Easton? Splinters!
Franks Tanks

LC Fan wrote:
The past ten years FOH has had 6 players 6'10" or taller excluding Murphy: Hughes, Leszycynski, Kolton, Pelham,  Musters, and Freeland. In the 14 player-years they had at Lafayette they averaged a little over 5 minutes per game with only two seasons when they averaged more than 10 minutes/game, and there was never a season that one of the big men played more than 11 minutes per game.

In each of those ten seasons we have been out rebounded. The average deficit was 4.3 rebounds per game with a whopping 8.1 one year. In those ten years we have had two seasons when we won more than we lost. Is it possible that there's a connection between our lack of size on the court, our rebounding deficit, and our won-loss record? BTW, we're playing against St. Francis, LIU, NJIT, etc. not Big Ten or ACC teams.

If you look at the bios of each of our big men when they were recruited, each had strong high school careers with multiple accolades. What happens when they get to Easton? Splinters!


We don't even need someone 6'10" or above.  We need someone who is 6'6" and is a decent athlete, but is just a tough guy on the boards and D.  Don't know why we cant find one hard nosed 6'6" guy with decent athletic ability.
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
The past ten years FOH has had 6 players 6'10" or taller excluding Murphy: Hughes, Leszycynski, Kolton, Pelham,  Musters, and Freeland. In the 14 player-years they had at Lafayette they averaged a little over 5 minutes per game with only two seasons when they averaged more than 10 minutes/game, and there was never a season that one of the big men played more than 11 minutes per game.

In each of those ten seasons we have been out rebounded. The average deficit was 4.3 rebounds per game with a whopping 8.1 one year. In those ten years we have had two seasons when we won more than we lost. Is it possible that there's a connection between our lack of size on the court, our rebounding deficit, and our won-loss record? BTW, we're playing against St. Francis, LIU, NJIT, etc. not Big Ten or ACC teams.

If you look at the bios of each of our big men when they were recruited, each had strong high school careers with multiple accolades. What happens when they get to Easton? Splinters!



1.  FOH is not an idiot.   It is clear he sees which players rebound and play defense better in practice every day.

2.  All big men who get D1 scholarships have strong high school careers.   That means almost nothing as to whether they can play at the D1 level.  Of the three players being discussed,  two were clearly projects even after their senior years - and the third was a mystery, being from Australia.   Look back at some of the posts at the time they signed.  And what they do their senior year in HS is irrelevant to the recruiting process since they are signed long before that.

3.  The PL has had transfer big men who originally got scholarships to North Carolina, Georgetown, Virginia, South Carolina, etc.   It turned out none of those guys were good players - even though their HS careers were good enough to earn them scholarships to power-conference teams with good basketball histories.
NewXbo

I think we are wasting time on LC Fan. I remember you as a former faculty member who was fired and moved to Mass. You posted under a different name then and began posting on the Holy Cross board for awhile but they cut you off. You were anti scholarship and had disagreement with Jack Bourger on this board over the purchase of a few Mercedes by the college.
LC Fan

Congratulations! You also found me hiding in your bedroom closet. Why don't you address the subject of big men and our ineptitude rather than looking under your bedspread.
Pard4Life

I'm not nearly as proficient as some here on basketball, but how many quality big men can you say are actually out there? The boom-bust ratio is probably extremely low.  I'm not necessarily sure big guys ie 6'10+ are keys to getting rebounds... tough, sizable (not tall) athletic guys are... Dennis rodman, 6'7... best rebounder ever.
bethlehempard

Whenever we get somebody really big, let's admit it we are wondering why.
Levi was IMHO unappreciated. Somebody like Sean Knitter -- about 4-5 RPG in a half game -- would look good right now.
RichH

Pard4Life wrote:
I'm not nearly as proficient as some here on basketball, but how many quality big men can you say are actually out there? The boom-bust ratio is probably extremely low.  I'm not necessarily sure big guys ie 6'10+ are keys to getting rebounds... tough, sizable (not tall) athletic guys are... Dennis rodman, 6'7... best rebounder ever.

To me Wayne Embry,not even 6'7(290+ probably helped some)
bison137

LC Fan wrote:
Why don't you address the subject of big men and our ineptitude



The subject has been addressed and answered ad nauseam.   The problem is you don't really understand the answers.
bethlehempard

Colgate is at this moment down 73-67 to Arizona State. I'm sure some stat indicates this is just as it should be but the truth is, it's darned weird.
***Colgate got to within three then lost 78-71.
bison137

FWIW, Colgate is a 10-point underdog in this one per Pomeroy.   CU actually has played pretty well in four of its five games, especially considering Pat Moore, who may be their best player,  has been out with an injury.   CU has the most experienced top six of any team in PL history, so if there was ever a time for a respectable season, this should be it.   Without Moore, however, they have no bench.   Next year will likely see major backsliding.

       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> Men's Basketball
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum