Wags wrote:
Teams across the nation do it every year. We talk about these guys like they're 35-year-old NBA vets. They're in college. They're young. I don't think some realize just how many hours, how many days in a row, AAU players play. College players are often not that far removed from that. Gustys and Tanksley came up huge in the CAA finals playing a third straight day in Baltimore. Juan'ya Green had a terrible game and later said he felt fine and that he simply had a bad game, nothing to do with fatigue. A bench helps. But it's not always entirely necessary. There's a reason this year's HU bench doesn't play much. They can't be relied upon heavily at all. They're only good for very short streches, at most. The best players play. Others watch. Playing the bench garbage minutes at the ends of a couple of blowouts was what, going to accomplish what, make them major factors in the CAA tourney? Not buying that at ALL.
It makes them possibly able to contribute - forget injury, what if someone gets in foul trouble and they need 10-15 minutes out of Burgess or Silverio in the CAA final? You don't think some more court time would have been extremely valuable?
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
In a couple of 20-point blowouts, against other teams' rarely-used players? Not really, no. Not enough to make them much better, not remotely enough to make an impact in the CAA tourney.
If Hofstra gets in enough foul trouble to have to rely on guys like Burgess or Silverio (who seems to have as many airballs as anything else this year) for as much as 15 minutes in a CAA tourney game, their title hopes will be in serious trouble.
And again, they have managed to be 22-8, 13-4 and likely 23-8, 14-4 and the 1 seed after tomorrow doing it without the bench all season long, often playing twice in three days. Playing the extra day in between won't matter as much as some believe. Regardless, they have no choice. I like Schutte's energy, Burgess seems quick at least. Silverio might be better in a bigger role. I'm rooting for them all to succeed in time. But that's all for next year and beyond. There IS no real bench this year. Or have the past six games in particular (winning five of those without the bench much at all) not made that abundantly clear? Why is this even up for debate now, after THIRTY games? We've watched the season. We know what the team is. The team is really just the starters. It's obvious.
Is Silverio really that bad? Needs experience to improve. It's the same thing every year those guys should be out there more getting more comfortable in case you need them to give you a little pick me up in the only 3 games all year that actually count.
cactus wrote:
Is Silverio really that bad? Needs experience to improve. It's the same thing every year those guys should be out there more getting more comfortable in case you need them to give you a little pick me up in the only 3 games all year that actually count.
To answer your question with my own... what has he shown that's good? He's mainly just a shooter (not much else) or thinks of himself as one, but:
He shot 32.1%, 33.3% from 3 in 28 games at URI.
He's shot 31.8%, 30.9% from 3 in 24 games with HU, with several airballs mixed in.
I just can't believe that at 22-8, 13-4, a Senior Day win over last-place JMU from winning consecutive outright CAA regular-season titles (for the first time in HU's history) and securing the 1 seed in the CAA tourney, all after losing a two-time POY NBA dratee, we're actually handwringing over playing time for bench guys who have mainly been a non-factor over the course of this otherwise successful season.
cactus wrote:
Is Silverio really that bad? Needs experience to improve. It's the same thing every year those guys should be out there more getting more comfortable in case you need them to give you a little pick me up in the only 3 games all year that actually count.
To answer your question with my own... what has he shown that's good? He's mainly just a shooter (not much else) or thinks of himself as one, but:
He shot 32.1%, 33.3% from 3 in 28 games at URI.
He's shot 31.8%, 30.9% from 3 in 24 games with HU, with several airballs mixed in.
I just can't believe that at 22-8, 13-4, a Senior Day win over last-place JMU from winning consecutive outright CAA regular-season titles (for the first time in HU's history) and securing the 1 seed in the CAA tourney, all after losing a two-time POY NBA dratee, we're actually handwringing over playing time for bench guys who have mainly been a non-factor over the course of this otherwise successful season.
Coburn in foul trouble early and Trueheart, Burgess, and Silverio (recruited by Dayton, VCU etc so he must have some talent to play in the caa) all had to play early in the first half. They are lucky that Drexel shot so bad in the first half, they had a lot more open looks than in the second.
cactus wrote:
Is Silverio really that bad? Needs experience to improve. It's the same thing every year those guys should be out there more getting more comfortable in case you need them to give you a little pick me up in the only 3 games all year that actually count.
To answer your question with my own... what has he shown that's good? He's mainly just a shooter (not much else) or thinks of himself as one, but:
He shot 32.1%, 33.3% from 3 in 28 games at URI.
He's shot 31.8%, 30.9% from 3 in 24 games with HU, with several airballs mixed in.
I just can't believe that at 22-8, 13-4, a Senior Day win over last-place JMU from winning consecutive outright CAA regular-season titles (for the first time in HU's history) and securing the 1 seed in the CAA tourney, all after losing a two-time POY NBA dratee, we're actually handwringing over playing time for bench guys who have mainly been a non-factor over the course of this otherwise successful season.
cactus wrote:
Coburn in foul trouble early and Trueheart, Burgess, and Silverio (recruited by Dayton, VCU etc so he must have some talent to play in the caa) all had to play early in the first half. They are lucky that Drexel shot so bad in the first half, they had a lot more open looks than in the second.
I mean, they won because of the starters, who scored all of the points (yet again), all but one of which came from four starters. They won because of Ray holding the fort in the first half, Eli in the second half and team D from primarily the starters throughout the game. They would've won by roughly the same amount had the bench played or not. Four guys off the bench (not counting Connor in the final :16) totalled 0 pts, 5 rebs, 1 ast, 1 stl, and 4 of the rebs, the 1 ast and the 1 stl came from noe guy (Schutte). This was still pretty much business as usual all year, 4-5 starters winning it basically themselves.
On the looks, I agree with Drexel Coach Spike that it was actually the opposite - he thought 9 of the 10 3s Drexel took (making 1) were shots they wanted from the guys they wanted while the second half (which was a lot more starters playing than in the first half) was a result of Hofstra's defense making Drexel go 1/12 from 3.
Wags wrote:
To answer your question with my own... what has he shown that's good? He's mainly just a shooter (not much else) or thinks of himself as one, but:
He shot 32.1%, 33.3% from 3 in 28 games at URI.
He's shot 31.8%, 30.9% from 3 in 24 games with HU, with several airballs mixed in.
I just can't believe that at 22-8, 13-4, a Senior Day win over last-place JMU from winning consecutive outright CAA regular-season titles (for the first time in HU's history) and securing the 1 seed in the CAA tourney, all after losing a two-time POY NBA dratee, we're actually handwringing over playing time for bench guys who have mainly been a non-factor over the course of this otherwise successful season.
cactus wrote:
Coburn in foul trouble early and Trueheart, Burgess, and Silverio (recruited by Dayton, VCU etc so he must have some talent to play in the caa) all had to play early in the first half. They are lucky that Drexel shot so bad in the first half, they had a lot more open looks than in the second.
I mean, they won because of the starters, who scored all of the points (yet again), all but one of which came from four starters. They won because of Ray holding the fort in the first half, Eli in the second half and team D from primarily the starters throughout the game. They would've won by roughly the same amount had the bench played or not. Four guys off the bench (not counting Connor in the final :16) totalled 0 pts, 5 rebs, 1 ast, 1 stl, and 4 of the rebs, the 1 ast and the 1 stl came from noe guy (Schutte). This was still pretty much business as usual all year, 4-5 starters winning it basically themselves.
On the looks, I agree with Drexel Coach Spike that it was actually the opposite - he thought 9 of the 10 3s Drexel took (making 1) were shots they wanted from the guys they wanted while the second half (which was a lot more starters playing than in the first half) was a result of Hofstra's defense making Drexel go 1/12 from 3.
They easily could have fallen into a hole with coburn on the bench for an extended amount of time. Not sure what you mean by "the opposite" - seems in line with what I said - certainly they weren't as in sync in the zone with coburn in foul trouble, yet Drexel went 1-10 in the first half from 3, mostly because they shot terrible and missed a lot of open looks. The second half is where they actually shut drexel down on d. Those guys not playing all year can have serious consequences and they were very lucky that they had a lead and not down 7+ with only 25 pts scored in the first half - would have been a much different game.