Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?

Quote from: Poison on February 15, 2016, 10:31:49 AM

Is this the same board that tore Lavin a new one for just considering the kid from Oregon? Now we want a player from the Hofstra scandal where's the players actually stole from their head coach? Ruined that poor guy's career. None of those people should be playing D1 ball anywhere.

You keep saying you want a wide body that is tough and plays defense.  Well, he's 240,  not even afraid of his coach, and can rack up steals.

I certainly wouldn't be against adding a 5th year guy, but let's add the hardest working player we can find. Let it be a guy who understands how hard you need to work. I'd like a player like the point guard on NJIT. No idea if he's available, but that's the Sterling Gibbs type of 5th who would make a difference.

What is the obsession with 5th year guys? We could use 4 year players.

What is the obsession with 5th year guys? We could use 4 year players.

Yet everyone is fawning over a 1 year player

There will be plenty of non 5th year transfers. Will have to sit out a year, but some will be very good and may help w scholi distribution.

There will be plenty of non 5th year transfers. Will have to sit out a year, but some will be very good and may help w scholi distribution.

Traditional transfer are horrible for scholarship distribution. You are giving a scholarship to somebody that isn't player for a full season. 5th year players are great for scholarship distribution because you only take one in if you have a scholarship to offer and that scholarship opens up again for the next season.

I agree we should be building around 4 year players which it appears is what the staff is focusing on, but bringing in a solid 5th year transfer for a season can't hurt whatsoever

Traditional transfer are horrible for scholarship distribution. You are giving a scholarship to somebody that isn't player for a full season. 5th year players are great for scholarship distribution because you only take one in if you have a scholarship to offer and that scholarship opens up again for the next season.

I agree we should be building around 4 year players which it appears is what the staff is focusing on, but bringing in a solid 5th year transfer for a season can't hurt whatsoever

Depends what you mean by transfer. SJU has had incredible success with two year players: Berry, Harvey, Hatten, Thornton, Hardy Brownlee, James Scott. Billy Paultz was a transfer, so was Reggie Carter. I don't care where players come from, as long as they are players. 

Quote from: goredmen on February 15, 2016, 06:48:12 PM

Traditional transfer are horrible for scholarship distribution. You are giving a scholarship to somebody that isn't player for a full season. 5th year players are great for scholarship distribution because you only take one in if you have a scholarship to offer and that scholarship opens up again for the next season.

I agree we should be building around 4 year players which it appears is what the staff is focusing on, but bringing in a solid 5th year transfer for a season can't hurt whatsoever

Depends what you mean by transfer. SJU has had incredible success with two year players: Berry, Harvey, Hatten, Thornton, Hardy Brownlee, James Scott. Billy Paultz was a transfer, so was Reggie Carter. I don't care where players come from, as long as they are players. 

Oh no, I'm not saying that all traditional transfers are bad, just refuting his point that they are beneficial to scholarship distribution plans when it's actually the opposite. I don't bringing in a transfer that has to sit out a year if he can ball

Quote from: Foad on February 15, 2016, 09:28:41 PM

Quote from: goredmen on February 15, 2016, 06:48:12 PM

Traditional transfer are horrible for scholarship distribution. You are giving a scholarship to somebody that isn't player for a full season. 5th year players are great for scholarship distribution because you only take one in if you have a scholarship to offer and that scholarship opens up again for the next season.

I agree we should be building around 4 year players which it appears is what the staff is focusing on, but bringing in a solid 5th year transfer for a season can't hurt whatsoever

Depends what you mean by transfer. SJU has had incredible success with two year players: Berry, Harvey, Hatten, Thornton, Hardy Brownlee, James Scott. Billy Paultz was a transfer, so was Reggie Carter. I don't care where players come from, as long as they are players. 

Oh no, I'm not saying that all traditional transfers are bad, just refuting his point that they are beneficial to scholarship distribution plans when it's actually the opposite. I don't bringing in a transfer that has to sit out a year if he can ball

Schollie distribution no, but perhaps roster balance yes.

When i say scholi  distribution, I mean not having most of the players graduating the same year.

The concept of a 5th year senior or even 2 of them probably makes sense for such a young team.
It's hard to know if the right player exists without knowing who's on that list. A kid could just head to
Europe figuring that he has graduated.

Going winless is not going to attract a sterling Gibbs type . Do we need Durand Johnson 2.0?

Going winless is not going to attract a sterling Gibbs type . Do we need Durand Johnson 2.0?

Exactly.  Really good 5th year players will want a shot to go far in tourney.  Next year, if we make the tourney it will be a huge win.

Going winless is not going to attract a sterling Gibbs type . Do we need Durand Johnson 2.0?

Maybe it comes down to how good the reinforcements are right now? Their peers probably know if they can play or not.