2023-2024 ROSTER???

[lv20gt]

You're trying WAY to hard...Throw all these stats out the window. Different coach, different system, different set of expectations.

The only thing that you need to know is that he didn't transfer here to sit the bench. They're not going to extend NIL dollars to someone that isn't in the rotation.

Did Terry, Sturdivant, or Coleman stay her to sit on the bench? Is Moore planning on riding the pine the entire year? My guess is everyone is expecting to play starter level minutes. The reality is there are only so many minutes available and I highly doubt anyone, new or returning, was guaranteed a certain number of minutes. I also doubt a coach will play a player more just because they have an NIL deal if the play doesn't justify it. I would certainly hope not and see no reason to believe CDS will approach things like that.

Now maybe the plan is to go permanently small with Coleman almost exclusively at the 4 which would open up more minutes for everyone else on the wings/ guards. Maybe someone else will transfer out and it'll be a moot point. But if 6 players are competing for 120 minutes not everyone is going to be getting 25 minutes a game. Someone is going to be getting in the low double digit minutes if not single digits. I'm sure all will compete and we'll be better off for it and other than Kelly and Sturdivant I don't think anyone is a lock to play starter level minutes.

 

[RamblinRed]

Based on his rotations at Pacific I expect most of the 10 guys we are talking about (i'm assuming in this case that Kelly returns), I would expect pretty much all of them to play.
I think a strong rotation of 7 or 8 will evolve but even after that I think the other 2-3 will see time every game.

I do not expect to see a Thin Gold Line type rotation.
I'm also not expecting to see anyone avg 35 mpg. I expect it to top out closer to 30.
My expectation is we will probably have 7 guys avg between 18-30 mpg and another 3 avg between 10-14.

I'm just excited to see what we look like this fall and how we play both on offense and defense.
I don't have any huge expectations for year 1, but if Kelly does return then I think you can say this offseason went about as well as you could have expected.
We lost alot of players, but only 2 who really contributed, and both were among our lighter contributors and missed alot of games late in the season so the others got alot of playing time.

 

[AUFC]

Call it sunk cost fallacy but I think the difficult academics help in this situation. If you sink 2 years into a Georgia Tech degree, you want to finish all 120 credits.

I think Deebo is going to have a great season. You could see his performance uptick those last 10 games (except Syracuse; wasn’t feeling it that day but had to keep chucking because it was the gameplan against the zone) when he stopped having to shoot end-of-shot-clock contested 3s and generate his own shots off the dribble.

He’s a way better player than a lot of this board deemed him last season. Some folks were vicious towards him.

 

[YlJacket]

Call it sunk cost fallacy but I think the difficult academics help in this situation. If you sink 2 years into a Georgia Tech degree, you want to finish all 120 credits.

I think Deebo is going to have a great season. You could see his performance uptick those last 10 games (except Syracuse; wasn’t feeling it that day but had to keep chucking because it was the gameplan against the zone) when he stopped having to shoot end-of-shot-clock contested 3s and generate his own shots off the dribble.

He’s a way better player than a lot of this board deemed him last season. Some folks were vicious towards him.

I agree with you regarding the sunk cost of GT academics. Quite honestly I thought it would be why guys like Maxwell would not transfer. No real expectation of NBA so get the best education/degree you can. Do your job for BB recognizing your status and get your degree.

Coleman is a 3/4 tweener to me. Yes we asked too much of him at times last year but I worry which slot he can guard? Quick enough to guard a mid or above ACC 3? I do think he will see a lot of time at the 4 in what I expect to be CDS's approach but Moore could come after his minutes if he improves his shooting. We will see. But he will get minutes

 

[Techster]

Reeves shoots at a very high rate 23.7 attempts per 100 last year. To compare, Kelly averaged 22.5 per 100. Smith 20.7. Sturdivant 19.7. Terry 19.7. Coleman 15.7.Florida had Castleton at 21.2, Kugel at 19.5, Richard at 14.5. Lofton at 13.3. Abram was at 22.4.

Reeves eFG% was .445. For comparison Smith was .428, Sturdy .462, Coleman .48, Terry .514, Kelly .52. For UF Casleton was .503, Kugel .526, Richard .607, and Lofton .459. Both Reeves and Coleman were better as freshmen with Reeevs at .5 and Coleman at .525. Abram was at .48.

You say he was better at creating his own shot. But was he creating good shots? To me it doesn't look like it, or he was and just not converting. He also didn't really generate opportunities for others getting just 1.6 assists per 100 compared to 3.3 turnovers. To compare Coleman was at 2.5 assists and 2.2 turnovers. Terry was 2.5 compared to 1.9. Kelly was 2.4 compared to 2.7. Sturdivant was 8.3 compared to 4.0. Abram was 5.7 compared to 5.1.

Now Reeves could improve, and he could benefit from playing in a different system. That can be said for all our options though. Terry was adjusting to playing in the ACC while Coleman and Kelly were also sophomores. Abram was a freshman as well. Any could improve, or benefit from a different system. To me, Reeves profile indicates someone we put in when Kelly is out to try and generate opportunities while Coleman fits better alongside Kelly as someone who can better take advantage of the attention Kelly should draw. I also think Coleman's shooting makes him more appealing at the 4 as going small doesn't make much sense if you're going to put someone at that spot that doesn't shoot the 3 well. I also don't think Coleman is great in that role and am hoping we see a big jump from Moore in that regard. However if that happens then that means the total number of available minutes goes down for all the wings.

I appreciate the research, getting granular hasn't convinced me that Reeves isn't at least the same level of player that Coleman is. When we're arguing a difference between 1.2 attempts/100, or 1.8 assists/100 and 1.1TO/100. To me, those numbers are not reflective of a deeper issue that's unsurmountable with Reeves. It could also be that since Reeves didn't play more minutes, he just didn't get the chance to settle into the flow of the game. His scoring per 40 minutes indicates he's a player with a very good upside.

Also, and I'm not familiar with what UF ran last season, but as others have pointed out we would be running a different system and Reeves most likely would be asked to do different things...which may help with his production and efficiency, but may also hurt it.

Point is, the tools and skillset are there for Reeves to be a good player for GT.

 

[RamblinRed]

My biggest comment would be i'm not assuming any minute level for any player on this year's team.

It's a new staff with no ties to previous players (at least in terms of recruiting, obviously CDS has a relationship with Sturdy, but frankly I don't expect that to impact the min Sturdy gets). They are certainly bringing in players who will fit what they hope to run both offensively and defensively.
I'm expecting we will likely have very different systems both offensively and defensively from what we have been doing.
Also given CDS background I am sort of expecting alot of situational lineups which will impact minutes.

Mainly i'm just excited to see something new and see if CDS can truly turn this around and make GT a consistent winner.

There is actually quite alot of experience on this team (with only Abram and Gapare having less than 2 yrs of college) which should help.

I'm also really happy that we brought in a couple of younger guys. I'm sort of expecting Abram to be in the primary rotation, Gapare is likely going to be on the lower end of minutes this year. But both have 3 yrs of eligibility and have used their free transfer, so they are likely to be around awhile.

I'm also excited to see how CDS first recruiting class goes. Right now he has at least 5 scholarships available. I would expect to see him sign 3-4 players out of HS and then add a couple of transfers as well during or after the season.

 

[Silk3]

Did Terry, Sturdivant, or Coleman stay her to sit on the bench? Is Moore planning on riding the pine the entire year? My guess is everyone is expecting to play starter level minutes. The reality is there are only so many minutes available and I highly doubt anyone, new or returning, was guaranteed a certain number of minutes. I also doubt a coach will play a player more just because they have an NIL deal if the play doesn't justify it. I would certainly hope not and see no reason to believe CDS will approach things like that.

Now maybe the plan is to go permanently small with Coleman almost exclusively at the 4 which would open up more minutes for everyone else on the wings/ guards. Maybe someone else will transfer out and it'll be a moot point. But if 6 players are competing for 120 minutes not everyone is going to be getting 25 minutes a game. Someone is going to be getting in the low double digit minutes if not single digits. I'm sure all will compete and we'll be better off for it and other than Kelly and Sturdivant I don't think anyone is a lock to play starter level minutes.

Why is Sturdivant a lock? He was basically unplayable 2/3rds of the year until he starting playing better at the end.

 

[OG-T]

This off-season has fully reignited hope in returning to basketball relevancy. Given last year’s record, transition, etc, the recent progress gets a Grade A in my opinion.
We have 10 players that belong in an ACC court. Many can play multiple positions, play minutes may vary, but like RR stated, CDS will likely run up to all 10 game to game. I DID like Pastner, and one of my critiques was him admitting he could NOT manage beyond 6 or 7 players like Hamilton/FSU had done with success. I also didn’t like that repeated message for recruiting/portal - “unless you’re in my top 6 or 7, you’re not playing”. I like CDS’ philosophy from Day 1 approaching team like an NBA GM, im guessing, including having 10 he can depend on.

 

[kg01]

This off-season has fully reignited hope in returning to basketball relevancy. Given last year’s record, transition, etc, the recent progress gets a Grade A in my opinion.
We have 10 players that belong in an ACC court. Many can play multiple positions, play minutes may vary, but like RR stated, CDS will likely run up to all 10 game to game. I DID like Pastner, and one of my critiques was him admitting he could NOT manage beyond 6 or 7 players like Hamilton/FSU had done with success. I also didn’t like that repeated message for recruiting/portal - “unless you’re in my top 6 or 7, you’re not playing”. I like CDS’ philosophy from Day 1 approaching team like an NBA GM, im guessing, including having 10 he can depend on.

Although I doubt we'll go 10-deep, I agree with most of your post. To me, having more league-quality bodies definitely raises the competition level in practices, which is a hidden benefit.

I've been afraid that us playing 6-7 was sorta because we had to, in some ways.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Trying to divine how players will perform or how many minutes they will play in a new scheme with different teammates and brand new coaches based on what they did last year (in some cases on different teams) is inane.

 

[kg01]

Trying to divine how players will perform or how many minutes they will play in a new scheme with different teammates and brand new coaches based on what they did last year (in some cases on different teams) is inane.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

 

[57jacket]

Trying to divine how players will perform or how many minutes they will play in a new scheme with different teammates and brand new coaches based on what they did last year (in some cases on different teams) is inane.

not inane...stupid

 

[leatherneckjacket]

not inane...stupid

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
in·ane
adjective

1. silly; stupid.
   "don't constantly badger people with inane questions"​

 

[forensicbuzz]

Definitely inane…probably insane, but maybe not.

 

[Connell62]

Did Terry, Sturdivant, or Coleman stay her to sit on the bench? Is Moore planning on riding the pine the entire year? My guess is everyone is expecting to play starter level minutes. The reality is there are only so many minutes available and I highly doubt anyone, new or returning, was guaranteed a certain number of minutes. I also doubt a coach will play a player more just because they have an NIL deal if the play doesn't justify it. I would certainly hope not and see no reason to believe CDS will approach things like that.

Now maybe the plan is to go permanently small with Coleman almost exclusively at the 4 which would open up more minutes for everyone else on the wings/ guards. Maybe someone else will transfer out and it'll be a moot point. But if 6 players are competing for 120 minutes not everyone is going to be getting 25 minutes a game. Someone is going to be getting in the low double digit minutes if not single digits. I'm sure all will compete and we'll be better off for it and other than Kelly and Sturdivant I don't think anyone is a lock to play starter level minutes.

See RamblinRed's note below. You are going to see a more consistent average across those 6 players.

People were playing 30 minutes per game because they had too. Deebo would have been much better if he were fresher late in the games.

Someone else said it too.. Expect CDS to mix and match personnel based on match-up's. That is where some of the NBA pedigree comes into play.

 

[57jacket]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
in·ane
adjective

1. silly; stupid.
   "don't constantly badger people with inane questions"​

LOL. Redundant comment on my part. Better command of the English language are you. Ha Ha

 

[leatherneckjacket]

LOL. Redundant comment on my part. Better command of the English language are you. Ha Ha

No worries. I had to double check myself.

 

[lv20gt]

I appreciate the research, getting granular hasn't convinced me that Reeves isn't at least the same level of player that Coleman is. When we're arguing a difference between 1.2 attempts/100, or 1.8 assists/100 and 1.1TO/100. To me, those are numbers are not reflective of a deeper issue that's unsurmountable with Reeves. It could also be that since Reeves didn't play more minutes, he just didn't get the chance to settle into the flow of the game. His scoring per 40 minutes indicates he's a player with a very good upside.

Also, and I'm not familiar with what UF ran last season, but as others have pointed out we would be running a different system and Reeves most likely would be asked to do different things...which may help with his production and efficiency, but may also hurt it.

Point is, the tools and skillset are there for Reeves to be a good player for GT.

The 1.2 attempts is only a comparison to Kelly. That is more like 4/8 per 100 when compared to Terry/Coleman who I think he is most likely competing with for playing time. Kelly was our highest eFG% of any wing/guard and so it made sense for him to shoot that much. That isn't really the case with Reeves. I also don't think Coleman is tremendously ahead of Reeves in a vacuum. I think Coleman's style better compliments Kelly (and in general a more crowded back court) because he's more likely to be effective on a limited number of shots. However if Kelly were to stay in the draft, I think Reeves would be the one who took most of his minutes because then we'd be in need of someone to force the issue more.

And I don't think Reeve's issues are insurmountable. He has tremendous athleticism and it would be logical that he would get better shot selection that would help his efficiency go up (along with just making more shots if he really was just in a cold shooting slump) as he got more experience. I still think he'll play and be an important piece for us especially as a spark plug off the bench if the offense starts to stall, and as a driving force when Kelly is out. I don't think him, or anyone else, getting 10-15 mpg means they are bad. I think it means we have a very competitive back court which is a good thing, both for next year and for the years after. If our front court had a similar issue then we'd be a near lock for the NCAAT team to me.

The different coach and different system is a factor for everyone and will almost certainly play a role, however I don't know at this point how you would begin to try and determine which players would benefit more from CDS and his new system compared to whatever was in place before (whether here or elsewhere).

 

[Techster]

The 1.2 attempts is only a comparison to Kelly. That is more like 4/8 per 100 when compared to Terry/Coleman who I think he is most likely competing with for playing time. Kelly was our highest eFG% of any wing/guard and so it made sense for him to shoot that much. That isn't really the case with Reeves. I also don't think Coleman is tremendously ahead of Reeves in a vacuum. I think Coleman's style better compliments Kelly (and in general a more crowded back court) because he's more likely to be effective on a limited number of shots. However if Kelly were to stay in the draft, I think Reeves would be the one who took most of his minutes because then we'd be in need of someone to force the issue more.

And I don't think Reeve's issues are insurmountable. He has tremendous athleticism and it would be logical that he would get better shot selection that would help his efficiency go up (along with just making more shots if he really was just in a cold shooting slump) as he got more experience. I still think he'll play and be an important piece for us especially as a spark plug off the bench if the offense starts to stall, and as a driving force when Kelly is out. I don't think him, or anyone else, getting 10-15 mpg means they are bad. I think it means we have a very competitive back court which is a good thing, both for next year and for the years after. If our front court had a similar issue then we'd be a near lock for the NCAAT team to me.

The different coach and different system is a factor for everyone and will almost certainly play a role, however I don't know at this point how you would begin to try and determine which players would benefit more from CDS and his new system compared to whatever was in place before (whether here or elsewhere).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say anymore. The original premise was you saw Reeves as a player predominantly for depth purposes. My point was given his production at UF in limited minutes compared to Coleman, and his skillset, it's hard to say he's not at least on par with Coleman already. I'm not sure why you're trying to obfuscate with Kelly's production. Right now, Kelly is our best player so I don't think anyone is comparing Reeves to Kelly.

Anyhow, most of this is conjecture. No one knows what Stoudamire's ultimate system will look like...and I think DS is adept and experienced enough to know he probably won't know until he gets all the pieces in place, and see's them in action to figure out what he ultimately wants to do with this team.

In the meantime, it's all messageboard fodder for us.