Rhody MBB Scholarship Tracker

[rambone 78]

So far this is what our roster line-up looks like:

PG - Luis, Ways, Ben
CG- House, Cam
Wing - Zek, Farrell
SF/PF- Green
PF/C- Fuchs

I do like the experience returning (so far) and feel this will be a competitive group.
The additional year together will help the team's chemistry and I expect the defense to be much improved.

We are very thin upfront, so we obviously need more depth there.

Maybe an experienced true PG because Luis is questionable at that position, Ways hasn't shown much yet, and Ben is only a true freshman.

I was thinking our biggest jump would be in 25-26 (year 4 of Archie) but our 4 core players will be out of eligibility.
So, let's see how this staff does in the portal and the development of our young players.

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

Everything was an issue. Certainly chemistry was, and talent both mental and physical too.

[Blue Man]

So far this is what our roster line-up looks like:

PG - Luis, Ways, Ben
CG- House, Cam
Wing - Zek, Farrell
SF/PF- Green
PF/C- Fuchs

I do like the experience returning (so far) and feel this will be a competitive group.
The additional year together will help the team's chemistry and I expect the defense to be much improved.

We are very thin upfront, so we obviously need more depth there.

Maybe an experienced true PG because Luis is questionable at that position, Ways hasn't shown much yet, and Ben is only a true freshman.

I was thinking our biggest jump would be in 25-26 (year 4 of Archie) but our 4 core players will be out of eligibility.
So, let's see how this staff does in the portal and the development of our young players.

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

[Jersey77]

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

Blue Man needed to vent.

[RhowdyRam02]

So far this is what our roster line-up looks like:

PG - Luis, Ways, Ben
CG- House, Cam
Wing - Zek, Farrell
SF/PF- Green
PF/C- Fuchs

I do like the experience returning (so far) and feel this will be a competitive group.
The additional year together will help the team's chemistry and I expect the defense to be much improved.

We are very thin upfront, so we obviously need more depth there.

Maybe an experienced true PG because Luis is questionable at that position, Ways hasn't shown much yet, and Ben is only a true freshman.

I was thinking our biggest jump would be in 25-26 (year 4 of Archie) but our 4 core players will be out of eligibility.
So, let's see how this staff does in the portal and the development of our young players.

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

I just didn't see it as an issue on the offensive end. Sets were being run and guys were getting open for shots. Can chemistry only be an issue on one half of the court?

[RhowdyRam02]

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I'm not saying Archie is bad or the issue, but I don't think chemistry was an issue, at least not a defining issue. It wasn't an issue on offense.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but if effort and competitiveness aren't there it's not going to matter

[Blue Man]

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I'm not saying Archie is bad or the issue, but I don't think chemistry was an issue, at least not a defining issue. It wasn't an issue on offense.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but if effort and competitiveness aren't there it's not going to matter

I know you weren't, it was an amalgamation of a large contingent of the board that would agree with your post for different reasons.

I think chemistry is how you get people to put in effort and be competitive. I think it's everything. And playing together with guys for longer is a big reason for team success. UConn's team last year had 3 key starters return and set the tone with a couple of transfers and freshmen. This year they returned another 3 starters in Newton, Karaban, Clingan and added a couple more.

But seniority and experience matter more in college than anywhere else because everyone is so young and so many people don't get old in college anymore.

[PeterRamTime]

Is it not obvious that the team just got demoralized as the year went on? They didn't handle adversity well, but there was plenty of talent to win more than 12 games. We saw these "untalented" players gel at times. They had no continuity, roster was in flux, the losses piled up and they had a hard time handling when shit hit the fan. Typical young team rebuilding problems.

Archie has to instill more toughness and belief in these guys and lucky for us they have another offseason to do so.

Another offseason together to grow, believe in themselves again while we add in the freshmen and portal pieces.

Then we wait and see how it pans out next year, but odds are they feel better and are ready to get after it and we see a more mature confident team.

I think we will easily be better, but I worry about how they handle adversity. Do they let it snowball into blowouts and losing streaks? Do we learn how to win tough games?

The SLU game, @UMass, home against Fordham and Brown are games off the top of my head that were very winnable if they didn't piss down their leg. Could've been a solid 16 win season.

If Archie brings these guys back, adds portal guys and they still just give up, can't guard and we lose like we have been then we will know Archie's fate.

However, I choose to believe we are capable of more than that. We literally saw it come together mid-season in our four game win streak. We saw a good basketball team in that period of time that had no effort or confidence issues.

I think odds are we get it going again next year. More experience, more talented and more than likely a more mature team able to handle adversity.

What I'm wondering is, who are we adding to the mix!? A quick guard or two that can play defense? Shooter? A couple experienced rim protecting centers with high major size!?

[79RhodyFan]

Is it not obvious that the team just got demoralized as the year went on? They didn't handle adversity well, but there was plenty of talent to win more than 12 games. We saw these "untalented" players gel at times. They had no continuity, roster was in flux, the losses piled up and they had a hard time handling when shit hit the fan. Typical young team rebuilding problems.

Archie has to instill more toughness and belief in these guys and lucky for us they have another offseason to do so.

Another offseason together to grow, believe in themselves again while we add in the freshmen and portal pieces.

Then we wait and see how it pans out next year, but odds are they feel better and are ready to get after it and we see a more mature confident team.

I think we will easily be better, but I worry about how they handle adversity. Do they let it snowball into blowouts and losing streaks? Do we learn how to win tough games?

The SLU game, @UMass, home against Fordham and Brown are games off the top of my head that were very winnable if they didn't piss down their leg. Could've been a solid 16 win season.

If Archie brings these guys back, adds portal guys and they still just give up, can't guard and we lose like we have been then we will know Archie's fate.

However, I choose to believe we are capable of more than that. We literally saw it come together mid-season in our four game win streak. We saw a good basketball team in that period of time that had no effort or confidence issues.

I think odds are we get it going again next year. More experience, more talented and more than likely a more mature team able to handle adversity.

What I'm wondering is, who are we adding to the mix!? A quick guard or two that can play defense? Shooter? A couple experienced rim protecting centers with high major size!?

Also please please bring in players who can hit their FT at a high percentage. it was so frustrating watching all the bricks being throw up game after game. We actually won a few games when we hit our free throws. Tough to win close games shooting FT at around 50% especially for a team that gets to the line a lot

[RhowdyRam02]

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I'm not saying Archie is bad or the issue, but I don't think chemistry was an issue, at least not a defining issue. It wasn't an issue on offense.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but if effort and competitiveness aren't there it's not going to matter

I know you weren't, it was an amalgamation of a large contingent of the board that would agree with your post for different reasons.

I think chemistry is how you get people to put in effort and be competitive. I think it's everything. And playing together with guys for longer is a big reason for team success. UConn's team last year had 3 key starters return and set the tone with a couple of transfers and freshmen. This year they returned another 3 starters in Newton, Karaban, Clingan and added a couple more.

But seniority and experience matter more in college than anywhere else because everyone is so young and so many people don't get old in college anymore.

I hope you're right. This season just messed me up. I'm used to seasons where the coaching or talent isn't good enough, but I don't know how many seasons I've seen where I believe in the coaching and talent but due to effort the results aren't there. I might have to go back to the chicken and beer Red Sox for something like that

[Jersey77]

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I'm not saying Archie is bad or the issue, but I don't think chemistry was an issue, at least not a defining issue. It wasn't an issue on offense.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but if effort and competitiveness aren't there it's not going to matter

I know you weren't, it was an amalgamation of a large contingent of the board that would agree with your post for different reasons.

I think chemistry is how you get people to put in effort and be competitive. I think it's everything. And playing together with guys for longer is a big reason for team success. UConn's team last year had 3 key starters return and set the tone with a couple of transfers and freshmen. This year they returned another 3 starters in Newton, Karaban, Clingan and added a couple more.

But seniority and experience matter more in college than anywhere else because everyone is so young and so many people don't get old in college anymore.

Yes, team chemistry definitely involves effort and awareness on both ends of the floor.
As the group continues to mature together that mentality will improve.

So having our core group return will definitely help to make us much more competitive on the court.

[PeterRamTime]

I'm not saying Archie is bad or the issue, but I don't think chemistry was an issue, at least not a defining issue. It wasn't an issue on offense.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but if effort and competitiveness aren't there it's not going to matter

I know you weren't, it was an amalgamation of a large contingent of the board that would agree with your post for different reasons.

I think chemistry is how you get people to put in effort and be competitive. I think it's everything. And playing together with guys for longer is a big reason for team success. UConn's team last year had 3 key starters return and set the tone with a couple of transfers and freshmen. This year they returned another 3 starters in Newton, Karaban, Clingan and added a couple more.

But seniority and experience matter more in college than anywhere else because everyone is so young and so many people don't get old in college anymore.

Yes, team chemistry definitely involves effort and awareness on both ends of the floor.
As the group continues to mature together that mentality will improve.

So having our core group return will definitely help to make us much more competitive on the court.

I think there were also more games with effort than we remember.

Like that stretch against Loyola and Richmond. We actually lead most of the first half in both and played really hard and competed against good teams, but then once they made a run we just didn't believe we could win anymore...gotta make them believe...and defend.

[section(105)]

Is it not obvious that the team just got demoralized as the year went on? They didn't handle adversity well, but there was plenty of talent to win more than 12 games. We saw these "untalented" players gel at times. They had no continuity, roster was in flux, the losses piled up and they had a hard time handling when shit hit the fan. Typical young team rebuilding problems.

Archie has to instill more toughness and belief in these guys and lucky for us they have another offseason to do so.

Another offseason together to grow, believe in themselves again while we add in the freshmen and portal pieces.

Then we wait and see how it pans out next year, but odds are they feel better and are ready to get after it and we see a more mature confident team.

I think we will easily be better, but I worry about how they handle adversity. Do they let it snowball into blowouts and losing streaks? Do we learn how to win tough games?

The SLU game, @UMass, home against Fordham and Brown are games off the top of my head that were very winnable if they didn't piss down their leg. Could've been a solid 16 win season.

If Archie brings these guys back, adds portal guys and they still just give up, can't guard and we lose like we have been then we will know Archie's fate.

However, I choose to believe we are capable of more than that. We literally saw it come together mid-season in our four game win streak. We saw a good basketball team in that period of time that had no effort or confidence issues.

I think odds are we get it going again next year. More experience, more talented and more than likely a more mature team able to handle adversity.

What I'm wondering is, who are we adding to the mix!? A quick guard or two that can play defense? Shooter? A couple experienced rim protecting centers with high major size!?

Also please please bring in players who can hit their FT at a high percentage. it was so frustrating watching all the bricks being throw up game after game. We actually won a few games when we hit our free throws. Tough to win close games shooting FT at around 50% especially for a team that gets to the line a lot

Last paragraph, yes. Archie made reference to not making free throws in many post games comments.

[steviep123]

All due respect, FTs have been a problem since the Cox days. Even under DH - the big men weren't great at at (to paraphrase Bill Koch, if Langevine could hit FTs and have a better outside shot he would have been at Duke or UNC).

[Jdrums#3]

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

Blue Man needed to vent.

Jersey, I thought I heard BlueMan’s voice as I was walking down the hall and stopped to talk with Nurse Ratchet on my way to my Rhody Rehab session.

You guys must have been in the early session today?

[section(105)]

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

Blue Man needed to vent.

Jersey, I thought I heard BlueMan’s voice as I was walking down the hall and stopped to talk with Nurse Ratchet on my way to my Rhody Rehab session.

You guys must have been in the early session today?

There are lots and lots of voices heard in Rhody Rehab……..beware of which ones you listen to…..

[rambone 78]

Missing FT's in key situations has been a bugaboo for URI teams for as long as I can remember.

Especially in the NCAA tournament, and one time under Baron in the NIT.

Us old guys know.

[Jdrums#3]

Blue Man needed to vent.

Jersey, I thought I heard BlueMan’s voice as I was walking down the hall and stopped to talk with Nurse Ratchet on my way to my Rhody Rehab session.

You guys must have been in the early session today?

There are lots and lots of voices heard in Rhody Rehab……..beware of which ones you listen to…..

Like the voices in my own head. Ooph

[steveystuds06]

Talent and chemistry weren't the issue, effort and defensive competitiveness were. Where is the improvement in those areas coming from?

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

[RIFan]

Seems to me it has more to do with the mix and having the right players and not how long they played together. It is possible to have a team succeed with many new pieces, just as it is to succeed with a team that has been together a while. With the amount of player movement I think you better learn how to master the first scenario rather than the later…at least until you have some success under your belt and the players look around the room and can see that they may have something special if they come back next season. Oh that and some NIL. WTF.

[PeterRamTime]

Chemistry was definitely an issue. Brand new team with a roster in flux. How was chemistry not an issue?

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

The PG situation Arch put himself in was definitely a tough one.

But here are some reasons.

They returned Ronald Polite, and Malik Henry. All played big minutes for them last year. That's a lot more than what we got out of Weston, Rory and Bilau.

They were much older. Two 6 year seniors and all but two guys getting big minutes were upperclassmen.

They were way healthier than we were.

They played an awful OOC. They played @Tennessee and that's really it. Some ok mid majors after that and it showed, because they went 9-10 in the A-10. Really only 3 more league wins than we had.

Their toughest OOC games were
Tennessee
Charlotte
Cornell
South Dakota St
Toledo
Tulane

Not that easy, they got destroyed by the Vols and lost to Charlotte.

However, I'm taking Northwestern, Washington St, Yale, Providence and Charleston over everyone on that list, except Tennessee. At the absolute best they only lose 3 of those games.

So they brought back more from last year, way more experienced, much healthier and a much weaker schedule.

Next year we will bring back more, should have an actual PG and be much older and more experienced.

[Blue Man]

No. It definitely had zero affect that the team we recruited had played zero minutes together, that our intended starters played maybe 1/3 of a season together due to eligibility/injuries, or that 86% of our roster had never played at the A10 or D1 level before. When does that ever matter? It's a total coincidence that older teams with experience together go to the NCAA tournament. Otherwise every tournament team in the field is 100% brand new to each other. Definitely.

This totally happened to every other team in college basketball. Everyone had a complete new roster and major injuries throughout the year that prevented them from ever forming a bond or figuring out how to play with each other. It's just because Archie is a bad coach and he needs to be fired...NO MORE CHANCES!

It's not like Loyola who was a terrible team and kept their whole roster together, added a transfer and was healthy all year that totally turned everything around. That's not an example you're allowed to look at in our own conference. Archie is bad! That's it!

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

The PG situation Arch put himself in was definitely a tough one.

But here are some reasons.

They returned Ronald Polite, and Malik Henry. All played big minutes for them last year. That's a lot more than what we got out of Weston, Rory and Bilau.

They were much older. Two 6 year seniors and all but two guys getting big minutes were upperclassmen.

They were way healthier than we were.

They played an awful OOC. They played @Tennessee and that's really it. Some ok mid majors after that and it showed, because they went 9-10 in the A-10. Really only 3 more league wins than we had.

Their toughest OOC games were
Tennessee
Charlotte
Cornell
South Dakota St
Toledo
Tulane

Not that easy, they got destroyed by the Vols and lost to Charlotte.

However, I'm taking Northwestern, Washington St, Yale, Providence and Charleston over everyone on that list, except Tennessee. At the absolute best they only lose 3 of those games.

So they brought back more from last year, way more experienced, much healthier and a much weaker schedule.

Next year we will bring back more, should have an actual PG and be much older and more experienced.

Precisely my point - what was Tony Skinn left with? Kim English had that team on the way up and left the program in a decent place. They had guys who were there, guys who had already started to do things the right way as Kim English was starting to turn things around.

Experience is everything. Archie Miller was given nothing on his way in here. Less than even Dan Hurley was given post-Baron. Skinn had talent and experience.

If we hold onto these core guys and add some pieces I expect a Loyola-esque turnaround in conference at a minimum.

[Jersey77]

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

The PG situation Arch put himself in was definitely a tough one.

But here are some reasons.

They returned Ronald Polite, and Malik Henry. All played big minutes for them last year. That's a lot more than what we got out of Weston, Rory and Bilau.

They were much older. Two 6 year seniors and all but two guys getting big minutes were upperclassmen.

They were way healthier than we were.

They played an awful OOC. They played @Tennessee and that's really it. Some ok mid majors after that and it showed, because they went 9-10 in the A-10. Really only 3 more league wins than we had.

Their toughest OOC games were
Tennessee
Charlotte
Cornell
South Dakota St
Toledo
Tulane

Not that easy, they got destroyed by the Vols and lost to Charlotte.

However, I'm taking Northwestern, Washington St, Yale, Providence and Charleston over everyone on that list, except Tennessee. At the absolute best they only lose 3 of those games.

So they brought back more from last year, way more experienced, much healthier and a much weaker schedule.

Next year we will bring back more, should have an actual PG and be much older and more experienced.

Precisely my point - what was Tony Skinn left with? Kim English had that team on the way up and left the program in a decent place. They had guys who were there, guys who had already started to do things the right way as Kim English was starting to turn things around.

Experience is everything. Archie Miller was given nothing on his way in here. Less than even Dan Hurley was given post-Baron. Skinn had talent and experience.

If we hold onto these core guys and add some pieces I expect a Loyola-esque turnaround in conference at a minimum.

I think we are missing the point here.
Skinn was looking for more of a quick fix than what Archie was interested in.

Kim English was only at GM for 2 years and his best finish was 5th, not sure a culture was established since his top players left.

Also not true that Archie was left with less talent than when Skinn arrived.
Remember Ish was without question our best player in 22-23, that can't be said of Polite.
Also I would take Carey, Bassy and Martin over Dinkins and Henry any day of the week.
In addition, the twins were willing to stay but Archie wanted to go in a different direction.

I credit Archie for wanting to establish a new culture and realize that change isn't going to be instant.
We gave him a pass in year 1, and last season was a disappointment.
Year 3 we need to start seeing some results.

[steveystuds06]

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

The PG situation Arch put himself in was definitely a tough one.

But here are some reasons.

They returned Ronald Polite, and Malik Henry. All played big minutes for them last year. That's a lot more than what we got out of Weston, Rory and Bilau.

They were much older. Two 6 year seniors and all but two guys getting big minutes were upperclassmen.

They were way healthier than we were.

They played an awful OOC. They played @Tennessee and that's really it. Some ok mid majors after that and it showed, because they went 9-10 in the A-10. Really only 3 more league wins than we had.

Their toughest OOC games were
Tennessee
Charlotte
Cornell
South Dakota St
Toledo
Tulane

Not that easy, they got destroyed by the Vols and lost to Charlotte.

However, I'm taking Northwestern, Washington St, Yale, Providence and Charleston over everyone on that list, except Tennessee. At the absolute best they only lose 3 of those games.

So they brought back more from last year, way more experienced, much healthier and a much weaker schedule.

Next year we will bring back more, should have an actual PG and be much older and more experienced.

Precisely my point - what was Tony Skinn left with? Kim English had that team on the way up and left the program in a decent place. They had guys who were there, guys who had already started to do things the right way as Kim English was starting to turn things around.

Experience is everything. Archie Miller was given nothing on his way in here. Less than even Dan Hurley was given post-Baron. Skinn had talent and experience.

If we hold onto these core guys and add some pieces I expect a Loyola-esque turnaround in conference at a minimum.

Come on, guys, I'm all for defending Archie, but seriously bringing up a player like Malik Henry? Give me a break. He's a subpar A10 player. Weston is better than Henry. Even your boy Bassy is a better player than Henry.

Polite is a solid A10 player, I'll give you that. But is he as good as Ish? Nope.

Also, why do we act like we start and play a bunch of freshmen? We don't. We had two freshmen who had roles all year: Cam and Fuchs. According to the Fuchs haters, he should have been more developed based on his prior experience. So which is it? Because when I would say he's a freshman and he needs time, some of you would respond that he's not a true freshman because he played professionally. So you can't now use that as an excuse for why Archie struggled this year. Luis was in his fourth year. House was in his fourth year. Zek was in his third year after playing for a great coach and program at Bradley. Green was in his fourth year. Weston came back after a full season. Tyson Brown was a juco. Most juco players are more ready, in my opinion. Regardless, if you think we're too young, that's on ARCHIE. He built this team. If you think we need more leadership, then bring on a leader. He didn't!

Tony Sknn was left with a tough situation, not as tough as Archie's year one, but I'm comparing him to Archie's second year. Because Archie built a subpar roster in his first season and we didn't have many players worth bringing back, we're now giving him a pass because he didn't have core pieces to help build a new culture this year? Come on. I wanted the twins back. Archie didn't. I wanted Bassy to stay. Archie didn't. I would have taken Carey back if I knew Ways and Luis were the two guards coming in. We all wanted Ish to stay. Archie couldn't close him.

So, because Tony Skinn had one decent A10 player returning, that's why they had a good year? They had a good year because, unlike Archie, he landed some very good transfers. He also brought in a freshman in Okojie, who's better than any freshman Archie recruited. It's very simple to me. He built a better roster. He also outcoached Archie. He was simply better, and you can make whatever excuse you want, but the stats and records don't lie. We didn't improve at all this year. We just got better at scoring but got much worse at defending.

The excuses some of you come up with for Archie are ridiculous to me. Two things can be true: Archie has done a bad job so far, and Archie can also improve and fix this. I still believe he can, but I'm not going to pretend that he had more disadvantages than most coaches around the country. In year 1? Sure. But in year 2, he should have done better

[rambone 78]

For every lousy coach we've had, there has always been a few who will defend them no matter what, and list a litany of excuses for why we were bad.

I'm not saying Archie is a lousy coach, the guy knows the game as well as anyone. But it's not translating into results so far.

For a guy like him who knows the game, it's even more frustrating for me to see how bad we still are.

Yes I gave him a pass for year 1, as did most of us.

I dont give him a pass for year 2. The lack of talent is bad enough, but the lack of effort to me is even more troubling.

Archie at least is transparent at his pressers about the issues and his failure to fix them, unlike Baron and Cox.

But that's not enough. Year 3 has to be a major step forward, I know I and others have beaten the subject to death

The excuses have to stop. With a bigger NIL fund Archie has to produce. Some will likely defend Archie until the day he's fired. That's their choice.

He doesn't get forever to turns things around.

[Blue Man]

For every lousy coach we've had, there has always been a few who will defend them no matter what, and list a litany of excuses for why we were bad.

I'm not saying Archie is a lousy coach, the guy knows the game as well as anyone. But it's not translating into results so far.

For a guy like him who knows the game, it's even more frustrating for me to see how bad we still are.

Yes I gave him a pass for year 1, as did most of us.

I dont give him a pass for year 2. The lack of talent is bad enough, but the lack of effort to me is even more troubling.

Archie at least is transparent at his pressers about the issues and his failure to fix them, unlike Baron and Cox.

But that's not enough. Year 3 has to be a major step forward, I know I and others have beaten the subject to death

The excuses have to stop. With a bigger NIL fund Archie has to produce. Some will likely defend Archie until the day he's fired. That's their choice.

He doesn't get forever to turns things around.

Eh I was defending Dan well into year 5 against 80% of this board so I’ll trust my own track record against the prevailing negative opinions here.

[reef]

I’m still thinking there’s going to be much more turnover , we should hopefully get a couple more players in the portal to upgrade the talent and probably lose a couple more too see what happens it’s very early

[rambone 78]

Blue Man, defending Dan was plausible by year 5 because the program was trending up by year 3.

Archie needs to get this train rolling in the right direction and then my attitude will also change in the right direction.

No better time to start than next season!

[Rhodymob05]

Nice to see, Green, Wright, and Louis

[Rhody15]

Nice to see, Green, Wright, and Louis

Being out in the community is always nice yes.

…however I wish Ways was at the local YMCA of some midwestern low major lol

[CamsRams]

Nice to see, Green, Wright, and Louis

Being not in the community is always nice yes.

…however I wish Weight was at the local YMCA of some midwestern low major lol

Zek is there too.

[RamStock]

I agree with some of this, Blue, but examples on both sides could provide a clearer picture. For instance, George Mason lost its head coach and arguably the best player in the conference, Josh Oduru.

Their leading scorer this year was Keyshawn Hall, who transferred from UNLV. Their second-leading scorer and, in my opinion, the best player was Darius Maddox, a transfer from VTech. Their third leading scorer is Amari Kelly, who's also a transfer.

George Mason's three best players are playing their first year at Mason with a brand new coach. They still put together a good year. Why were they able to do this, but Archie put together two absolutely terrible seasons?

On the other hand, the reason URI had a brand new roster was that they recruited one of the worst rosters I've ever seen at URI. Sure, blame that on Cox. However, the one player we needed to bring back left (ish). As much as you think he sucks, Bassy would have been one of our best guards this year. Losing him and bringing on an off-guard to be our starting point guard was a significant challenge. Additionally, recruiting a player like Always, who may be a D2 player, added to the struggles. If you don't want Bassy, fine. It's still bad that he didn't bring in a legit starting point guard last year. Even if it was a 5th-year guard before Hammond came.

I gave Archie a pass for year one. I'm not giving him a pass for year two. This year was a disaster. I agree with you that we need to bring back some core pieces, which seems to be happening. I will go into next year and be all in on Archie. I still think he's the coach who can turn this around. It would take another season like this to make me want him out.

The PG situation Arch put himself in was definitely a tough one.

But here are some reasons.

They returned Ronald Polite, and Malik Henry. All played big minutes for them last year. That's a lot more than what we got out of Weston, Rory and Bilau.

They were much older. Two 6 year seniors and all but two guys getting big minutes were upperclassmen.

They were way healthier than we were.

They played an awful OOC. They played @Tennessee and that's really it. Some ok mid majors after that and it showed, because they went 9-10 in the A-10. Really only 3 more league wins than we had.

Their toughest OOC games were
Tennessee
Charlotte
Cornell
South Dakota St
Toledo
Tulane

Not that easy, they got destroyed by the Vols and lost to Charlotte.

However, I'm taking Northwestern, Washington St, Yale, Providence and Charleston over everyone on that list, except Tennessee. At the absolute best they only lose 3 of those games.

So they brought back more from last year, way more experienced, much healthier and a much weaker schedule.

Next year we will bring back more, should have an actual PG and be much older and more experienced.

Precisely my point - what was Tony Skinn left with? Kim English had that team on the way up and left the program in a decent place. They had guys who were there, guys who had already started to do things the right way as Kim English was starting to turn things around.

Experience is everything. Archie Miller was given nothing on his way in here. Less than even Dan Hurley was given post-Baron. Skinn had talent and experience.

If we hold onto these core guys and add some pieces I expect a Loyola-esque turnaround in conference at a minimum.

The core was part of another last place team that can’t play a lick of defense. I really don’t see why Always Wright would stay or even Montgomery at this point. I’m not too confident with what Archie can bring either. Everyone will probably praise him on every player that is signed, but he struck out most of the guys that were brought in. No clue what this team will look like next year

[luke]

I agree BlueMAN I remember in Dan Hurley's A10 tournament year they lost 5 games in a row including a home loss to a terrible Fordham team and
most on KB were about done with Hurley . his team turned it around with 8 straight wins and then a win in the NCAA tournament over Creighton .
So, I'm not ready to give up on Archie just yet , even if it takes two more seasons to get good . If he can't do this , I don't know who else might be able to do any better . And that would mean starting from scratch all over again .

[RhowdyRam02]

For every lousy coach we've had, there has always been a few who will defend them no matter what, and list a litany of excuses for why we were bad.

I'm not saying Archie is a lousy coach, the guy knows the game as well as anyone. But it's not translating into results so far.

For a guy like him who knows the game, it's even more frustrating for me to see how bad we still are.

Yes I gave him a pass for year 1, as did most of us.

I dont give him a pass for year 2. The lack of talent is bad enough, but the lack of effort to me is even more troubling.

Archie at least is transparent at his pressers about the issues and his failure to fix them, unlike Baron and Cox.

But that's not enough. Year 3 has to be a major step forward, I know I and others have beaten the subject to death

The excuses have to stop. With a bigger NIL fund Archie has to produce. Some will likely defend Archie until the day he's fired. That's their choice.

He doesn't get forever to turns things around.

Archie doesn't get forever, but he should have gotten more than a year and a half before he started to get killed considering what he took over.

But people are unable to conceive that the coach is only responsible for their time and not disappointment with the previous coach. People took out Jerry D and Baron on Hurley and they're taking out Cox on Miller

[RhowdyRam02]

Blue Man, defending Dan was plausible by year 5 because the program was trending up by year 3.

Archie needs to get this train rolling in the right direction and then my attitude will also change in the right direction.

No better time to start than next season!

You shit on Blue Man and I and called us Kool Aid drinkers in the middle of year 5 when we were defending Hurley but now it's plausible?

[rhodylocal]

Blue Man, defending Dan was plausible by year 5 because the program was trending up by year 3.

Archie needs to get this train rolling in the right direction and then my attitude will also change in the right direction.

No better time to start than next season!

You shit on Blue Man and I and called us Kool Aid drinkers in the middle of year 5 when we were defending Hurley but now it's plausible?

Pretty sure everyone posting on this board, including blue man completely lost their stuff and gave up on Hurley after the home loss to Fordham. Everyone who had defended him quit. Then we went on to make it to the dance. Darkest before the dawn.

[RhowdyRam02]

Blue Man, defending Dan was plausible by year 5 because the program was trending up by year 3.

Archie needs to get this train rolling in the right direction and then my attitude will also change in the right direction.

No better time to start than next season!

You shit on Blue Man and I and called us Kool Aid drinkers in the middle of year 5 when we were defending Hurley but now it's plausible?

Pretty sure everyone posting on this board, including blue man completely lost their stuff and gave up on Hurley after the home loss to Fordham. Everyone who had defended him quit. Then we went on to make it to the dance. Darkest before the dawn.

Wrong

[rhodylocal]

You shit on Blue Man and I and called us Kool Aid drinkers in the middle of year 5 when we were defending Hurley but now it's plausible?

Pretty sure everyone posting on this board, including blue man completely lost their stuff and gave up on Hurley after the home loss to Fordham. Everyone who had defended him quit. Then we went on to make it to the dance. Darkest before the dawn.

Wrong

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

[RhowdyRam02]

Pretty sure everyone posting on this board, including blue man completely lost their stuff and gave up on Hurley after the home loss to Fordham. Everyone who had defended him quit. Then we went on to make it to the dance. Darkest before the dawn.

Wrong

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

Take a look at the Baron 2.0 thread. The one that started after losing to PC that year, nevermind the Fordham game

[BleedBlue87]

Wrong

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

Take a look at the Baron 2.0 thread. The one that started after losing to PC that year, nevermind the Fordham game

I will admit, I was on that train and have learned from it.

[bigappleram]

I was in Pittsburgh that year for the conf tourney. It was a very very small fan contingent.

[Blue Man]

Blue Man, defending Dan was plausible by year 5 because the program was trending up by year 3.

Archie needs to get this train rolling in the right direction and then my attitude will also change in the right direction.

No better time to start than next season!

My brother in Christ, then why did Dan need defending if we were trending up? He was trending up and this board was still in a meltdown.

Maybe, just maybe, the prevailing panicked opinions of this board aren't a great barometer for future projections of where this program will be?

[SGreenwell]

Pretty sure everyone posting on this board, including blue man completely lost their stuff and gave up on Hurley after the home loss to Fordham. Everyone who had defended him quit. Then we went on to make it to the dance. Darkest before the dawn.

Wrong

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

Here you go!

viewtopic.php?p=101957#p101957

[Blue Man]

Wrong

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

Here you go!

viewtopic.php?p=101957#p101957

I enjoy the receipts. That thread was me specifically putting it on the players and their FT shooting, not the coaching.

[SGreenwell]

It would be fun to look back at that Fordham thread.

Here you go!

viewtopic.php?p=101957#p101957

I enjoy the receipts. That thread was me specifically putting it on the players and their FT shooting, not the coaching.

You get a really strong sense of deja vu, reading post after post about a big man people think is too soft (Fuchs / Biruta) and about how bad the team is at FT shooting, haha. I do think the talent level following Hurley's second year was better than after Miller's second year, but I do think this URI team is closer to being decent (.500+) than the dire predictions seem right now.

[bigappleram]

I don't think that's the Fordham thread people are referring to. The game in reference was played on Feb 5, 2017. This thread is from the game many years before that.

However it is funny to go read our old friend GBG - who believed:
1.) Despite being raised by a HOF coach Dan needed a father figure on the bench guiding him.
2.) That Xavier Munford was a ball hog volume scorer with limited talent.
3.) And that Dan Hurley couldn't coach offense.

If you are going to be wrong I guess be really really wrong.

[Jersey77]

Here you go!

viewtopic.php?p=101957#p101957

I enjoy the receipts. That thread was me specifically putting it on the players and their FT shooting, not the coaching.

You get a really strong sense of deja vu, reading post after post about a big man people think is too soft (Fuchs / Biruta) and about how bad the team is at FT shooting, haha. I do think the talent level following Hurley's second year was better than after Miller's second year, but I do think this URI team is closer to being decent (.500+) than the dire predictions seem right now.

SG, if things play out as they stand now with our core players returning then yes absolutely, we should have a winning conference record in 24-25 (.500 at worst), anything less would be a major disappointment.

Archie knows exactly what holes he needs to fill with the remaining open spots.

[Backroads]

[RhowdyRam02]

Life moves fast in college basketball, and who knows how long ago the interview was done, but that certainly has me feeling better about things

[Jdrums#3]

02, I am with you. Feeling a bit better regarding Hammond.

Also, I agree with BlueMan’s take from earlier today ( I think Stevey has commented the same as BM) that Hammond’s height is keeping the P6 away. I feel the same currently. Of course, that could all change if he comes here and does well.

That said, I am not going to focus on 2 yrs in the future and what might happen. One year at a time for me, for now.

[reef]

02, I am with you. Feeling a bit better regarding Hammond.

Also, I agree with BlueMan’s take from earlier today ( I think Stevey has commented the same as BM) that Hammond’s height is keeping the P6 away. I feel the same currently. Of course, that could all change if he comes here and does well.

That said, I am not going to focus on 2 yrs in the future and what might happen. One year at a time for me, for now.

True and even if he comes here and blows up we probably lose him to P5 but @ least he kick starts us to having a good season