Is this the most talented team in . . . ?

[Gazoo]

Now that we can see Cooke is the real deal and Steve is not just a big stiff, where do you think this team ranks in terms of talent (not accomplishment, obviously) in UD history?

I've been watching since 1992, and I think this is the best basketball team we've put on the floor. The 2013-2014 team had great chemistry but not superior talent IMO. Previously I liked the KW / SF / RM / Mark Jones / Monte Scott team from 2003.

Center: Steve (freshman) is good. Really good. But he's not at Finn's (senior) level yet.

PF: KW (senior) vs. Pollard (junior). Keith was a stud who could score inside and out. Huge motor. Overall skill set I think I give the edge to KW.

SF: Monte Scott (soph) vs. Cooke (RS junior). Cooke by a long shot.

SG: Mark Jones (JR) vs. K Davis (JR). KD is superior, particularly on defense.

PG: Ramod (SR) vs. SS (JR). Ramod was a great PG for us, but I'll take SS.

Bench: Marques Bennett (SO), Frank the Tank (SR), Logan White (SO), and Warren Williams (SO) vs. DD, Sam Miller, Crosby, XW, BW, Mikesell. Advantage 2015 Flyers despite the number of freshmen. If DP returns it's an even bigger advantage to the 2015 team.

Coach: AM. OP is not even an option here.

[forego1]

They look like they might be the hungriest team I've seen in the eight years watching the Flyers. AM looks zoned in; exudes certainty.

[San Diego Flyer]

No disrespect to OP or the 2003 group, but they were lunch pail guys. Really really hard working group who played well together also. Treated us to some great wins as we progressed out of a baskeball depression in the '90's.

This current team is full of potentially exceptional talent and defensively much quicker hands, feet, and team defense.

The nucleus of this current team has won 5 NCAA games for a number of reasons, mostly the explosive ability across the board. Any one of them, save Steve, can go off at any time. And when you add Dyshawn that makes 5.

Flyer fans should be happy to experience both squads, but today's edition can be something really special. Everything this team is involved in takes us to another level with Arch the conductor.

2 cents

[BRob2Perryman3]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Now that we can see Cooke is the real deal and Steve is not just a big stiff, where do you think this team ranks in terms of talent (not accomplishment, obviously) in UD history? I've been watching since 1992, and I think this is the best basketball team we've put on the floor. The 2013-2014 team had great chemistry but not superior talent IMO. Previously I liked the KW / SF / RM / Mark Jones / Monte Scott team from 2003. Center: Steve (freshman) is good. Really good. But he's not at Finn's (senior) level yet. PF: KW (senior) vs. Pollard (junior). Keith was a stud who could score inside and out. Huge motor. Overall skill set I think I give the edge to KW. SF: Monte Scott (soph) vs. Cooke (RS junior). Cooke by a long shot. SG: Mark Jones (JR) vs. K Davis (JR). KD is superior, particularly on defense. PG: Ramod (SR) vs. SS (JR). Ramod was a great PG for us, but I'll take SS. Bench: Marques Bennett (SO), Frank the Tank (SR), Logan White (SO), and Warren Williams (SO) vs. DD, Sam Miller, Crosby, XW, BW, Mikesell. Advantage 2015 Flyers despite the number of freshmen. If DP returns it's an even bigger advantage to the 2015 team. Coach: AM. OP is not even an option here.

Since you said Monty Scott, ill assume you were talking about the 03-04 team. BG was the coach of that team. 02-03 Was the KW,SF and RM plus Brooks NG and DJ Stelly, that was OP's last year. i still prefer the 99-00 team with Ashman,Young,Brooks,Silky and co.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by BRob2Perryman3 Since you said Monty Scott, ill assume you were talking about the 03-04 team. BG was the coach of that team. 02-03 Was the KW,SF and RM plus Brooks NG and DJ Stelly, that was OP's last year. i still prefer the 99-00 team with Ashman,Young,Brooks,Silky and co.

Whoops! I pulled up the wrong roster. I thought I remembered Nate being on that team and was confused when I didn't see him on the roster. Add DJ and Nate, subtract Monte. This team is still better.

[Don]

Some of us go much further back than 25 years. I remember several UD teams that probably had superior starting fives but for overall depth, down to the last scholarship, I think 2015-16 is the best. The Finkel and Don May teams of the mid 60s had excellent talent in the top 6-7 but fell off markedly after that. Ditto for some of the mid 50s teams, one of which was ranked #3 at one point during the season. This year's team has NO deadwood on scholarship. All are or will be solid contributors. Kudos to Archie for putting it together and bring it along as he has. Makes me sad to think he'll ever leave.

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer No disrespect to OP or the 2003 group, but they were lunch pail guys. Really really hard working group who played well together also. Treated us to some great wins as we progressed out of a baskeball depression in the '90's. This current team is full of potentially exceptional talent and defensively much quicker hands, feet, and team defense. The nucleus of this current team has won 5 NCAA games for a number of reasons, mostly the explosive ability across the board. Any one of them, save Steve, can go off at any time. And when you add Dyshawn that makes 5. Flyer fans should be happy to experience both squads, but today's edition can be something really special. Everything this team is involved in takes us to another level with Arch the conductor. 2 cents

YEP SDF..... blue collar team who played above themselves and didn't back down. Just the skills were nowhere near this current level.

They had better center (at this point), current team better overall forwards and definitely PG.

I'm Salivating for Pierre's arrival. In Archie - WE Believe!
definitely more confident, game planning, coaching players up.
Honing in at the end of games, to bring it home.

Gregory had that DEFENSIVELY his first 3 or 4 years. We'd shut teams down and grind out 60-58 wins. This team has offense, and defensive moxie and shot blocking as well. Outstanding!!

	Brian Gregory BRIAN GREGORY UD Men's Basketball Head Coach since 2004. Groomed by the likes of Judd Heathcoate and Tom Izzo at Michigan State, as well as Kevin O'Neill and others, Gregory's defensive-minded leadership has led Dayton to NCAA and multiple NIT appearances. A good recruiter, BG has elevated the athleticism of the squad in recent years and kept top area talent at home. Still looking for that breakthrough season with his own players that catapult him to the NCAA tourney. Graduated from Oakland University.

[NCkevi]

I think we have a chance to be very very good but we'll start losing games we shouldn't unless we reduce turnovers - 17 per games has us 328 out of 346 D1 teams. Great teams don't give away a lot of free points. If we win today and if we play x and if we turn it over 17 times we'll lose.

[San Diego Flyer]

You just never know. I would have said if we allowed 50 % 3 pt shooting on 24 shots we would not win. But we got to the line 10 more times and shot 78% to their 65%, good for +10 points. I agree we can't excessively turn the ball over, not get to the line, shoot a low ft %, neglect to get our 8 steals a game, et al., Any one metric might get us beat, IF we don't offset that with some excellence in another area. For as tall as they were, we were thumping them pretty good on the boards for a while.

We seem to be pushing the ball as much as possible and attacking the rim. Might be inviting more turnovers with that approach, but being too cautious could cost us some aggressiveness that is working for us.

Ok, bottom line, we could benefit some by less turnovers.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer You just never know. I would have said if we allowed 50 % 3 pt shooting on 24 shots we would not win. But we got to the line 10 more times and shot 78% to their 65%, good for +10 points. I agree we can't excessively turn the ball over, not get to the line, shoot a low ft %, neglect to get our 8 steals a game, et al., Any one metric might get us beat, IF we don't offset that with some excellence in another area. For as tall as they were, we were thumping them pretty good on the boards for a while. We seem to be pushing the ball as much as possible and attacking the rim. Might be inviting more turnovers with that approach, but being too cautious could cost us some aggressiveness that is working for us. Ok, bottom line, we could benefit some by less turnovers.

Exactly. All teams have weaknesses in some statistical areas. One thing you have to look at is what are the number of possessions in Flyers' games this season. So the number of turnovers to possessions is a truer stat. Also, the differential in turnovers between us an our opponents are important. It's not like we're turning the ball over 17 times and they are turning it over zero. So if we win the battle of the boards, shooting percentage, getting to the line, etc... a net of negative 4 turnovers a game won't mean squat.

We just beat two quality opponents with lots of turnovers, I'm not concerned.

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by NCkevi I think we have a chance to be very very good but we'll start losing games we shouldn't unless we reduce turnovers - 17 per games has us 328 out of 346 D1 teams. Great teams don't give away a lot of free points. If we win today and if we play x and if we turn it over 17 times we'll lose.

Extrapolating from last night , I know 5 were from freshman - maybe more. We'll get that cut down to 11 or 12 in a few weeks.
everything else I saw last night .... True Team is fundamentally Sound!

Key Metrics

1. FT percentage
2. TEAM Defense rating
3. BOARDS - WE continue to out rebound and outbox opponents

4. Charles Cooke and KD on defense . Say NO More!
5. Healthy fg %
6. No foul trouble last night
7. Big time shots can be taken by 3 guys
8. Weapons at multiple positions

[Flyer 86]

OUR 4TH Stud is on the Way.

(Fingers crossed!!!)

[priceg75]

All I know is after the first three games this felt like a top 20 team to me. It was hard to tell of it was our talent or the competition that made us look so good... But, last night validated that feeling.

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Exactly. All teams have weaknesses in some statistical areas. One thing you have to look at is what are the number of possessions in Flyers' games this season. So the number of turnovers to possessions is a truer stat. Also, the differential in turnovers between us an our opponents are important. It's not like we're turning the ball over 17 times and they are turning it over zero. So if we win the battle of the boards, shooting percentage, getting to the line, etc... a net of negative 4 turnovers a game won't mean squat. We just beat two quality opponents with lots of turnovers, I'm not concerned.

Just to punctuate this point, here's a poster's quote from last night's game:

"We made it close by shooting horribly from 3. We need to clean this up, either by making more, or limiting the shooters. Better to make 2's than misfire 3's."

We fixed the turnover issue, but up pops far too many pitiful and ill-advised 3 pt shots. Can't win with 3 pt shooting like that, right? But thankfully we won with only 9 turnovers, same as our opponent. Any one metric can cost us a game if we really ignore it. We can win with 17 turnovers if the other metrics are on target. This end game is like tub of balloons. In the end the final score is a culmination of all the metrics that hopefully produces a win.

Years ago some poster said, "We can't win if Waleskowski is only going to snag 3 rebounds in a game." We'll it just so happens that we outrebounded the opponent by 9 and our guards got more than their share. What's the beef?

[Avid Flyer]

No this is not the best team since....whenever. But it will be after the 22nd.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer No this is not the best team since....whenever. But it will be after the 22nd.

Hopefully you mean on the 22nd -- our last game against Miami.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by bigred Hopefully you mean on the 22nd -- our last game against Miami.

Got to give DP a game to get under his belt with all the new players. There I cma.

[priceg75]

Originally Posted by priceg75 All I know is after the first three games this felt like a top 20 team to me. It was hard to tell of it was our talent or the competition that made us look so good... But, last night validated that feeling.

I'd like to formally retract this statement for now. Just for now.

[pmcmullen]

I think our our performance against a top 25 opponent should table this for now. Good team? Yes. The best we've seen in a while? TBD.

[Buster Goode]

[T-Bone 84]

If you had asked me after the 'Bama game, I'd have said "Yes". Based on tonight, the answer is a resounding "No". But that's the downside of having a team that's half-new. Guess we'll be able to better answer this question in @ 2 months. For now, the jury is still deliberating.
Posted via Mobile Device

[jack72]

Long way to go, especially for the frosh, who look like seniors in high school.

[ruechalgrin]

Can we please shut this thread down now. Let's re-evaluate after the non-conference schedule.

But for now, the easy is answer is NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Posted via Mobile Device