Next up: Deshawn Delaney & Chris Blake

[ph]

I almost wonder if he's considering reclassifying and going the prep school route to get a high major he wants.

Isn't Tommy already attending a Prep school?

[alczervik75]

Isn't Tommy already attending a Prep school?

yes, but it's his 4th year still, many reclassify and go back a year.

[RedSoxDSM]

Blake Commits

According to Dave Reynolds twitter, Chris Blake gave a verbal to BU.

[Old Coach]

I feel like we made great strides this past season to put ourselves in a good position with recruiting. I must say I am a bit disappointed with our prospects' chances of coming here since the end of the season.

Please don't take this as me challenging your feelings, but who hasn't Bradley gotten a commitment from that you would have expected (in comparison to the kids' other opportunities)?

[BUfan14]

I think this is probably correct. Delaney is going to be a really tough get now.

Do you think Swopshire can start if Delaney doesn't come? Or is another potential starter still out there for the 3 position?

[tornado]

people are definitely need a lineup card..

[Old Coach]

Do you think Swopshire can start if Delaney doesn't come? Or is another potential starter still out there for the 3 position?

I think it depends on how they play. Geno would prefer to have a long wing at the 3 spot, but he got by playing with 3 guards last year. That being said, it's easier to play small at the 3 when you have a 6' 9" center. If you're playing a 6' 6" or 6' 7" kid in the middle, it's tough to play 6', 6' 2", 6' 3" at the guards. We're going to have to wait and see. What I do believe is that there will be better over all balance in the minutes with the ability to go 10 deep on the roster.

[BUfan14]

people are definitely need a lineup card..

Well it's that time of the offseason. It is interesting to discuss it. I think it's a bad sign if you have a couple of wide open spots with no clear cut solutions. I understand guys will develop and surprise hopefully, but still. On a team with 8 guys having never played a game for Bradley, it creates a lot of unknown and wondering from the fans as to what we can expect.

[BUfan14]

I think it depends on how they play. Geno would prefer to have a long wing at the 3 spot, but he got by playing with 3 guards last year. That being said, it's easier to play small at the 3 when you have a 6' 9" center. If you're playing a 6' 6" or 6' 7" kid in the middle, it's tough to play 6', 6' 2", 6' 3" at the guards. We're going to have to wait and see. What I do believe is that there will be better over all balance in the minutes with the ability to go 10 deep on the roster.

Well at 6'6" Swopshire would be a could candidate in my mind then, because he can also shoot a little. It will be interesting to see. As evidenced by my posts, I am very interested to see how the lineup will shake out next year, because there are so many new players and unknowns (to me at least) this year.

[bradleyfan124]

I think coaches love these kinds of problems: having 10 quality players to figure out a lineup from

[tornado]

I think coaches love these kinds of problems: having 10 quality players to figure out a lineup from

unless we go with Nate Wells though we are a bit undersized...

Blake is listed as 6-6
Pickett is really no more than 6-6 (maybe a bit under that)
Prosser is listed as 6-9 but seems to play a little "below the rim"..
Tucker, Zecevic, Swopshire are all 6-4 to 6-6 or so and aren't really low post guys
..and Shaw won't play this coming season..

If our front line was 6-9, 6-9, 6-8, 6-6 last season and people ripped terribly into our low post play saying we didn't even have D-I talent there - then what are people thinking now that we've replaced "6-9 & 6-8" with "6-6"?

[BUfan14]

unless we go with Nate Wells though we are a bit undersized...

Blake is listed as 6-6
Prosser is listed as 6-9 but seems to play a little "below the rim"..
Tucker, Zecevic, Swopshire are all 6-4 to 6-6 or so and aren't really low post guys
..and Shaw won't play this coming season..

If our front line was 6-9, 6-9, 6-8 last season and people ripped terribly into our low post play - then what are people thinking now that we've replaced "6-9 & 6-8" with "6-6"?

If you are counting MK as one of the 6-8 players, then he really wasn't in our rotation much. I am hoping we still get one more big man with the last scholarship, especially now that is seems Delaney is slipping away. JP is still here and Egolf was not really a low post player either. So if Blake is a low post guy, then even if he is shorter it may help. Like Dennis Rodman, rebounding and post play are not all about size....although it certainly helps.

If we don't get one more guy, it could be a little rough, hopefully we will.

[tornado]

no... we lose Egolf & Shayok - two guys who are a solid 6-8 & 6-9 and who did get playing time at the "5" position both offensively & defensively...
... and we really replace those two with just 6-6 Blake..

seems rather schizophrenic how we've seen tons of criticism over the past two years about not having size, bulk, & depth down low...
then suddenly we land a single 6-6 post player to replace Egolf & Shayok - and we get praise like this...
".. rebounding and post play are not all about size...." - smh - well - we're about to see if we can do just as well without size...

Maybe Blake can step in and grab 8-10 rpg and be a stud like Eric Coleman was...but he grabbed 6.7 rpg (not points as the DR article says) at the juco level...
Carl Hall (9.6 rpg) and Cleanthony Early (10 rpg), and even Chadrack Lufile (8.5 rpg) are all a few inches taller and more active on the boards - that's what we're up against..

[BUfan14]

no... we lose Egolf & Shayok - two guys who are a solid 6-8 & 6-9 and who did get playing time at the "5" position both offensively & defensively...
... and we really replace those two with just 6-6 Blake..

Oh ya I forgot Shayok, but he wasn't exactly an enormous contributor either at about 7-8 minutes and 1-2 points. WE may have been 6'9", but he never played very big to me. He was more of a perimeter oriented post player. I am not disagreeing, the 5 spot is a concern to me, but we could still easily be better than a very weak post last year even if we are shorter. I still don't think the post position is where it needs to be, but shorter does not necessarily mean worse (especially with a perimeter post like WE and an overall weak post last year). Actually the most effective guy was TP at 6'6" at being a true post type player imo.

Also, I hope we still get one more guy to contribute to the post this year as well.

[Old Coach]

unless we go with Nate Wells though we are a bit undersized...

Blake is listed as 6-6
Pickett is really no more than 6-6 (maybe a bit under that)
Prosser is listed as 6-9 but seems to play a little "below the rim"..
Tucker, Zecevic, Swopshire are all 6-4 to 6-6 or so and aren't really low post guys
..and Shaw won't play this coming season..

If our front line was 6-9, 6-9, 6-8, 6-6 last season and people ripped terribly into our low post play saying we didn't even have D-I talent there - then what are people thinking now that we've replaced "6-9 & 6-8" with "6-6"?

I think it depends on effort. Rebounding is a "want to" thing. The kid from SIU proves that. As far as last season's team goes, Will was the only guy on the roster who I think is actually as tall as he was listed. At 6' 9", Jordan Prosser is getting a good 2.5". Skayok was also closer to 6' 6", and I think Pickett is probably closer to 6' 5". If you get enough 6'5" to 6'7" guys out there who WANT to rebound, I think they'll be just fine. That being said, a legit 6' 9" low block post player would be nice to have.