I have not seen Atlason play but looking at his stats I think some are misreading how he plays.
He looks to have a minimal inside presence. Less than Brant Byers.
He only averaged 2 rebounds per game on 18 minutes of playing time. Brant had 2.8 on 17.6 minutes.
Atlason took 120 3 point attempts compared to 172 FG attempts. Brant 128 3 point attempts vs. 194 FG attempts.
His game seems very similar to Brant’s.
I would like to have another strong inside presence on the roster.
Atlason is more Elmer/Byers than Woolfolk/Potter for sure.
one of the following is likely true if not all of it.
Also, while Atlason is 6’8 he’s here less to fill a position and more to stretch the floor for Ipsaro, Suder, and Skaljac and replace the 3-point bench production we got from Potter and Byers.
I think you are pretty much on point. I don’t think we need a 6’10" guy, but a 6’7" wide body type that can pound the key and rebound would be HUGE
I realize he’s not a traditional post player. Based on his highlights and stats he’s a stretch player, but for us he’s a 4 or a 5.
Ultimately his offensive game isn’t what defines his position. It’s what positions he can defend. If his measurements are to be believe and he’s really 230, he can defend MAC interior players.
I maintain adding another true inside player would be a waste of a roster spot and I also don’t think that guy is out there waiting to jump on board. But maybe I’m wrong.
Thank you for calling this out. I have no idea why this board is obsessed with replacing Potter, someone who took less shots in the paint than a good chunk of the roster, with someone who is the opposite of Potter in all ways but size. My guess is some of the board hasn’t kept up with the state of basketball over the past decade.
The big, inside post presence @LaxDaddy and @CalOHawk1 are pushing for are the exact bigs that kill efficiency. And given that basketball is a solved game now, with the right moves being what leads to the best efficiency, it’s not a recipe for success.
There’s a reason Akron had success with 4 players <= 6’3" with another 6’8". Their next 2 bigs off the bench were 6’7". We shouldn’t be building a roster to win in 2000. We should be building a roster to win today’s game.
I think Potter will be missed on defense more than offense. Yes he made fouls but he did alter shots - he wasnt the strongest guy but his rebounding improved as the year went on
Still what are you gonna do if UK calls I get it
I still think this team could use another rebounder/defender if possible
I had always heard that Cooper was our best guard defender and Potter was 7 foot.
And then they got ripped to shreds by Arizona. You might be able to sneak through a weak MAC with a 4 guard lineup, but you’re not going to have even a puncher’s chance against any power conference team with a pulse.
Between Byers, Elmer, and the four bigs it’s not a concern for us, but speaking generally, what Akron did this year shouldn’t be viewed as a sustainable long term model.
I would just say good luck and congratulations to Reese and his Mom and Dad, all very personable and friendly people and I think this is a dream come true for all of the Potter family. Reese made big jumps in his play in February and March and would have been really good for us this year. Big guys just take more time to develops but usually are really valuable for their last couple of seasons.
We’ve played 1 NCAA tournament game in the last 25 years. The idea that we should be able to build and sustain a roster that can consistently compete with the power conference 4 seed that we’ll see in the first round of the NCAA tournament seems far fetched in this day and age. We just lost a backup big man with back problems to Kentucky.
My point is…if we consistently have a roster that is competing for MAC championships, I’m a satisfied fan. I just want to participate in an NCAA tournament game once every 5 years.
Toledo last year: 1 starter over 6’4", no major contributor over 6’8"
Toledo the year before: no starters over 6’7"
Kent that year (tourney champs): no player over 6’9" on the roster
Toledo the year before that: no major contributors over 6’7"
Akron, tourney champs that year: tallest of the top 8 contributors were 6’8", 6’7", 6’5" then all 6’2" and below
That trend continues year over year in the MAC.
Hard agree.
How about we crawl before we walk. Let’s find the formula that gets us to the tournament before we worry about beating power conference teams in the tournament.
The formula for teams at our level is pretty clear. One “big” surrounded by shooting and playmaking.
Cold, but accurate. This just seems like a PR move by UK. “Our roster’s complete, let’s pick up a local kid who bleeds blue and happens to be 7 feet with an outside shot.”
At this point I would gladly settle for sneaking through a weak MAC
Love the absurdly high standard but we’re trying to beat Akron, not Arizona. At least not yet.
Defensive efficiencies those seasons: 255, 295, 160. And that’s a big part of the reason they’ve always underachieved in the conference tournament once they have to match up head to head against the best.
They had four rotation players 6’7 or taller.
Failing to mention that the 6’7 guy was a future NBA player who averaged 11 rebounds per game that season and the 6’8 guy averaged over 34 minutes per game.
Any knucklehead can score, but rebounding takes brains ~ Charles Barkley 1992
Confession: In 1988, I stole a #34 intramural jersey from Withrow (still have it) because Barkley was my favorite player and I always wore #34 in Miami intramurals.
So does the trend of getting spanked in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.
Listen … for all the warts on Kent State, when ‘given’ the NIT opportunity, with a 6-8 player coming into his own, and a 6-9 player coming off the bench behind him, and a 6-6 senior All-MAC player beside them both, Kent was able to blow out a mid-level A-10 team, solidly defeat a mid-level Big Ten team (both on the road) before losing to a high end Chicago-Loyola team - that had the best post guy on the floor.
Size (that plays) still matters.
