Scout Team: Silas Demary Jr | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Scout Team: Silas Demary Jr

AntG168 said:
To play devils advocate he saw a player in Mahaney as well. This isn’t an exact science
Expand ...
To play angel's advocate(?), the archetype that Demary is trying to replicate -- transfer multi-year starter 6'5 PG who is triple-double threat and plays stout defense -- has already found success here. If Hurley thinks this guy can do what Tristen Newton did, he's got a pretty good track record in that department.

Mahaney was an entirely different player who doesn't really fit anything we had before (Calcaterra as a stretch, maybe).
 
Tenspro2002 said:
To play angel's advocate(?), the archetype that Demary is trying to replicate -- transfer multi-year starter 6'5 PG who is triple-double threat and plays stout defense -- has already found success here. If Hurley thinks this guy can do what Tristen Newton did, he's got a pretty good track record in that department.

Mahaney was an entirely different player who doesn't really fit anything we had before (Calcaterra as a stretch, maybe).
Expand ...
Can we think of any player in UConn history Mahaney resembles? Was a weird fit all over. Staff must have asked what the h they were thinking many times over. Such a weird fit, even culturally. Heard from someone that knew his GF at UConn that he was miserable, perhaps mainly the situation but also the weather. Saw his IG page the other day and not sure I’ve seen a kid that screams Cali more than that kid, skater dude extraordinaire. Live and learn.
 
RuffRuff said:
Can we think of any player in UConn history Mahaney resembles? Was a weird fit all over. Staff must have asked what the h they were thinking many times over. Such a weird fit, even culturally. Heard from someone that knew his GF at UConn that he was miserable, perhaps mainly the situation but also the weather. Saw his IG page the other day and not sure I’ve seen a kid that screams Cali more than that kid, skater dude extraordinaire. Live and learn.
Expand ...
Just my opinion but weather and culture had zero to do with why he was unhappy. He could not handle the physicality that his BE opponents presented. He couldn’t defend and he didn’t have the muscle to create his own opportunities on offense. Hurley and everyone saw it and he lost confidence and the job, hence not happy.
Demary does not start with those limitations from the video I’ve seen.
 
thekollieman said:
I was just watching his Georgia highlights and it includes some monster poster dunks, so if he otherwise plays anything like T-New, he’s going to be an unbelievable asset.
Expand ...
We will need his strength and toughness going up against Pitino and that’s why I’m glad that several of our players are coming back stronger. No more getting pushed around.
 
To be sure we played against St. Mary's and LeMoyne and Hurley was enamored with Mahaney and Koroma and how they played against us. I tend to think we got Joey C before we played USD but not sure.

But I think we last played Georgia 20 years ago so with Demary, Jr. has to be video (we use to call it tape, right?) and analysis which I think hits different than any emotional response from a player actually playing against us.
 
jibsey said:
Just my opinion but weather and culture had zero to do with why he was unhappy. He could not handle the physicality that his BE opponents presented. He couldn’t defend and he didn’t have the muscle to create his own opportunities on offense. Hurley and everyone saw it and he lost confidence and the job, hence not happy.
Demary does not start with those limitations from the video I’ve seen.
Expand ...
I don't entirely buy the "couldn't handle the physicality of the BE" narrative, at least as far as explaining Mahaney's minutes.

Against real competition, Mahaney played 24 minutes against Memphis, but then only 6 and 8 minutes against Colorado and Dayton. The coaches were already phasing him out. He played 18 minutes against Baylor, but 6 and 8 minutes against Texas and Gonzaga, and then only 3 in our first BE game against Xavier.

Whatever conclusion was reached about Mahaney's fit seemed to be well before we started BE play.
 
jibsey said:
We will need his strength and toughness going up against Pitino and that’s why I’m glad that several of our players are coming back stronger. No more getting pushed around.
Expand ...
Like the early Chicago Bulls with Micheal Jordan getting the ever living s__t beat out of them by the Detroit Pistons. After a few years they figured out that they needed to get into weight room to stop getting push around.
 
I think we should be cautious about Demary. He has a lot to learn at the most difficult position. Remember it took Newton his entire first year to figure it out. I heard Dauster pencil him in for 15ppg. I'd be happy with 8-10ppg with great defense and toughness..
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I don't entirely buy the "couldn't handle the physicality of the BE" narrative, at least as far as explaining Mahaney's minutes.

Against real competition, Mahaney played 24 minutes against Memphis, but then only 6 and 8 minutes against Colorado and Dayton. The coaches were already phasing him out. He played 18 minutes against Baylor, but 6 and 8 minutes against Texas and Gonzaga, and then only 3 in our first BE game against Xavier.

Whatever conclusion was reached about Mahaney's fit seemed to be well before we started BE play.
Expand ...

I would agree that conclusions were reached early, but I don't think that refutes the "couldn't handle physicality" criticism, or indicates a "phasing out".

The minutes don't jibe with the coaches phasing him out. The first 5 games of the season he got double digit minutes, for 6 straight games in January he got double digit minutes, and for 5 the last 6 games of the season he got double digit minutes (8 minutes against Florida). He had some playing time droughts in December and February, but he pretty much had multiple chances to prove himself and fairly consistent minutes over the season.

I think he was a disappointment, but they knew about the disappointment before the first game was played in November. They tried a few different ways of handling it, some with more minutes and some with less, but overall the coaches were very consistent toward Mahaney all season long.
 
pj said:
I would agree that conclusions were reached early, but I don't think that refutes the "couldn't handle physicality" criticism, or indicates a "phasing out".

The minutes don't jibe with the coaches phasing him out. The first 5 games of the season he got double digit minutes, for 6 straight games in January he got double digit minutes, and for 5 the last 6 games of the season he got double digit minutes (8 minutes against Florida). He had some playing time droughts in December and February, but he pretty much had multiple chances to prove himself and fairly consistent minutes over the season.

I think he was a disappointment, but they knew about the disappointment before the first game was played in November. They tried a few different ways of handling it, some with more minutes and some with less, but overall the coaches were very consistent toward Mahaney all season long.
Expand ...
Yeah, that's fair. His minutes were actually all over the place a bit. I just think it was less a "couldn't handle the Big East" cliche and more a "wasn't a good fit for how we play."
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I don't entirely buy the "couldn't handle the physicality of the BE" narrative, at least as far as explaining Mahaney's minutes.

Against real competition, Mahaney played 24 minutes against Memphis, but then only 6 and 8 minutes against Colorado and Dayton. The coaches were already phasing him out. He played 18 minutes against Baylor, but 6 and 8 minutes against Texas and Gonzaga, and then only 3 in our first BE game against Xavier.

Whatever conclusion was reached about Mahaney's fit seemed to be well before we started BE play.
Expand ...
OK then rewatch the Silas tape of him seeking and drawing contact while going to the hoop… successfully BTW. We all saw Mahaney try to do that mostly without success. After awhile he didn’t try much. He was also taken advantage of on defense. He had his opportunities. You think playing him more would have changed the outcome?
 
I read some stuff a ways back from the coaching staff, I think it was Hurley. Plain and simple, Mahaney started because he was one of the better players coming out of the summer sessions, he was on a good trajectory. Then the season started, he had some matchups where he got smoked, getting beat on defense, simple mistakes on offense, and Hassan was right there, tough, dependable, playing some of his best basketball. Mahaney struggled the rest of the year to find his groove. I liked his game, I thought he was capable of some beautiful basketball. For a 6'2 player, he could be crafty driving the lane, had a nice pull-up game that he never really got going while he was here, and he had a really nice stroke on his threes. Just a step slow for the BIG EAST.
 
Mahaney had height on Diarra so no doubt with good ball handling (like we've all seen him dribble in place between the legs to get a jump left or right) he comes off like a slasher to the rim plus a decent catch and shoot 3pt guy. Again, "comes off as".

I don't buy the D line either - Solo and Mahaney were ~similar on 1:1 D; both had some successful defense on D but many times did not. But they both had drives they neither got the hoop nor the harm. The difference was Solo could hit 3 with better pct, and he could rise up for a 12-foot shot too. Mahaney was outside, or 30/70 proposition driving to the hoop.

With Mahaney the 2x he got caught over and back / 10 seconds was unforgeable IMHO. Hurley was not exactly "on his side" when that happened and I have to think neither were "we".

Couple that with him being a West Coast kid, probably did not like CT winters, and got fairly disgruntled here.

At least Hurley did him a solid and played him 13 min vs Oklahoma and 8 vs Florida for some exposure on the way out.
 
Lafayette said:
Mahaney had height on Diarra so no doubt with good ball handling (like we've all seen him dribble in place between the legs to get a jump left or right) he comes off like a slasher to the rim plus a decent catch and shoot 3pt guy. Again, "comes off as".

I don't buy the D line either - Solo and Mahaney were ~similar on 1:1 D; both had some successful defense on D but many times did not. But they both had drives they neither got the hoop nor the harm. The difference was Solo could hit 3 with better pct, and he could rise up for a 12-foot shot too. Mahaney was outside, or 30/70 proposition driving to the hoop.

With Mahaney the 2x he got caught over and back / 10 seconds was unforgeable IMHO. Hurley was not exactly "on his side" when that happened and I have to think neither were "we".

Couple that with him being a West Coast kid, probably did not like CT winters, and got fairly disgruntled here.

At least Hurley did him a solid and played him 13 min vs Oklahoma and 8 vs Florida for some exposure on the way out.
Expand ...
I’ll probably be looking up his progress this season more than any other previous transfer out. I really hope he flourishes and caps off his college career with great play. It’s always a bummer when a player doesn’t live up to hype, but I felt especially bad for him given that he was doing so well already at St. Mary’s.
 
pj said:
I would agree that conclusions were reached early, but I don't think that refutes the "couldn't handle physicality" criticism, or indicates a "phasing out".

The minutes don't jibe with the coaches phasing him out. The first 5 games of the season he got double digit minutes, for 6 straight games in January he got double digit minutes, and for 5 the last 6 games of the season he got double digit minutes (8 minutes against Florida). He had some playing time droughts in December and February, but he pretty much had multiple chances to prove himself and fairly consistent minutes over the season.

I think he was a disappointment, but they knew about the disappointment before the first game was played in November. They tried a few different ways of handling it, some with more minutes and some with less, but overall the coaches were very consistent toward Mahaney all season long.
Expand ...
Yup. The most common refrain in the BY during the preseason was "Mahaney not as advertised!".
 
Lafayette said:
Mahaney had height on Diarra so no doubt with good ball handling (like we've all seen him dribble in place between the legs to get a jump left or right) he comes off like a slasher to the rim plus a decent catch and shoot 3pt guy. Again, "comes off as".

I don't buy the D line either - Solo and Mahaney were ~similar on 1:1 D; both had some successful defense on D but many times did not. But they both had drives they neither got the hoop nor the harm. The difference was Solo could hit 3 with better pct, and he could rise up for a 12-foot shot too. Mahaney was outside, or 30/70 proposition driving to the hoop.

With Mahaney the 2x he got caught over and back / 10 seconds was unforgeable IMHO. Hurley was not exactly "on his side" when that happened and I have to think neither were "we".

Couple that with him being a West Coast kid, probably did not like CT winters, and got fairly disgruntled here.

At least Hurley did him a solid and played him 13 min vs Oklahoma and 8 vs Florida for some exposure on the way out.
Expand ...

The Solo and Mahaney comparison is an interesting one. Mahaney actually finished the last 5 games with good lines -- 6-11 on 3pt shots (55%), 10-20 overall (50%), 6-7 on free throws (86%), 6 points per game, 1.4 assists per game, 0.8 rebounds per game, 0.4 steals per game, all in 13.2 minutes per game -- pretty good per 40 numbers.

Solo across the same five games: 10-32 on 3pt shots (31%), 19-47 overall (40%), 15-17 on free throws (88%), 12.6 points per game, 1.4 assists per game, 3.4 rebounds per game, 0.6 steals per game, in 29 minutes per game. Pretty similar to Mahaney's on a per-minute basis, Solo the better rebounder and Mahaney better at assists.

Mahaney was a talented player, but something just never fit. Even in retrospect, it's a bit of a mystery why he wasn't more successful. I guess he just wasn't enough of a point guard and wasn't a sufficient athlete and wasn't happy and confident enough to make up for limitations with leadership. When we compare Mahaney to Solo he looks comparable, but when we compare him to Diarra his weaknesses are all apparent, and unfortunately it was Diarra's role (point guard, athlete, leader) that Mahaney was asked to perform.
 
pj said:
The Solo and Mahaney comparison is an interesting one. Mahaney actually finished the last 5 games with good lines -- 6-11 on 3pt shots (55%), 10-20 overall (50%), 6-7 on free throws (86%), 6 points per game, 1.4 assists per game, 0.8 rebounds per game, 0.4 steals per game, all in 13.2 minutes per game -- pretty good per 40 numbers.

Solo across the same five games: 10-32 on 3pt shots (31%), 19-47 overall (40%), 15-17 on free throws (88%), 12.6 points per game, 1.4 assists per game, 3.4 rebounds per game, 0.6 steals per game, in 29 minutes per game. Pretty similar to Mahaney's on a per-minute basis, Solo the better rebounder and Mahaney better at assists.

Mahaney was a talented player, but something just never fit. Even in retrospect, it's a bit of a mystery why he wasn't more successful. I guess he just wasn't enough of a point guard and wasn't a sufficient athlete and wasn't happy and confident enough to make up for limitations with leadership. When we compare Mahaney to Solo he looks comparable, but when we compare him to Diarra his weaknesses are all apparent, and unfortunately it was Diarra's role (point guard, athlete, leader) that Mahaney was asked to perform.
Expand ...
I really don't think it was a mystery at all - he wasn't that good. A major difference between the two is that Solo played with conviction/confidence & a defined role and Mahaney was constantly second guessing himself, and methodical. There was no spontaneity to his game out there and he just seemed to play in a constant state of fear. Couple that with his very slight physique, lack of quickness & low athletecism (could not defend), not a great combo. From the start of the season, the only hope for Mahaney was that he had a processing level/instincts that bumped him into a must play, instead he played scared and shied away from contact. Beyond being a physical liability on the floor, his presence stagnated the offense. It just did not work out.

Staff took a gamble on him, and in retro he had way too much room for error given 1) the style of program he came out of, and conference 2) his size 3) trying to flip him into a PG 4) statistics moving in wrong direction from freshman to sophomore year. 5) Bay Area kid through college coming to Storrs. 6) We were kinda all eggs in his basket, had no real insurance policy (other than Nowell I guess).

He was a very high risk portal play, and the gamble didn't yield ROI. I'm sure the staff did plenty of reflecting back on that decision.

When I look back on him, he had one plus trait - his crossover was really solid. Low and shifty, and what bought him some space. He just didn't use it much while here. You can claim he was a talented player, but if you look at his sophomore numbers based on high volume, there was really not much to get excited about, especially when you consider his defensive ability. You can find a lot of players that can put up decent PPG when given lot's of shots at 39% shooting.
 
Last edited:
Hoophound said:
Dan is considered the best program builder
Expand ...
IMG_1485.jpeg
 
RuffRuff said:
I really don't think it was a mystery at all - he wasn't that good. A major difference between the two is that Solo played with conviction/confidence & a defined role and Mahaney was constantly second guessing himself, and methodical. There was no spontaneity to his game out there and he just seemed to play in a constant state of fear. Couple that with his very slight physique, lack of quickness & low athletecism (could not defend), not a great combo. From the start of the season, the only hope for Mahaney was that he had a processing level/instincts that bumped him into a must play, instead he played scared and shied away from contact. Beyond being a physical liability on the floor, his presence stagnated the offense. It just did not work out.

Staff took a gamble on him, and in retro he had way too much room for error given 1) the style of program he came out of, and conference 2) his size 3) trying to flip him into a PG 4) statistics moving in wrong direction from freshman to sophomore year. 5) Bay Area kid through college coming to Storrs. 6) We were kinda all eggs in his basket, had no real insurance policy (other than Nowell I guess).

He was a very high risk portal play, and the gamble didn't yield ROI. I'm sure the staff did plenty of reflecting back on that decision.

When I look back on him, he had one plus trait - his crossover was really solid. Low and shifty, and what bought him some space. He just didn't use it much while here. You can claim he was a talented player, but if you look at his sophomore numbers based on high volume, there was really not much to get excited about, especially when you consider his defensive ability. You can find a lot of players that can put up decent PPG when given lot's of shots at 39% shooting.
Expand ...
Agreed - he really did not develop his game or conditioning much past Freshman year. And if you stand still you get left behind.
 
RuffRuff said:
I really don't think it was a mystery at all - he wasn't that good. A major difference between the two is that Solo played with conviction/confidence & a defined role and Mahaney was constantly second guessing himself, and methodical. There was no spontaneity to his game out there and he just seemed to play in a constant state of fear. Couple that with his very slight physique, lack of quickness & low athletecism (could not defend), not a great combo. From the start of the season, the only hope for Mahaney was that he had a processing level/instincts that bumped him into a must play, instead he played scared and shied away from contact. Beyond being a physical liability on the floor, his presence stagnated the offense. It just did not work out.

Staff took a gamble on him, and in retro he had way too much room for error given 1) the style of program he came out of, and conference 2) his size 3) trying to flip him into a PG 4) statistics moving in wrong direction from freshman to sophomore year. 5) Bay Area kid through college coming to Storrs. 6) We were kinda all eggs in his basket, had no real insurance policy (other than Nowell I guess).

He was a very high risk portal play, and the gamble didn't yield ROI. I'm sure the staff did plenty of reflecting back on that decision.

When I look back on him, he had one plus trait - his crossover was really solid. Low and shifty, and what bought him some space. He just didn't use it much while here. You can claim he was a talented player, but if you look at his sophomore numbers based on high volume, there was really not much to get excited about, especially when you consider his defensive ability. You can find a lot of players that can put up decent PPG when given lot's of shots at 39% shooting.
Expand ...
Can we let Mahaney go and focus on the future
 
navery12 said:
He'll never be able to let go of Mahaney. We could be coming off a four peat and titles in 6 of 7 years and he'd be stuck on the year Mahaney was at UConn
Expand ...
Not sure I'm the one who brought him up - I do find bringing him on at one of the most interesting X in Uconn hoops history, a fascinating decision. We probably could have had anyone we wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
2,595
Total visitors
2,809
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,958
Messages
4,376,674
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom