We will see a lot of this offense next year 4 out and 1 in.
Out
TC, DW, JJJ, HC
AR, MH, SC3, SA, SH,
In
LF, MH, (WE or Grad Transfer)
Transfer PF (2017)
No we wont be Villanova, but we wont be the 2014-15 MU squad either. I do think we make the dance next year.
Hope to change Name next week, will update as soon as I can.
Yes Stan is the man, but wojo closed the deal.
Told that MH will be in ESPN60 in 2016 after updating.
Yes I think HE is moving on, but that is my opinion not breaking anything here. I just think he is going to find the answers to his questions to be to his liking and he should.
Got to go the Al got dirty during break and I got plenty of sweeping to do.
No Kalif Young?
Thanks for the thoughts/update.
Need rebounders. Worst rebounding team in a long time, especially offensively, and we are losing Henry and his "easy" ten boards a game.
Please keep sweeping!
I don't know, I think playing Matt Heldt out and Markus Howard in would be a mistake.
And what about my haircut?
the other open schollie will go to a transfer big man?
Only Fish & Heldt for true bigs?
Quote from: warriorgnp on April 03, 2016, 03:02:14 PM
No Kalif Young?
Still possibility, but we are just in the mix and finding a player ready to play significant role next year is priority. Program needs to get back to the dance next year.
KY could be option instead of 2017 transfer. My reading of the dust bunnies tells me that he will go somewhere else. Wojo is still recruiting him especially now that Fernando is gone.
Howard is 39th in the 247 composite rankings ...for 2016....http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
Great stuff, Big Daddy.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b6/e2/3a/b6e23aaf0a99ac869e8765f7008492d9.jpg)
Just to clarify your lingo BD. Are you saying that Wojo's most likely course of action next year is a grad transfer taking WE's spot if he decides to go jump full time and a traditional sit out transfer providing 2-3 years eligibility if WE stays while Hank moves on?
From my seat that is okay except the mix might be off a bit. Wally would be under tremendous pressure to board and play #4 D at a very high level.
Quote from: jsglow on April 03, 2016, 03:36:31 PM
Just to clarify your lingo BD. Are you saying that Wojo's most likely course of action next year is a grad transfer taking WE's spot if he decides to go jump full time and a traditional sit out transfer providing 2-3 years eligibility if WE stays while Hank moves on?
From my seat that is okay except the mix might be off a bit. Wally would be under tremendous pressure to board and play #4 D at a very high level.
My reading is that we are in on a Transfer that wouldn't be immediately eligible (PF 2017) and if Wally decides to leave we'll add an additional transfer (immediate eligibility).
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2016, 03:06:59 PM
Need rebounders. Worst rebounding team in a long time, especially offensively, and we are losing Henry and his "easy" ten boards a game.
This is exactly correct. The team is not going to be good next year, if they cannot improve their rebounding. We were exactly zero in rebounding margin last year with Henry.
That was my understanding of it, too. However, we need immediate inside help, whether Wally leaves or not. Filling the inside void revolves around Henry's plans, NOT Wally's.
Which of our guys can improve the most over the offseason, both in terms of skills, and more importantly, consistency?
Yes, we definitely need to bring in a 4 that can rebound but we also need to know what we're getting almost every game from the guys who are coming back.
I don't disagree that rebounding is a concern, but systems can be adjusted to focus on different things. Remember when JFB was a soph and he scored most of his points on the Offensive glass. But his senior year he was the get back guy. Poor rebounding teams can make up for this by increasing turnovers they cause (MU was good at this), decreasing their turnovers (MU was not good at this and a bigger concern than rebounding IMHO) and improving shooting percentage. (Next years squad should have higher number.)
Some of you data geeks (and I mean that with respect) can run some numbers and show that if our rebounding does not improve, but we create same TO and decrease our TO and improve Shooting the net result is a positive. But I am only the guy that sleeps floors around here so I could be wrong. I really would like to see those numbers.
We were a dreadful rebounding team WITH Henry. Shudder to think how bad we'll be on the glass w/o him. We'll have to create turnovers at an alarming rate to pick up that slack.
Just don't get the staff's failure to address a glaring deficiency. Our opponents will be playing volleyball on the offensive glass.
Quote from: Boone on April 03, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
We were a dreadful rebounding team WITH Henry. Shudder to think how bad we'll be on the glass w/o him. We'll have to create turnovers at an alarming rate to pick up that slack.
Just don't get the staff's failure to address a glaring deficiency. Our opponents will be playing volleyball on the offensive glass.
We have a few months to fill one and maybe two spots. How about we see how it shakes out before saying the staff failed?
Quote from: Boone on April 03, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
We were a dreadful rebounding team WITH Henry. Shudder to think how bad we'll be on the glass w/o him. We'll have to create turnovers at an alarming rate to pick up that slack.
Just don't get the staff's failure to address a glaring deficiency. Our opponents will be playing volleyball on the offensive glass.
Is your seat closer than the Coaching Staffs, maybe they didn't notice.
apparently so
Keep up the good work.
Quote from: Boone on April 03, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
We were a dreadful rebounding team WITH Henry. Shudder to think how bad we'll be on the glass w/o him. We'll have to create turnovers at an alarming rate to pick up that slack.
Just don't get the staff's failure to address a glaring deficiency. Our opponents will be playing volleyball on the offensive glass.
AS BD mentions, a lot of rebounding has to do with the team emphasis and design. Henry's job was to be the guy crashing the board. Luke was supposed to clear out (boxing out) as many people as possible. The guards were supposed to get back.
That led to Henry being a rebounding beast. Someone will step up into those shoes and the team design, maybe having an extra guard crash the boards, will compensate along with fewer TOs with a guard heavy team.
Quote from: forgetful on April 03, 2016, 06:37:36 PM
AS BD mentions, a lot of rebounding has to do with the team emphasis and design. Henry's job was to be the guy crashing the board. Luke was supposed to clear out (boxing out) as many people as possible. The guards were supposed to get back.
That led to Henry being a rebounding beast. Someone will step up into those shoes and the team design, maybe having an extra guard crash the boards, will compensate along with fewer TOs with a guard heavy team.
Yep. Maybe we dedicate 4 or 5 guys to the glass next year and don't try to get out in transition as much. Should have alot of good shooting so the half court offense will be improved
Quote from: Big Daddy Howard 84 on April 03, 2016, 04:34:28 PM
Poor rebounding teams can make up for this by increasing turnovers they cause (MU was good at this), decreasing their turnovers (MU was not good at this and a bigger concern than rebounding IMHO) and improving shooting percentage. (Next years squad should have higher number.)
Some of you data geeks (and I mean that with respect) can run some numbers and show that if our rebounding does not improve, but we create same TO and decrease our TO and improve Shooting the net result is a positive. But I am only the guy that sleeps floors around here so I could be wrong. I really would like to see those numbers.
Turnovers - absolutely we should see an improvement next year.. great? Offensively it's very possible. Key.
Rebounds - opportunity for significant improvement is there.. if we don't achieve it, it will limit the ceiling.
Shooting - we were actually very good shooting. It was ALL about 2FG% though. Can we match or better it? Absolutely -- 3FG% may very well determine our success next season. That's a scary proposition, but for a team that hasn't made IT for a few years, it's a nice opportunity.
Luke can repeat.. JjJ at 2FG%? Hmm... don't know. He was really good. Haany, Duane.. can they repeat?
The reality is a strength last year was 2FG%, and Henry brought us down.
If the offense has a better 3FG% performance - very possible, perhaps probable - and lowers turnovers... I think we can improve offensively even without a nice jump in OReb%
Pray.
I'm interested to see how much stronger Luke comes into next season.
He struggled with a shoulder injury during the 2014-15 season, and had surgery in the offseason. My guess is that limited his work in the weight room at least to some degree — likely focusing on rehabilitation and regaining range of motion more than building strength.
Hopefully, being able to focus his training makes a difference. Luke turns 22 this October. He's a more physically mature player than he was when he transferred. Even 5-10 more pounds of muscle could really help in establishing and holding position down low, both offensively and defensively.
Quote from: Boone on April 03, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
We were a dreadful rebounding team WITH Henry. Shudder to think how bad we'll be on the glass w/o him. We'll have to create turnovers at an alarming rate to pick up that slack.
Just don't get the staff's failure to address a glaring deficiency. Our opponents will be playing volleyball on the offensive glass.
::) We sign perhaps the best PG since DJ and you want to complain. Oh, and what happens if Hank returns? And of course Wojo hasn't considered any of this.
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but signs sure don't point to Hank returning.
Quote from: Marcus92 on April 03, 2016, 06:58:01 PM
I'm interested to see how much stronger Luke comes into next season.
He struggled with a shoulder injury during the 2014-15 season, and had surgery in the offseason. My guess is that limited his work in the weight room at least to some degree — likely focusing on rehabilitation and regaining range of motion more than building strength.
Hopefully, being able to focus his training makes a difference. Luke turns 22 this October. He's a more physically mature player than he was when he transferred. Even 5-10 more pounds of muscle could really help in establishing and holding position down low, both offensively and defensively.
He's never been a good defensive rebounder. It's a huge challenge for him. Is he capable? Absolutely. If I'm the coaching staff, I'm pushing him in that area like no other.
Jay Bee
I agree completely. Luke has chance for breakout year and up to him.
Quote from: Big Daddy Howard 84 on April 03, 2016, 04:34:28 PM
I don't disagree that rebounding is a concern, but systems can be adjusted to focus on different things. Remember when JFB was a soph and he scored most of his points on the Offensive glass. But his senior year he was the get back guy. Poor rebounding teams can make up for this by increasing turnovers they cause (MU was good at this), decreasing their turnovers (MU was not good at this and a bigger concern than rebounding IMHO) and improving shooting percentage. (Next years squad should have higher number.)
Some of you data geeks (and I mean that with respect) can run some numbers and show that if our rebounding does not improve, but we create same TO and decrease our TO and improve Shooting the net result is a positive. But I am only the guy that sleeps floors around here so I could be wrong. I really would like to see those numbers.
Any word if Savon Goodman is an option? He has a lot of baggage but a relationship with Stan Johnson. He seems like he could help us with rebounding.
We will shoot the lights out next season! That spells wins!
We've won before being horribly undersized. I think we can do it again next season.
I hope our last scholly is ANYONE of size. Take any sort of project we can get our hands on.
Quote from: Goose on April 03, 2016, 07:21:34 PMI agree completely. Luke has chance for breakout year and up to him.
Hard to explain Luke's poor defensive rebounding percentage to date.
Watching him on the low block — either defending or trying to establish offensive position — it seems like Luke can be pushed around by bigger, stronger players. Improving his lower body strength and power could pay real dividends.
I'm encouraged by the fact that Luke improved both his offensive and defensive ratings this year, as well as his total rebounding percentage. Hopefully we see another jump in his performance next season.
There are four main factors in a college basketball game. They are in order of importance: eFG%, TO%, OR%, and Free Throw Rate. We are likely to improve significantly in eFG%, greatly in TO%, and marginally in FTR. We will likely decline in OR%.
So we decline in the 3rd most important category but we improve in the 1st, 2nd, and possibly the 4th category. Why do people think we are going to get worse?
Quote from: Howard's Eagle on April 03, 2016, 09:22:39 PM
There are four main factors in a college basketball game. They are in order of importance: eFG%, TO%, OR%, and Free Throw Rate. We are likely to improve significantly in eFG%, greatly in TO%, and marginally in FTR. We will likely decline in OR%.
So we decline in the 3rd most important category but we improve in the 1st, 2nd, and possibly the 4th category. Why do people think we are going to get worse?
I think what you listed is correct. However, I question whether we will improve significantly in eFG%. The defenses we faced last year had to focus on Henry. Now the defenses will focus on Haanif and he will find the going much tougher. Fischer will also find it harder without Henry.
Quote from: Howard's Eagle on April 03, 2016, 09:22:39 PM
There are four main factors in a college basketball game. They are in order of importance: eFG%, TO%, OR%, and Free Throw Rate. We are likely to improve significantly in eFG%, greatly in TO%, and marginally in FTR. We will likely decline in OR%.
So we decline in the 3rd most important category but we improve in the 1st, 2nd, and possibly the 4th category. Why do people think we are going to get worse?
MU's eFG% was the second best in the past 10 years? Why do you think it will get better? Especially with a smaller line up with Henry gone? MU's TO rate got worse in conference as the year went on, where it was second worst overall to DePaul. Why do you think it will get better with a freshman PG? Especially when Traci and Haanif were about the same in and out of conference as year progressed with the turnovers.
Fact is, this team is still in flux, and there are a lot of questions about BE readiness. As it is now, this team is two years away at least...with an All Big East player to replace...but more to come. Respect the process, ai-na?
I do feel we'll be better next year. Mainly because the toughest acclamation is high school to freshman year. I am counting on improvement from Traci, Haanif, and Heldt, and feel Luke, Jajuan, Duane, and Rowsey give us options.
The vacated scholarship will be key. We do need a ready to play forward. Doesn't have to be a star, but someone that can contribute right away. Hopefully Wojo can find the right guy. Doesn't have to be a Shonn Miller level grad transfer, but even a freshman who can give meaningful minutes like Yakwe or Sima did for St John's this year would be huge.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 03, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
I do feel we'll be better next year. Mainly because the toughest acclamation is high school to freshman year. I am counting on improvement from Traci, Haanif, and Heldt, and feel Luke, Jajuan, Duane, and Rowsey give us options.
The vacated scholarship will be key. We do need a ready to play forward. Doesn't have to be a star, but someone that can contribute right away. Hopefully Wojo can find the right guy. Doesn't have to be a Shonn Miller level grad transfer, but even a freshman who can give meaningful minutes like Yakwe or Sima did for St John's this year would be huge.
I think next years team will have 3 players that might need to improve enough to give the team something. Right now I see 9 players getting time, so they need these 3, or at least 2 of them to step up: Cohen, Anim and Ellenson, 3 small forwards that will have to play big.
We will actually be able to spread the floor and have multiple shooters on the floor at the same time next year for the first time in a long time. Unfortunate that Hank wasn't an incoming freshman next year, as him combined with all the shooting on next year's team would be a joy to watch.
I'm looking for the stats but can't find them. Was Hank really a great or even good offensive rebounder? He was a great defensive rebounder, but his work on the offensive glass doesn't stick out to me.
Interested to see what the staff comes up with for next season. Should be fun to see the strategies for covering up the height deficiencies we have.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2016, 09:38:48 PM
MU's eFG% was the second best in the past 10 years? Why do you think it will get better? Especially with a smaller line up with Henry gone? MU's TO rate got worse in conference as the year went on, where it was second worst overall to DePaul. Why do you think it will get better with a freshman PG? Especially when Traci and Haanif were about the same in and out of conference as year progressed with the turnovers.
Fact is, this team is still in flux, and there are a lot of questions about BE readiness. As it is now, this team is two years away at least...with an All Big East player to replace...but more to come. Respect the process, ai-na?
Because we are retaining all of our shooters, adding three great shooters in Rowsey, Howard, and Hauser and while we are losing our best player, he was our most inefficient scorer. Our 2FG% (the source of our high eFG this season) might take a hit but I can't imagine that our 3P% won't improve significantly. Given 3P% great effect on eFG%....I'm confident it will raise next season.
We won't be playing a freshman PG. We will be playing a sophomore PG. We might have a freshman who plays PG some of the time. The strongest relationship between experience and improvement is with TO%. I fully expect TC and HC's TO% to be greatly reduced this next season.
Roster is still in flux. We need to add at least one more player. Maybe there will be a transfer. Maybe there won't be.
There is a process. It needs to be respected. Part of that process is players improving over the offseason. Everyone seems ready to discount that part of the process. I'm not sure this team will make the tournament next season. Add the right player and I am. But as the roster stands now, I am confident we are better than "two years away at least."
while Luke didn't roll up rebounds on the defensive end, his 100 offensive rebounds were the 4th best at MU in the past 30 years.
Trailing only Robert Jackson (110 in 2003), Marcus Jackson (106 in 2005) and Ousmane Barro (103 in 2007).
If Wally comes back, I think he will get some minutes at the 4. The offense next year will be pushing the ball up the court. He can fit into that model and also get a few boards. The key for him will be to have a legitimate 3 point shot to pull the opposing 4 outside.
I know it is unknown if he is coming back or not, but I sure hope he does. I see a place for him on the team.
Quote from: Howard's Eagle on April 03, 2016, 10:21:22 PM
Because we are retaining all of our shooters, adding three great shooters in Rowsey, Howard, and Hauser and while we are losing our best player, he was our most inefficient scorer. Our 2FG% (the source of our high eFG this season) might take a hit but I can't imagine that our 3P% won't improve significantly. Given 3P% great effect on eFG%....I'm confident it will raise next season.
We won't be playing a freshman PG. We will be playing a sophomore PG. We might have a freshman who plays PG some of the time. The strongest relationship between experience and improvement is with TO%. I fully expect TC and HC's TO% to be greatly reduced this next season.
Roster is still in flux. We need to add at least one more player. Maybe there will be a transfer. Maybe there won't be.
There is a process. It needs to be respected. Part of that process is players improving over the offseason. Everyone seems ready to discount that part of the process. I'm not sure this team will make the tournament next season. Add the right player and I am. But as the roster stands now, I am confident we are better than "two years away at least."
I agree with your analysis.
Quote from: HowardsWorld on April 03, 2016, 09:49:54 PM
We will actually be able to spread the floor and have multiple shooters on the floor at the same time next year for the first time in a long time. Unfortunate that Hank wasn't an incoming freshman next year, as him combined with all the shooting on next year's team would be a joy to watch.
I'm looking for the stats but can't find them. Was Hank really a great or even good offensive rebounder? He was a great defensive rebounder, but his work on the offensive glass doesn't stick out to me.
Interested to see what the staff comes up with for next season. Should be fun to see the strategies for covering up the height deficiencies we have.
Henry got mostly defensive rebounds. However, there was a game he got three rebounds on offensive tips on the same possession, which got him to 10 rebounds for the game. Removing offensive tips, he might not of had more than 10 offensive rebounds. As far as being a great defensive rebounder all you have to do is watch the North Carolina center tonight sky for rebounds. He got his 400th rebound of the season against Syracuse. Henry who had 300+ rarely jumped for rebounds.
Quote from: bilsu on April 04, 2016, 05:44:58 PM
Henry got mostly defensive rebounds. However, there was a game he got three rebounds on offensive tips on the same possession, which got him to 10 rebounds for the game. Removing offensive tips, he might not of had more than 10 offensive rebounds. As far as being a great defensive rebounder all you have to do is watch the North Carolina center tonight sky for rebounds. He got his 400th rebound of the season against Syracuse. Henry who had 300+ rarely jumped for rebounds.
My point wasn't "How high did Henry get to get his rebounds." Henry is unquestionably a great rebounder. Arguing otherwise is absurd. I just personally never felt like he got a ton of offensive rebounds (which are being discussed as 1 of the 4 most important aspects in college basketball here) and how hard that'll be to replace without him. I always considered him an elite defensive rebounder, but don't remember him being any type of menace on the offensive glass. Unfortunately, all the stats I can find only list total rebounds and don't separate offensive and defensive rebounds, so I don't know if the offensive rebounds simply never stood out or if he really did do a large majority of his rebounding on the defensive end.
Quote from: HowardsWorld on April 04, 2016, 06:07:02 PM
My point wasn't "How high did Henry get to get his rebounds." Henry is unquestionably a great rebounder. Arguing otherwise is absurd. I just personally never felt like he got a ton of offensive rebounds (which are being discussed as 1 of the 4 most important aspects in college basketball here) and how hard that'll be to replace without him. I always considered him an elite defensive rebounder, but don't remember him being any type of menace on the offensive glass. Unfortunately, all the stats I can find only list total rebounds and don't separate offensive and defensive rebounds, so I don't know if the offensive rebounds simply never stood out or if he really did do a large majority of his rebounding on the defensive end.
ORB - 71
DRB - 250
Total - 321
from ESPN.com
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on April 04, 2016, 06:30:18 PM
ORB - 71
DRB - 250
Total - 321
from ESPN.com
Thank you. So over 2 OR/game. So better than I remember.
Quote from: bilsu on April 04, 2016, 05:44:58 PM
Henry got mostly defensive rebounds. However, there was a game he got three rebounds on offensive tips on the same possession, which got him to 10 rebounds for the game. Removing offensive tips, he might not of had more than 10 offensive rebounds. As far as being a great defensive rebounder all you have to do is watch the North Carolina center tonight sky for rebounds. He got his 400th rebound of the season against Syracuse. Henry who had 300+ rarely jumped for rebounds.
So since Henry didn't out rebound the best rebounder in the ACC since Tim Duncan, he's not very good.
Do I have that right?
Just pondering life without Henry and our offense next season. It may work. What made me most pleased was that we now see it can be WON playing villanovas way. 4 out 1 in....solid (not great) big man. Heres hoping our battles with all our guards bring out the best in them.
Intrigued by Rowsey....any chance he has any Archie in him? That would be fun.
Well, he is traditional. Got dat goin' for him, ai na?
Next year, it's lights out baby! Here come the shooters!!!
Quote from: Stretchdeltsig on April 06, 2016, 10:41:44 AM
Next year, it's lights out baby! Here come the shooters!!!
Hope you are right, but who really knows? By most accounts Duane was a great shooter in HS, I recall some saying over 50% from three, and we have only seen a few streaks from him. JJJ was reputed to be a good shooter in HS, but we did not see that until the second half of this year. HE supposedly could shoot the 3, but we got about 28% out of him this year. Traci Carter was reputed to be a good outside shot, but we did not see much this year. So I would hold off the lights out baby for next year until we actually see it materialize.
Quote from: The Lens on April 03, 2016, 08:11:57 PM
I hope our last scholly is ANYONE of size. Take any sort of project we can get our hands on.
If your definition of "project" is the same as mine, that person won't help us much next season. Heldt was a "project" this past season. How much would he have helped us if he were asked to play major minutes?
I will take my chances on Heldt next season over any Heldt-like "project."
I do want another big for next season, of course. And I also wouldn't another project, though I wouldn't expect squat from that project for 2-3 years.
Willie, apparently you haven't seen Hauser, Howard or Rousley play. I know you're not used to it, but the day of the shooters is here. Can't wait!
Quote from: MU82 on April 06, 2016, 04:00:15 PM
If your definition of "project" is the same as mine, that person won't help us much next season. Heldt was a "project" this past season. How much would he have helped us if he were asked to play major minutes?
I will take my chances on Heldt next season over any Heldt-like "project."
I do want another big for next season, of course. And I also wouldn't another project, though I wouldn't expect squat from that project for 2-3 years.
+11
Quote from: willie warrior on April 06, 2016, 03:08:52 PM
Hope you are right, but who really knows? By most accounts Duane was a great shooter in HS, I recall some saying over 50% from three, and we have only seen a few streaks from him. JJJ was reputed to be a good shooter in HS, but we did not see that until the second half of this year. HE supposedly could shoot the 3, but we got about 28% out of him this year. Traci Carter was reputed to be a good outside shot, but we did not see much this year. So I would hold off the lights out baby for next year until we actually see it materialize.
Actually Duane is the only one of those I remember being labeled a shooter in high school. JJJ was an athletic slasher with a poor shot. Henry could shoot it bit it wasn't his strength. Same with Carter.
Difference I hope between Duane and the newbies is level of competition. Findlay, SPASH, and unc asheville face much tougher competition than Duane did at Dominican. Well see
Quote from: Howard's Eagle on April 06, 2016, 06:40:45 PM
Actually Duane is the only one of those I remember being labeled a shooter in high school. JJJ was an athletic slasher with a poor shot. Henry could shoot it bit it wasn't his strength. Same with Carter.
Difference I hope between Duane and the newbies is level of competition. Findlay, SPASH, and unc asheville face much tougher competition than Duane did at Dominican. Well see
Not to mention that Duane had a McD AA as a high school teammate.
Quote from: Howard's Eagle on April 06, 2016, 06:40:45 PM
Actually Duane is the only one of those I remember being labeled a shooter in high school. JJJ was an athletic slasher with a poor shot. Henry could shoot it bit it wasn't his strength. Same with Carter.
Difference I hope between Duane and the newbies is level of competition. Findlay, SPASH, and unc asheville face much tougher competition than Duane did at Dominican. Well see
Yeah and also wasn't Henry's shooting even worse in high school? I feel like at least one of his high school seasons had him shooting the 3 even worse.
And I know I saw him as a mid 60s at the line guy.