We’ve covered a lot in the past two days, but there were a couple of thoughts and questions that needed to be discussed further. The following is our attempt to answer those questions and share our final thoughts about the team before the season begins.

Who do you project to be day one starters? Who are your first four off the bench?

DAMON:
G – Henry Pendergast
G – Joey Kizel
F – Hunter Merryman
F – Dylan Sinnickson
C – Jack Roberts
Bench – Nate Bulluck, Matt Daley, Matt St. Amour, Chris Churchill

JEFF:
G- Henry Pendergast
G- Joey Kizel
G- Nate Bulluck
F- Hunter Merryman
C- Jack Roberts
Bench – Matt St. Amour, Matt Daley, Dylan Sinnickson, Jake Nidenberg

JEFF: Kizel is the obvious start. I put Bulluck next to him because I think Jeff Brown likes him for his experience and defense. Next it came down to Pendergast or Sinnickson for me, and I took Pendergast because I don’t think Bulluck and Kizel are enough in terms of ball-handling, at least early in the season. That said, I don’t want Pendergast playing too much. Even though they are looking to move Kizel off the ball this year, at this early juncture the team needs an experienced distributor so that everybody else can focus on more complementary roles. On the bench, I think Sinnickson will be the first substitution, probably for one of the guards, to test out a bigger lineup. Jake Brown would be in the discussion but he sustained an injury and is likely out for this tournament. The same goes for James Jensen. St. Amour gets rotation minutes right away because of his offensive maturity, while Daley and Roberts could essentially split minutes at center. Are we assuming too much in regards to the talented by unproven duo of Matts?

DAMON: We’re one paragraph into this conversation and I’m already backtracking. This isn’t a good sign of things to come. You’ve sold me on your Bulluck argument, particularly because Sinnickson is working his way back from a year away from basketball and then an injury this fall that cut his football experiment short. What can I say—he made a pretty compelling case to start on our radio show a couple of weeks ago. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve overreacted to a compelling pitch. The ball-handling concern is a fair one and Nate has really improved in that department. Given the departure of Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson, Bulluck probably realized that improving his dribbling and trying to assume Thompson’s third-guard role in the offense was his best avenue to more minutes—smart.

And no, we’re not assuming too much from the pair of Matts. I think we’re going to see a lot of different lineups in today’s game and I would imagine both of those guys will be featured heavily. You and I both agree that if Middlebury is going to make a deep tournament run (we’ll get to that in a moment) Daley and St. Amour will need to have big seasons. Obviously the talent is there in bundles, the question is whether one or both can realize it. I like your Nidenberg pick—he has had a great preseason—but I think Churchill will get a good look in this game. Coach Brown has to figure out what he has at the ‘5’ and determining the rotation between Roberts, Daley and Churchill is one of the most pressing questions.

•••

What about halfway through the NESCAC season? Does the starting five change, assuming good health? The top reserves?

JEFF:
G – Jake Brown
G – Joey Kizel
F – Hunter Merryman
F – James Jensen
C – Matt Daley
Bench- Matt St. Amour, Nate Bulluck, Dylan Sinnickson, Jack Roberts

DAMON:
G – Joey Kizel
G – Matt St. Amour
F – James Jensen
F – Hunter Merryman
F – Matt Daley
Bench – Jake Brown, Dylan Sinnickson, Jack Roberts, Connor Huff

DAMON: So you’ve gotten caught up in the Jake Brown hype, huh? In all seriousness, I think we have a similar outlook for JB, but I see St. Amour starting over him because a Kizel, Brown starting backcourt is, uh, vertically limited. Also, I think ultimately, if Daley and St. Amour win starting jobs, Middlebury will have enough offense on the floor to move Kizel back onto the ball, which is where I think he is most effective and will allow him pick his spots late in games. Speaking of which, the lineup Jeff Brown uses to close games will be equally intriguing. If Kizel is going to transition late in games and look to score more, it may require either Brown or Henry Pendergast (who neither of us have in our first four off the bench) to be in the game in order to add an extra ball handler. The interesting question to me is who they would replace—likely either St. Amour or Merryman. If it comes down to the two of them, my bet is St. Amour stays on the floor, but Sinnickson may also work his way into the closing lineup, too. Too many closing options is anything but a bad problem, though. Jeff Brown will be able to determine his lineup based on how his team matches up defensively and ride the hot hand offensively.

If there’s a bench guy Middlebury fans should watch this season, it’s Connor Huff, in my opinion. Everytime Huff takes the floor, whether it’s in practice or a game he makes things happen. He’s a hard worker and a good shooter, who can score from anywhere inside the three-point line. If he gets an opportunity early, I think he’ll stick.

JEFF: We both are projecting some high potential guys to improve, which is what this season will depend upon. One guys whose role is going to be interesting to watch is Jack Roberts. He could take a senior year jump after starting as a junior, but I actually think the style of play of this team (fast-paced, stretch the court) might not fit well with his game. He could turn into an opponent-specific stopper at center. Against most D-III teams, Jensen, Sinnickson, and Daley are enough to hold up defensively down low. One thing I love about this rotation is the potential for Kizel, St. Amour, Merryman, and Daley to all be on the court together. Each is an excellent outside shooter for his position, and a distributor like Jake Brown or Henry Pendergast could drive and kick to whomever the defense dictated. Sinnickson and Jensen are also strong enough in the mid-range to mesh with that strategy.

•••

Is this team going to make the NCAA Tournament?

JEFF: Yes. One thing that we often forget is how dominant the NESCAC is. I see no problem with four teams going to the tournament, and I don’t see Middlebury finishing below fourth in the conference, which would probably mean six losses before tournament play (Alvernia, St. Mary’s, Tufts, Williams, Amherst, Conference semifinals). If this is the floor (or a slight variation of it), given that those losses will most likely have come against five tournament teams, they will beat out the at-large candidates from weaker conferences. Even if the complementary players underwhelm, Joey Kizel and a decent supporting cast should be enough.

DAMON: This question makes me far more nervous than it should. Obviously Middlebury is a more established team than Wesleyan was in 2011-12, but the Cardinals went 20-6 (7-3) and advanced to the NESCAC semifinals that year, but missed out on an NCAA Tournament bid. Gun to my head—or deadline advancing—I’ll say they make it, if only because I think Jeff Brown is a tremendous coach and there is a ton of talent on this roster, which goes 14 players deep. Of those 14, Middlebury realistically needs eight to nine players to have solid to spectacular seasons  to make it’s seventh consecutive NCAA Tournament. So yeah, I think they’ll make it, but I also get the feeling we’ll be all kinds of nervous watching the selection show come March.

•••

Where will Joey Kizel rank among the recent Middlebury greats when his career is over?

JEFF: Let’s put Ben Rudin and Tim Edwards aside because we both would probably put Joey above them without a fair treatment, since they came before our time. The Middlebury greats who we are talking about are Andrew Locke, Ryan Sharry, Nolan Thompson, and Jake Wolfin. Those are the players who defined the program over the past four years. Locke was the most breathtaking to watch, Sharry was the best offensive player, Wolfin mastered the art of the point guard, and Thompson was the best shutdown defender we’ll ever see. Right now, because Sharry and Thompson had more complete games, I’m saying they are the top two, then Kizel, then Locke and Wolfin. Kizel belongs there right now because in addition to his remarkable scoring, he has singlehandedly won this team more games over the past two years than anyone else. We are guaranteed some more vintage Kizel games this season, as he is going to have to start putting the team on his back in a few hours, and might not stop until March. He is within range of the top of the list.

DAMON: You’re not really addressing the question. Yeah, right now I’d put Thompson and Sharry ahead of Kizel, but to me, when his career is over—short of a truly disappointing senior season—Joey is at the top of this list. And you can throw Rudin, Edwards and pretty much whomever else you want onto that list. Other guys may finish with gaudier numbers than Joey, but more than any player I’ve ever been around only one thing matters to Kizel: whether his team wins the final game of the season. When we look back on his career and all of the awesome, incredible—and I mean awe inspiring and truly unbelievable—things he did during his career at Middlebury, there’s no way anyone else tops him on that list. You baited me with this question because I’m not sure there’s another athlete across any sport at any level I’ve enjoyed watching more than Joey Kizel. (This is just between you and me right?)

JEFF: Sure thing. Here’s why it’s hard for me: Sharry might have been the best player in the country his senior year, putting up totally obscene numbers that reflected on-court dominance: 18.8 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 2.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 1.0 spg, and 61/43/67 shooting splits. If that doesn’t make you think twice, look at those numbers again. You can nitpick some of his performances, but this program will never have somebody who can do it all like Sharry could. And Thompson might challenge Kizel’s claim to the greatest will to win, in addition to being an underrated offensive player and otherworldly on defense. All I’m saying is, let’s be cautious—we’re dealing with some big time claims. But a scoring jump and a few more magic moments from Kizel this year, and I’ll happily concede.

•••

How much will losing Nolan Thompson’s defense hurt this team?

DAMON: This is a difficult question to answer because it depends so much on whether Middlebury evolves into an explosive offensive team that relies on forcing turnovers and getting out in transition. Either way, though, I think Middlebury will noticeably miss Nolan’s defense, in much the same way they’ve missed Andrew Locke’s presence inside the past two seasons. Think about how many times we’ve thought to one another, “It would be nice to have Andrew in this game.” Well, we’ve already started doing that with Nolan, who would be all kinds of helpful this weekend against an undersized, guard-heavy Alvernia team. And while Jensen should return to the court soon at full health, he’s really the only guy who can comfortably match up against the plethora of wings in the NESCAC and beyond. There will also be a fair number of games (Williams comes to mind, in particular) when Jeff Brown is going to have to pick his poison because he doesn’t have the benefit of two defenders who can shut down guards, wings and forwards. Where this team may mitigate some of the loss of Nolan is with Jake Brown, who’s going to be a really good defender and, perhaps more importantly, plays the style of defense that is perfect for this team. Nolan was a lock-down defender who made it impossible for his man to move sometimes, let alone dribble, pass or score. Jake might not be as adept keeping his man in front of him, but he will also force more turnovers, which will let this team run the floor. I’m already so excited to watch him pick guys’ pockets and find Daley or Sinnickson running the floor. They may not win as many games as we want, but there are going to be dunks this year.

JEFF: Well wins and dunks have a pretty even exchange rate in my mind, so that’s a nice consolation. (This statement will be less funny and more sad if this team doesn’t find a defensive identity.)

I’ve never experienced anything as a fan like what we experienced with Thompson. The fact that the first thing that we would do when we were looking at a future opponent is look for their best scorer’s height, and if it was under 6’6” stop worrying about him, is amazing. And it wasn’t hubristic on our part either. Thompson shut down all of these guys, usually surpassing our expectations, and forcing opposing offenses to make due with their other four players. In Division III, where so many teams are built around one superstar—often a score-first guard—that was a pretty incredible luxury. We can hope that this year’s defense is opportunistic, but I’m less optimistic than you. Are they athletic? Yes, but I’m not sure this team has many fundamentally strong defenders. This will be exposed, and we will see a lot more great individual scoring performances from opponents this year than we are used to.

•••

Who will be the second leading scorer, behind Kizel?

DAMON: Ugh, you’re baiting me again. I should know better than this, but the season is less than 24 hours away and I’m giddy. Matt St. Amour will be the second leading scorer after Kizel. (This is either going to look very smart or very stupid five months from now.) I think St. Amour will slowly work his way into the rotation and the starting lineup, but defer to his teammates early in the season. There’s going to be a moment, though, sometime this season when St. Amour realizes he can play a big role on the offensive end. And while he may not be able to consistently beat his man off the dribble, and there will be times when looks like a freshman, I think he’ll have a couple of games where his potential becomes his production and St. Amour goes off.

To temper my enthusiasm slightly, I don’t see a non-Kizel player averaging more than about 12 points per game and I think shots and points will be pretty evenly distributed across the rotation. So it’s not so much that I think St. Amour will take the NESCAC by storm, but that he’ll outproduce his teammates in a balanced Middlebury offense.

JEFF: St. Amour is a great shooter, but adjusting to the speed of the college game will be tough, and he might not play enough minutes to score so much right away. Here’s my ranking of the most likely players to finish second in scoring:

1) Hunter Merryman – 8.3 points in 15 minutes per game last year; if his outside shooting is on, he will certainly put up double digits.

2) James Jensen – I agree that the scoring will be evenly distributed, and Jensen will get the second-most minutes on the team. He can finish around the hoop, and get to the line frequently.

3) Dylan Sinnickson – Lest we forget, he scored at a torrid rate his freshman year; he might not have a complete game yet, but he produces when he is on the floor.

4) Matt St. Amour – I love his shot, and I love his offensive approach, but I still have concerns about the transition.

5) Matt Daley – If he starts early (which I think is just a 25-30% chance), he moves to first on the list. He can finish down low, run the break, and stretch out to beyond the arc.

DAMON: I’m glad you were more reasonable in your response than I was. The readers definitely appreciated your more well-rounded response to the question. I do think your critique of my response is fair and if not St. Amour, then I agree that Merryman is the most likely alternative to follow Kizel in points per game. Again, the reasoning behind my St. Amour pick isn’t so much that I don’t believe in the other guys you listed as much as I think they’re all going to score in the 8-12 points per game range, opening the door for St. Amour, if he makes the transition. To that point, I think the NESCAC, while full of gifted athletes, is a fairly easy league for a player of St. Amour’s caliber to transition into. It won’t always be pretty, but I don’t see any reason why St. Amour can’t have a Matt Hart type season, taking fewer shots, but scoring with greater efficiency. Maybe I’m blindly naive, but I’m going with my instinct until I see something that tells me otherwise.

•••

What can we expect from Matt St. Amour and Jake Brown over the course of their careers?

JEFF: I think these two both start for three years, St. Amour scores 1,200 points, and both are first-team all-league guards their senior season. Brown already seems in his element with the upperclassmen, and just makes things happen on both ends of the court. St. Amour needs to build on his game to be a top scorer but is starting in a better place offensively than any freshman in recent memory. Let’s not discount the two underclassmen who will be sharing the backcourt with them, Henry Pendergast and Bryan Jones. That nucleus can accomplish a lot in the coming years.

DAMON: My amour for the freshman class is forte as the French would say. And since I’ve already outed myself as a member of the MSA fan club, I’ll keep plowing forward (jump on now, Panther nation). I think Matt St. Amour will be discussed similarly to Joey Kizel by the next version of us (do you think they’ll be cooler than we are?). I think St. Amour is a future All-American, NESCAC scoring champion and when his career is all said and done, his name is going to be very close to the top of Middlebury’s all-time scoring list. Brown, meanwhile, has a chance to be special, too. He’s a true point guard, with great ball skills and could be a future NESCAC Defensive Player of the Year candidate. Offensively, he has shades of Shasha Brown in his game, though I think he’ll score fewer points (and take fewer bad shots, too) and accumulate more assists. More than anything, I think the two of them will be a nightmare backcourt for opposing teams to prepare for and matchup with. Throw Bryan Jones and Pendergast into the mix and you have the making of a truly special backcourt that could rival the Wolfin, Thompson, Kizel trio.

 JEFF: If there is a next version of us, I can only hope they are cool enough to not refer to Panther nation in its common noun form. And prudent enough to never try to defend themselves logically against critics.

DAMON: They’re already a lost cause.

•••

So what do you make of this team? What are your final thoughts before the season starts?

JEFF: On the one hand, this program finally made it to elite status after years of mediocrity, and these recruiting classes reflect that prestige. On the other hand, we just experienced what felt like the program’s golden years, with some irreplaceable players, and most guys on this team haven’t accomplished anything. This reflects a tension between big-picture high expectations and some relatively low short-term expectations. I have little doubt that Middlebury will compete at a national level as long as Jeff Brown heads the program. As of right now, I won’t be surprised if the growing pains are too much for them to match recent success. Middlebury fans, of late, are used to total dominance. Over the past five years, this team has lost 10 regular season games. Connecticut College lost that many games in conference play last winter. We’re going to experience some uncharacteristic losses, and might have to recalibrate our expectations if certain players don’t emerge. Having said that, I already like a lot about this team, and with Joey Kizel and Jeff Brown at the helm, there aren’t many programs in the country I would bet on against these guys.

DAMON: Honestly, this season could go in so many different directions, very few of which would surprise me. I’ve gone back and forth on this team a number of times during the course of writing the preview and I’m still not particularly confident I have a great feel for where things are headed this season (but please, don’t stop reading!). We laughed about how positive my player breakdowns were, but that’s because it’s very difficult to critique potential. If little to none of this team’s potential is realized, it could be a disappointing season, where Middlebury falls flat and fails to make the NCAA Tournament. I’m (sort of) prepared for that possibility. The freshmen could all be a year away—despite what I’ve expounded over the thousands of words I’ve written about the team—and without significant contributions from St. Amour and/or JB, it’s going to be hard for this Middlebury team to make a deep tournament run, or even an appearance. But again, I’m hanging my hat on the last time a Jeff Brown team was in this situation—Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson’s freshman year, when an understated recruiting class—only Wolfin was expected to contribute—replaced then the most decorated senior class in program history. I think Brown and St. Amour can make similar impacts (obviously in different ways) to Wolfin and Thompson, particularly playing alongside Kizel, who is going to make life easier for both of them on the floor. And yeah, there may be a loss to Tufts or Bowdoin along the way—this team certainly won’t be as consistently excellent as the 2009-13 teams—but I do think, come March, if things go well, this team’s ceiling is just as high as any of those teams. For now, I’m going to forget how many conditionals were in that statement and enjoy the start of the basketball season. Regardless of where this season ends up, it’s so good to have Middlebury basketball back in our lives.

These picks are based on our predictions for the upcoming season, including projected player growth and role changes.

First Team

Joey Kizel, Middlebury
Aaron Toomey, Amherst
Daniel Wohl, Williams
Taylor Epley, Williams
Michael Mayer, Williams

Second Team

Ben Ferris, Tufts
Matt Hart, Hamilton
Matt Vadas, Connecticut College
Connor Green, Amherst
Stephen Haladyna, Tufts

Third Team

Graham Safford, Bates
Duncan Robinson, Williams
Andrew Madlinger, Bowdoin
Keegan Pieri, Bowdoin
Chris Hudnut, Colby

All-Rookie Team

Duncan Robinson, Williams
Harry Rafferty, Wesleyan
Matt St. Amour, Middlebury
David George, Amherst
Hunter Sabety, Tufts

POY: Michael Mayer, Williams
DPOY: James Jensen, Middlebury
ROY: Duncan Robinson, Williams
COY: Michael Maker, Williams

JOEY KIZEL  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 33.7 mpg, 14.3 ppg, 4.3 apg, 3.9 rpg, 49/42/79

Kizel, a preseason First Team All-American and one of the most complete players in the country, has been the NESCAC’s most efficient scoring guard, and the conference’s best finisher the past two seasons. After a blisteringly prodcutive sophomore season—Kizel’s shooting splits were 54/51/91 (that’s field goal, three-point and free throw percentage, respectively)—the New Jersey native had a slow start to the 2012-13, battling nagging injuries that affected him all year. After a quiet non-conference run, however, Kizel returned, if not quite to 2012 form, close to it, averaging 16.3 points per game during the 10-game stretch, while shooting 49 percent from the field and 47 percent from beyond the arc. Most notably, Kizel further cemented his legacy as one of the best big-game players in Middlebury history, with dazzling performances against Amherst, Cortland and Ithaca, the latter of which was strikingly similar to his late-game heroics (ignoring for a moment the final outcome) against Scranton. Kizel has been the Panthers emotional leader the past two seasons and will raise his game when the team needs him most.

As the lone captain this year, and with the departure of Thompson, Wolfin and Lynch, Kizel will be called on often. He will likely play off the ball more this season, particularly early, to provide a greater scoring presence. The challenge will be balancing his urge to do it all himself and deferring too much to his teammates. If history is any indicator, however, Kizel will develop that understanding with his teammates quickly and pick his spots wisely. Kizel has always been a great finisher around the basket—and anywhere on the court, really—but if there’s an area of his game that appears to be improved it’s his confidence finishing with either hand around the basket. Again, if possible, his game looks even smoother than seasons past. Some players (Ryan Sharry comes to mind) look relaxed on the court and make things look simple; others, like Nolan Thompson, can convey just how arduous basketball can be. Kizel is one of the few players we’ve ever watched, who routinely does both. Very rarely do you watch a player clearly expending maximum energy simply bringing the ball down the court against backcourt pressure, then beat his man and glide to the basket.

•••

JAMES JENSEN  •  6’6” (Senior, Forward) 21.1 mpg, 7.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 1.0 bpg, 0.8 spg, 44/–/74

Jensen’s calling card the past three seasons has been his defensive versatility and length on offense. He will play a bigger role this season on both ends of the floor, stepping into Nolan Thompson’s shoes—and Tim Edwards before that—as Middlebury’s primary defensive stopper. While Jensen does not have the lateral quickness that Nolan possessed, he can guard players up and down the lineup, from Sha Brown to Michael Mayer, both of whom he guarded effectively last year. In particular, the way he hounded Mayer a season ago, taking the ultra-talented Williams center out of his comfort zone in the second half, was one of the single best performances of the season. Jensen, too, had clutch moments, most memorably blocking Aaron Toomey’s buzzer-beater attempt at the end of the first overtime in the Amherst game, but also at the free throw line, a spot where Jensen improved drastically from 2011-12, particularly to close out games.

An injury he sustained early last year will keep Jensen out of the lineup for at least the first weekend of competition, which is a considerable blow, particularly given the difficulty of the early season schedule. When Jensen returns in late November or December, however, he will be a key cog in Middlebury’s season. His reputation lies on the defensive end of the floor—and for good reason—but the 6’6” swing man is more talented offensively than most people realize. He has contributed primarily as a slash-and-finisher, rivaled only by Kizel’s in terms of an ability to finish through and around contact, but his offensive game has developed considerably. If defenses sag off Jensen, playing him to drive, his midrange game will prove plenty effective to keep them honest. While not a shot creator, Jensen moves exceptionally well without the ball and his activity will create better looks than many players who can create their own shot ultimately receive.

•••

JACK ROBERTS  •  6’8” (Senior, Center) 19.7 mpg, 4.7 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.24 bgp, 60/0/47

Three years on, Roberts remains something of a mystery. His talent is undeniable, particularly on the defensive end, where he checked Amherst forward Alan Williamson—likely the most athletic player in the conference—during the triple overtime game and, later, the vertically challenged, but bruising Landon Gamble in the Elite Eight game versus North Central. In fact, the final game of 2012-13 was Roberts’s best performance of the season, and maybe of his career. On Division III’s biggest stage, Roberts rose to the occasion, playing stellar defense on one end and pouring in 10 points on 5-6 shooting on the other.

It’s difficult to know if the North Central performance is a precursor of better things to come from Roberts, who gives the Panthers a dominant defensive presence inside when he plays well, but can also frustrate with mistakes on the defensive end and poor shot selection at times offensively. Despite the graduation of Lynch, there will likely be greater competition at the ‘5’ and Roberts will need to perform on the floor to hold off Chris Churchill and, more likely, Matt Daley for the starting spot.

•••

HUNTER MERRYMAN  •  6’6” (Junior, Forward) 15.9 mpg, 8.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 50/43/79

We’ll say it up front: Merryman is much more than a three-point specialist. While he continues to improve on the defensive end, where Merryman will (but shouldn’t) surprise people is as a back-to-the-basket scorer. His range is cavernous—though with the arrival of Matt St. Amour, no longer the deepest on the team—but Merryman was also effective as a post scorer, where he was able to back down smaller defenders or work around bigger, slower players. Though he struggled last year when asked to make plays in space, both offensively and defensively, Merryman impressed me on both ends of the floor when he needed to use his size, either to create space offensively or to body bigger players defensively. His shooting numbers dipped after the halfway mark in 2012-13, but his struggles coincided closely with a broken nose that forced him to wear a facemask the rest of the year. Like Jensen and Kizel, Merryman also battled a number of debilitating injuries that required offseason attention.

Entering his junior season healthy and with a clear path to minutes and perhaps a spot in the starting lineup, Merryman could be primed for a breakout season. Few players of his size are as polished offensively both around the basket and beyond the three-point line. Consistency and shot creation will be the key areas of improvement for the California native, who needs to demonstrate greater ability to put the ball on the floor and make shots when the defense closes out on him. Expect him to find a home at the ‘4’ with Middlebury playing more three forward sets this season than in years past.

•••

DYLAN SINNICKSON  •  6’5” (Junior, Forward) 2011-12: 11.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 53/0/75

Why will Jeff Brown play three-forward sets more frequently? Because there is a logjam at the forward position, where Sinnickson, Merryman, Jensen and others, including the next player on the list, will compete for minutes. Sinnickson returns to action for the first time since his freshman year during the 2011-12 season after a broken arm sidelined him last year and a short-lived football hiatus delayed his return to basketball activities this fall. While Sinnickson was gone, he shouldn’t be forgotten. As a freshman, he shot 57 percent from the floor, with most of his points coming around the basket or the result of his high-point release midrange jump shot that he utilized to great effect. Indeed, he progressed so far as a freshman that he was a member of the closing lineup against Scranton in the Sweet 16.

The Sinnickson who returns should be an improved version of the player we last saw play over a year ago, bringing with him his relentless energy and above-the-rim athleticism, but also a more refined offensive game that could include an effective three-point shot. How Coach Brown intends to utilize Sinnickson and the degree of freedom he will grant the 6’5” junior remains to be seen, but if Sinnickson returns to form and demonstrates that he can play within the offense, he has a shot not just to close games, but to start them as well.

•••

MATT DALEY  •  6’8” (Sophomore, Forward) 5.7 mpg, 2.1 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 53/0/75

If one player epitomizes the potential of the 2013-14 Middlebury basketball team it’s Daley, who will have an enormous say in whether the team finishes as a fringe Tournament team or a national championship contender. Simply, no player on the roster has a higher ceiling than Daley, who is as gifted an athlete as Jeff Brown (with a huge assist from Alex Popp) has recruited. After a year developing in the program, the question is to what extent Daley will realize that potential. If you stop to watch practice, there are times you can’t help but notice Daley, who dunks at game speed on a routine basis in big-man drills and can run the floor and pull up for transition threes in two-on-nothing drills. He has a deft touch around the basket, a solid midrange game and tremendous range and fluidity for his size. His skills have been less apparent, however, in five-on-five situations where he will sometimes take a back seat and become passive offensively.

In terms of talent, Daley can go toe-to-toe with any big man in the NESCAC; in terms of ability, he has not demonstrated that he can translate the talent to game situations and be a dominant player. Then again, few big men in the NESCAC have put the league on notice their freshman year. What Daley accomplishes as a sophomore will likely be a barometer for Middlebury’s success as a team and is undoubtedly one of the things to watch as the season progresses.

•••

MATT ST. AMOUR  •  6’3” (Freshman, Guard)

Speaking of high ceilings and immensely gifted recruits, St. Amour boasts a skill set unlike any Middlebury player in recent memory. There have been other great scorers with NBA three-point range, to be certain, but what ultimately will separate St. Amour from other players—in the same way it has for Kizel—is his efficiency. St. Amour is a dead-eye shooter, with a quick release and tremendous understanding of offensive spacing, which will lead to plenty of open looks when playing alongside a player of Kizel’s caliber. That in itself should be enough to secure the Swanton, Vermont star a spot in the rotation, but only scratches the surface of what St. Amour’s impact could be. A gifted passer with great vision—likely aided by a stellar career as a striker on the soccer field—it is difficult to imagine St. Amour not making an immediate impact on the offensive end. What may limit his effectiveness and ability to make a substantial difference is his progression, or lack thereof, on the defensive end.

Playing Vermont high school basketball, St. Amour was asked to do virtually everything on the floor—no, really—with the exception of consistently guarding NESCAC-caliber players. Removed from the pressure of having his team sink or swim based on his performance every night, the Missisquoi Valley product will have an opportunity to focus more closely on a number of different aspects of his game. Defense and, to a lesser degree, his ability to finish at the rim, are the two areas of his game that are least polished. Having said that, St. Amour displays incredible poise for a first-year player and appears ready for the challenges and pressures that come with playing right away. Twice the Vermont Gatorade Player of the Year, St. Amour is one of six Vermont players ever to score 2,000 career points. The 6’3” guard averaged 30.7 points per game, 11.9 rebounds per game and 5.7 assists his senior year.

•••

JAKE BROWN  •  5’10” (Freshman, Guard)

With all the talent this team boasts, it is Jake Brown, nephew of coach Jeff Brown, who has people buzzing as the preseason comes to a close. Brown is a natural point guard, with strong ball-handling skills and the tempo and quickness to lead the fast break. What has really stood out, however, is his defense, which has been suffocating in practice. Brown is quick both with his feet and hands and will pester opposing point guards with his defensive intensity. Two skill sets could not exist in better unison, as Brown’s ability to force turnovers and turn them into transition breaks is a weapon this team, with its length and athleticism, could use to great effect.

In order to earn a spot as one of the first guards off the bench and eventually compete for a starting spot, the diminutive guard will have to demonstrate an ability to knock down open shots. Particularly on attempts from beyond the arc, Brown has a number of moving parts that complicate and slow his shot release. If he fails to knock down shots, defenses will drop underneath him, taking away his driving opportunities and negate much of his slash-and-kick ability. Brown will find minutes because his defensive approach and ball-handling skills cannot be squandered, but unless he demonstrates great consistency and shot-making ability, his role will be reserved to a second-team contributor capable of coming off the bench and providing a spark, but little more.

•••

NATE BULLUCK  •  6’4” (Senior, Guard) 7.6 mpg, 2.8 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 35/36/83

In the past that role has been reserved for Bulluck, an explosive athlete with a volatile game. There’s rarely a dull moment when Bulluck is on the floor, usually as a wild card off the bench who can provide a boost with his instant energy and athleticism, or run right into trouble—most often in the form of a stationary defender preparing to take a charge. Despite his sometimes perplexing performances, Bulluck is an incredible luxury for Jeff Brown on both sides of the ball when utilized correctly. Because it is usually evident from the first time he touches the ball the degree to which Bulluck will be effective, Jeff Brown can adjust his expectations and patience accordingly. Particularly when Middlebury trails or starts flat, Brown has turned to Bulluck, who has helped engineer a number of Middlebury runs—most notably against Amherst in the NESCAC title game in 2011-12, when the Panthers trailed by 14 late in the second quarter, only for Bulluck and company to lead a late charge to cut the Lord Jeffs’ lead to two at the half.

In the lead up to his senior season, Bulluck has adopted a vocal leadership role and has improved his range and ball-handling significantly—an important consideration given Nolan Thompson’s vacated role as the third ball handler the past two seasons. Further, Bulluck’s style of play, fits the makeup of this team, should the coaching staff elect to push the ball more this year than in the past. In order to secure a more significant role, however, Bulluck needs to do more than demonstrate his dribbling ability and deeper range; more importantly he has to prove he will be reliable when on the floor. Until then, he will remain the ace up Jeff Brown’s sleeve, capable of turning a game on its head—one way or another—in a short period of time.

•••

HENRY PENDERGAST  •  6’3” (Sophomore, Guard) 6.6 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.0 apg, 0.9 rpg, 44/38/30

Physically, Pendergast has all the tools to play a significant role and he will have an extended opportunity to make his case for a starting spot next to Kizel in the backcourt. While Pendergast’s athleticism is not in question, other still-developing areas of his game have limited his ability to take full advantage of it in games. Last season, Pendergast caught our eye with a monster dunk over Green Mountain College early in the season, but that kind of electric athleticism, which we hoped to see more of, has been the exception rather than the rule thus far. In part, Pendergast has struggled to beat defenders off the dribble, allowing opposing players to stay in front of him and limiting the opportunities for his athleticism to take over. At 6’3”, Pendergast has elite size, but not elite quickness for a point guard. Pendergast can mitigate his lack of point-guard quickness by improving his ball-handling, in particular his tendency to dribble the ball high, which minimizes his window of opportunity to beat his man and get to the rim, where he is most effective. Finally, Pendergast’s inconsistent jump shot, has allowed teams to drop off the ball and play underneath him. Improving his shot was the Connecticut native’s top priority this summer, which could create more driving lanes for Pendergast if defenses have to honor his outside game.

Given that Kizel will likely play off the ball more, Pendergast should see extended minutes early in the season so the coaching staff can better assess his game-readiness. Should Pendergast impress, he could assume a large part of the role vacated by Wolfin, as a distributor-first, scorer-second point guard who is the primary ball handler and provides a physical, active defensive presence. Like almost everyone up and down the roster, the talent is evident and the question is whether it will be realized. And in Pendergast’s case it can only help that he appears to be a great teammate with strong leadership qualities.

•••

CONNOR HUFF  •  6’4” (Sophomore, Guard) 5.5 mpg, 3.1 ppg, 0.4 apg, 1.5 rpg, 59/50/69

Every time Huff takes the floor, he seems to make plays. It’s not always easy to explain how he puts himself in position or why he knocks down shots, but the sophomore forward—who is making the transition to the ‘4’—comes from the Peter Lynch mold as a deceptively productive player who doesn’t jump off the floor at you as an athlete, but is always around the ball and making the most of his opportunities. Huff doesn’t have the same potential as a Daley or Pendergast, but so far he appears to be the most consistent player of the 2012 recruiting class. As a freshman last year he knocked down 59 percent of his shots—spread across the floor—albeit in a very limited sample size. While impossible to extrapolate his freshman numbers to project his sophomore season, what Huff does possess is a poise that suggests he belongs on the floor. Perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise from a player who was voted the New York city high school player New York Post pollers would most want to take a game-winning shot his senior season in high school. Along with Pendergast, Huff stood out to us in Middlebury’s win over Green Mountain for his defensive intensity and unmatched effort in Middlebury’s blowout victory.

Competing with Jensen, Sinnickson, Merryman and, to an extent Daley and Jake Nidenberg, for minutes in the front court, Huff might be the odd man out in the rotation. However, if Jeff Brown chooses to extend his rotation this season and go deeper down his bench, expect Huff to make plays as soon as he steps onto the court.

•••

JAKE NIDENBERG  •  6’6” (Sophomore, Forward) 4.6 mpg, 1.0 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 33/0/43

Alongside Jake Brown, Nidenberg has turned heads during the preseason. Whether he has the combination of size, talent and consistency to earn a spot at the back end of the rotation remains in question, but Nidenberg is, at the very least, a player to keep an eye on down the road. At 6’6” and 230 pounds, Nidenberg is going to move people on the floor, but he he has also developed an effective outside shot that could allow him to space the formation and draw bigger defenders away from the basket. In some ways, Nidenberg’s game is the complement to Merryman’s: the focus is around the basket for the sophomore, who will play more often with his back to he basket, but he can also take defenders out of the paint, step back and knock down the three as well.

•••

CHRIS CHURCHILL  •  6’9” (Junior, Center) 5.9 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 1.1 rpg, 60/–/83

A year ago, we were hoping that Churchill would make the sophomore leap and challenge Roberts for the starting center spot. Unfortunately for the 6’9” big man, he spent much of the summer recovering from mononucleosis and never really found a rhythm or role, other than as a reserve center capable of spelling Roberts. He has great size, soft touch around the basket and runs the floor well for a player of that magnitude. While there wasn’t one performance to point to his sophomore year, Churchill is a skilled 6’9”, 220-pound center—a combination that often necessitates greater patience and sometimes leads to a late-blooming emergence. Having coached Andrew Locke—who accomplished more his freshman and sophomore years, but evolved into a truly dominant player on both sides of the floor his senior year—Jeff Brown will likely want to see how Churchill has developed over the last two seasons. He likely won’t supplant Roberts or Daley at the ‘5’, but Churchill could be a key cog in a possible three-man rotation at center.

•••

DEAN BRIERLEY  •  6’5” (Junior, Guard) 6.6 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 33/32/67

Brierley struggled through a disappointing sophomore season, slowed by injuries, that saw him play just 6.6 minutes per game after a promising start to his freshman year that included a 20-point outburst against Southern Vermont. During his time at Middlebury, Brierley has been a relentless worker, seemingly always in the gym working on his shot. Unfortunately the hardwork has not translated to game action, where Brierley has struggled to make shots or contribute in other ways. At 6’5”, Brierley has strong ball-handling skills and, like Merryman, can shoot over smaller defenders. If he can regain his form—a big if, to be certain—he would give Middlebury the option to run another diverse lineup on the floor with a bigger backcourt presence.

•••

LUIS ALVAREZ  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 2010-11: 8.1 mpg, 2.6 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 44/20/82

Luis returns for his fifth season after receiving an injury exemption while sitting out almost all of last year. A slashing guard who pesters opposing ball handlers, Alvarez provides depth and experience to a largely unproven guard rotation. Injuries, however, have sidetracked a once promising career. In 2009, as a freshman, Alvarez was a rotation contributor for much of the season, playing over 9 minutes per game off the bench—the eighth highest mark on the team. After a sophomore season that saw his minutes reduced, Alvarez has played in just three games total. Healthy once again, Alvarez’s biggest impact will likely again be his presence on the bench, where he is a respected voice and holds his teammates to a high standard.

•••

BRYAN JONES  •  6’1” (Freshman, Guard)

Jones, the first and, for a while, only committed recruit from the 2013 class has had a solid, if unspectacular, preseason. Because he isn’t game ready to the same degree as St. Amour and Brown, he hasn’t received as much attention in the lead up to the season. The foundation for a multiple-year starter is there, however. Jones commands himself well on the floor, has a good understanding of how to run the fast break and finds open teammates. Built like a football player, Brown finishes well around the basket through contact and should be able to hold his own when he does see the floor. The area of his game that needs the most improvement is his outside shooting, though Jones is a solid player in almost all aspects of the game.

•••

LIAM NAUGHTON  •  6’1” (Freshman, Guard)

Middlebury’s first walk on since Nolan Thompson, Naughton has been a pleasant surprise during the preseason. He already boasts a great midrange game—he can create his own shot and get shots off from a variety of different angles—and looks like he belongs on the floor. The proficiency of his midrange game will give him an opportunity to contribute down the line—perhaps not this season, but certainly in future years. Naughton may not be Nolan Thompson—his game is more similar in many ways to Matt Hart —but he could be another Middlebury walk on that has an outsized impact.

•••

ALBERT NASCIMENTO  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 5.5 mpg, 1.9 ppg, 0.5 rpg, 32/29/78

Nascimento possesses a pretty stroke from beyond the arc and is a decent outside shooter, with better range than accuracy. The Brazilian played in significant situations last year, including closing against Amherst and providing a spark of the bench against Wesleyan by knocking down a pair of threes. An up-and-down tempo may also give him an opportunity to play more as the pace fits his style of play.

•••

EAMON CUDDY  •  6’7” (Junior, Forward) 2011-12: 2.8 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 0.8 rpg 100/–/–

If Cuddy can ever return to health, another big if, he could inspire a lot of “Where did he come from?” questions with his play. While athletically limited, Cuddy has a diverse array of post moves that, when healthy, he has used very effectively against bigger defenders in practice. It’s unlikely Cuddy will have any impact on this season, but if he can heal completely down the line, he could make an impact as a senior.

Note to our readers: We chose to start our preview of the 2013-14 basketball season by taking a moment to reflect on what won’t be there—namely Nolan Thompson, Jake Wolfin and Peter Lynch. By doing so, we hope to reflect further on what we know about this year’s team and what years past can tell us about the future. Below we’ve included a segment of our radio show during which we interviewed Nolan, Jake and Pete about their careers at Middlebury. The three graduated captains compiled a program-best 104 wins, 4 NCAA Tournament berths, two trips to Salem and a NESCAC title. While the accolades speak to what the group accomplished, their impact on the program will be remembered in other ways.

Four years ago few people knew that Jeff Brown had recruited — or mostly recruited — three players who would form the nucleus of the winningest group in the history of Middlebury basketball. Jake Wolfin was a familiar name and an intriguing prospect for those who closely followed New England recruiting news, but Peter Lynch’s commitment to Middlebury drew little fanfare and fewer expectations. Nolan Thompson, who, four years later headlined the class, meanwhile, wasn’t even on the team when he got to campus and was just another hopeful walk-on. Could he be a practice player who eventually carved out a role as a junior or a senior? Possibly, but that was the extent of any reasonable expectations for a player who was lightly-recruited even within his home state of Ohio.

Flash forward a couple of months and Nolan Thompson and Jake Wolfin are starting for a team with expectations of winning a NESCAC championship and making its third straight appearance in the NCAA Tournament. That first season wasn’t always pretty or effective — Wolfin had a penchant for throwing the ball away, either by trying to thread the needle with pinpoint passes or pulling up for an ill-advised transition three, while Thompson looked overmatched at times on both ends of the floor — but it was an important first step in the development of two of the most decorated backcourt players in program history.

Lynch, meanwhile, worked in relative anonymity for his first two seasons, developing behind Andrew Locke, Ryan Sharry and Jamal Davis, who collectively formed Middlebury’s most talented front court in recent memory. When Lynch did play early in his career it sent the crowd searching for number 44 in their programs and by the time they had found his name, Lynch had often been whistled for a foul. In his first two seasons Lynch averaged a shrill 5.2 fouls per 40 minutes, leading the team in fouls per minute — an inauspicious beginning that caused many to wonder if Lynch had the size, talent or discipline to be a significant or consistent contributor.

Lynch, then, perhaps even more than Thompson, represents what someone can accomplish when one works tirelessly to improve one’s game. Russ Reilly said this spring that Lynch “came as close as any athlete I’ve ever coached to reaching his god-given abilities.”  Ultimately that is what made Lynch, Wolfin and Thompson remarkable. While it’s fitting that they won more games than any other four-year class, their contribution would have been no less significant (if somewhat less dramatic) had they won 103 games, or 99 games 0r 70. The recent success Middlebury has enjoyed is as much due to the culmination of great character and commitment as it is talent. There are certain individuals — Mike Walsh, Ben Rudin, Tim Edwards and now Nolan Thompson, to name a few — who have willed the program to new levels, the force of their character every bit as important as their skill on the court.

While other classes have had tremendous success, what made this class unique was that all three guys were tremendous leaders, as well. Perhaps because Nolan was the most visible and exceptional of the three, we, and others, underrated the importance of Wolfin and Lynch as leaders. What I noticed in our interview with all three of them (which can be heard above) was how seriously and intentionally they approached practice and the time they spent with their other teammates. Each year Nolan chose a different player to mentor and introduce to the program. Last year he worked with Dean Brierley and this year it was Henry Pendergast. Whether Brierley and Pendergast ultimately have successful careers at Middlebury remains to be seen, but they have developed a reputation as two guys who are constantly in the gym working on their games, on a team that prides itself on being the best-prepared group in the country. It’s one thing, therefore, to be the hardest-working guy on a team, as Nolan was. It’s altogether another thing to instill that same dedication into the fabric of the team by taking a personal involvement in the growth of players who were unlikely to ever seriously impact the team’s success during Nolan’s final two seasons.

Jake, meanwhile, will be remembered for his love of winning. At the risk of sounding cliché, there are certain people who love winning and others who hate losing. (Gregg Popovich spoke about this during the NBA Finals last year). I never asked Jake this, but I always got the sense that Jake loved winning more than he hated losing. His jump shot, which was inconsistent over the course of his career, was never better than in big moments. Nolan and Pete talked about how Jake wanted to take every big shot — both in practice and in games. This year alone he hit shots that altered the flow of the game late against Williams, Amherst, Cortland and Ithaca, four of the five most important games Middlebury played last season. What people didn’t see, however, was how regularly Jake did exactly that in practice as well.

What’s immediately apparent about all three guys — and this is true for all great teammates — is that their absence will be as noticeable in practice as it will be come game time. Perhaps nobody understands this better than Peter Lynch, who spent two years essentially as a practice player, developing behind Andrew Locke and Ryan Sharry. Not gifted with great height or Division I athleticism, Lynch worked his way first into the rotation, then into the starting lineup, and ultimately into the Middlebury record book by becoming the best practice player he could. His offensive game was defined by his unrivaled footwork, which led to a wide array of post moves and scoring looks that he otherwise wouldn’t have had. Like Thompson’s leadership and Wolfin’s on-court demeanor, Lynch’s offensive skill set was a product of his personality and his dedication to improving in practice.

More than the 104 career wins, four NCAA Tournament berths and even the NESCAC title, the legacy this group leaves is a commitment to practice and devotion to team that is unmatched by any other group I’ve ever been around. Thompson, Wolfin and Lynch will be missed, but their legacy will be far more tangible than a banner hanging in Pepin and a note in the record books; it will be felt every day in practice by their teammates who assume the responsibility of passing it on to the next freshman class.