Illini Basketball 2026-2027

[Fly Illini Fly!]

C'mon - Fland came out of HS a PG. He's a traditional PG.

He was listed as one, because he's 6"1.
If he was 6"7 like Vaaks, he wouldn't have been.

Any scouting report you'll see on the kid is SG/SF.

It's because he's 6"7. If he played the exact same way but in a 6 foot 1 body, he'd be labeled a point guard.

Keaton Wagler got listed as a shooting guard when he came in.

Kasparas got listed as a shooting guard when he came in.

People were outraged about Domask being the primary ball handler -- all the way up until the season concluded, despite having a very good assist rate.

It's about the HEIGHT. That's all.

 

[HoopsterMan]

What makes a player a point guard?

For one, a tight handle. There is a reason PG's have not traditionally been 6'7". Protectors of the ball, creators, distributors, floor leaders. It's a mentality as much as it is an archetype.

You won't find a Vaaks scouting report that calls him a PG, because he's not. How is he going to defend an opposing PG?

Duke is loaded and deep. But I agree they're a bit odd in that im not sure they even have a lotto pick. And if they do have a lotto pick it's probably one of the big guys who are projectable nba players, not necessarily dominant in college.

Haugh, Mirkovic, Holt, Fears are all DUDES.

They remind me a bit more of those Virginia teams (in talent level - not play style), who were just solid as hell top to bottom. But even they had Hunter who was a top 5 pick. They're very unique IMO.

Wildcard is probably Cam Williams - theres a change he might awesome right away.

If they have a lotto pick, it's one of their 4's. They're both young freshman. One isn't even age eligible for the draft until 2028. They could rotate one to the 5 and play with both on the floor. It's hard to know what Scheyer is thinking, there are so many parts on that team.

I get the sense Williams is going to be finesse, look to shoot jumpers versus mix is up inside. He's a skinny dude, like 6'11" 200lb last I saw.

Duke will play very big. They'll have center height at the 4, a 6'7"kid at the 3.

 

[HoopsterMan]

He was listed as one, because he's 6"1.
If he was 6"7 like Vaaks, he wouldn't have been.

It's because he's 6"7. If he played the exact same way but in a 6 foot 1 body, he'd be labeled a point guard.

Keaton Wagler got listed as a shooting guard when he came in.

Kasparas got listed as a shooting guard when he came in.

People were outraged about Domask being the primary ball handler -- all the way up until the season concluded, despite having a very good assist rate.

It's about the HEIGHT. That's all.

You think Brad is gonna go back to Booty Ball? That team had TSJ as a co-ballhandler.

I honestly can't think of the last 6'7" plus white PG at the college level. Has it ever happened?

 

[NarrowJ]

I didn't say they had no star players. I said they had no college star players. College star player means someone who puts up star numbers on their college team (like Boozer, who you mentioned is the "star" Duke doesn't have).

2015 Kentucky didn't have that, because they had TOO MANY great players for someone to emerge like Boozer did.

Likewise, this year's Duke team doesn't need someone to be that star, because they have that kind of incredible depth.

Since you still don't really get it, here's the point I made, raw PPG aside: I'm not sure Duke has a KAT or Booker on the roster. They have some good players, nobody I'll categorize as great. As someone else said: do they even have a lotto pick? Let alone a 1-3 type of guy. They don't. Having 12 good players is nice, but if none of them are great, saying they're the most talented team in the last decade plus is a spicy nuclear take.

That doesn't sound overly consistent .

Regardless, raw PPG is useless. Kentucky was 9th in the nation in points per possession that year, and was the 4th best offense according to Kenpom.

I would agree it's not QUITE as insane as the roster might suggest.

Haha, well saying a team's raw point total is interesting isn't really the same as someone trying to tell me Towns or Booker weren't great college players because they scored 10ppg, but you know that The 2015 Kentucky team is an interesting one because they basically platooned guys and nobody played enough to score a lot (that and the fact they were 224th in poss/gm).

 

[WyattEarp]

We have successfully cornered the market on Quentins.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

For one, a tight handle. There is a reason PG's have not traditionally been 6'7". Protectors of the ball, creators, distributors, floor leaders. It's a mentality as much as it is an archetype.

You won't find a Vaaks scouting report that calls him a PG, because he's not. How is he going to defend an opposing PG?

Is the concern he can’t guard point guards because his size not being that of a traditional point guard, or because he isn’t a quick enough defender to defend point guards?

Like we all agree TSJ wasn’t a point guard, but he could guard point guards right?

Offensively, I guess I don’t really get it. Maybe I’m at the point of agreeing to disagree, if we label fland as a creator I’m not sure why Vaaks isn’t one?

 

[lstewart53x3]

For one, a tight handle. There is a reason PG's have not traditionally been 6'7". Protectors of the ball, creators, distributors, floor leaders. It's a mentality as much as it is an archetype.

You won't find a Vaaks scouting report that calls him a PG, because he's not. How is he going to defend an opposing PG?

In this thread, you’ve said Boogie Fland is a point guard and Stefan Vaaks is not a point guard. Last year:

Boogie Fland’s assist rate: 18.2
Stefan Vaaks assist rate: 18.1

Boogie Fland’s turnover rate: 15.5
Stefan Vaaks turnover rate: 14.3

Vaaks looks like a point guard to me or at the very least an action guy / playmaker / initiator.

And just because that’s his role on offense, doesn’t mean he’ll guard opposing point guards. That’ll likely be QC or Andrej.

 

[blackdog]

In this thread, you’ve said Boogie Fland is a point guard and Stefan Vaaks is not a point guard. Last year:

Boogie Fland’s assist rate: 18.2
Stefan Vaaks assist rate: 18.1

Boogie Fland’s turnover rate: 15.5
Stefan Vaaks turnover rate: 14.3

Vaaks looks like a point guard to me or at the very least an action guy / playmaker / initiator.

And just because that’s his role on offense, doesn’t mean he’ll guard opposing point guards. That’ll likely be QC or Andrej.

Point guard is such a loaded term. Lead ball handler, initiator, action guy. Brad and Tyler have shown they will run whatever actions are the most efficient and positions dont matter. If the best action is Vaaks pulling up for 3 off a pick they will go to that as much as needed.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

In this thread, you’ve said Boogie Fland is a point guard and Stefan Vaaks is not a point guard. Last year:

Boogie Fland’s assist rate: 18.2
Stefan Vaaks assist rate: 18.1

Boogie Fland’s turnover rate: 15.5
Stefan Vaaks turnover rate: 14.3

Vaaks looks like a point guard to me or at the very least an action guy / playmaker / initiator.

And just because that’s his role on offense, doesn’t mean he’ll guard opposing point guards. That’ll likely be QC or Andrej.

Actually think it’s quite possible he even guards point guards too.

He’ll just guard the worst of the offensive options between 1-3, and in some games probably even the 4

 

[HoopsterMan]

Point guard is such a loaded term. Lead ball handler, initiator, action guy. Brad and Tyler have shown they will run whatever actions are the most efficient and positions dont matter. If the best action is Vaaks pulling up for 3 off a pick they will go to that as much as needed.

Is the concern he can’t guard point guards because his size not being that of a traditional point guard, or because he isn’t a quick enough defender to defend point guards?

Like we all agree TSJ wasn’t a point guard, but he could guard point guards right?

Offensively, I guess I don’t really get it. Maybe I’m at the point of agreeing to disagree, if we label fland as a creator I’m not sure why Vaaks isn’t one?

TSJ was a pretty versatile defender, yes. Yes, defensively a guy that big is going to get roasted off the dribble against good PGs.

Fland is a weak example as I'm not a huge fan of his, but he is more of a traditional PG. With those bigs, he should have been averaging over 5 assists a game.


I see the PG as a more multi faceted role from a ball control, defensive point of attack and playmaking standpoint. Look at Cadeau in the tourney last year - he was a menace, a rascal and a making plays.

Here's a stat worth looking at - look at the most outstanding player of the tournament the last 18 years. 10x it was the PG. 4x it was the SG.

Last 3 years: Cadeau, Clayton, Newton

 

[HoopsterMan]

Actually think it’s quite possible he even guards point guards too.

He’ll just guard the worst of the offensive options between 1-3, and in some games probably even the 4

I guess you can put Coleman on the best guard as an option, but not sure there's going to be distinct advantages putting Vaaks at the 4 and rotating Andrej and Mirk up. Vaaks had a negative defensive efficiency on EvanMiya - that's hard to do, but also a product of that entire PC team.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

What makes a player a point guard?

For me it'd be definitive and measurable: your assist rate and turnover rate (with greater emphasis on the assists, because if you don't have the assists you might not be a facilitator and will inevitably have less turnovers, like Humrichous and Davis).

Not height, because point guard isn't about your height. It's about your skill set.

For one, a tight handle. There is a reason PG's have not traditionally been 6'7". Protectors of the ball, creators, distributors, floor leaders. It's a mentality as much as it is an archetype.

Let's take "protectors of the ball" and "distributors." (your other terms just feel like synonyms to that, but any ways)

Vaaks's assist rate: 18.1%
Vaaks's turnover rate: 14.3%

.....

Who would you say is Florida's point guard? You sounded very confident in saying it was Fland.

Fland's assist rate: 18.2%
Fland's turnover rate: 15.5%

Similar numbers to Vaaks; actually a bit worse due to the turnovers while having the same assist rate. BUT, people like you will find the utmost confidence in calling him a point guard, because he's 6"2 and Vaaks is 6"7.

.....

Who's UCLA's point guard? The idea, from what I've gathered, is TTU transfer Jaylen Petty.

Petty's assist rate: 12.3%
Petty's turnover rate: 11.3%

Inevitably he'll have a lesser turnover rate than Vaaks (way less facilitator duty; his assist rate is 6% less). Vaaks is clearly the more "point guard" skill set, but it won't be looked at that way.... because Petty is 6"1 and Vaaks is 6"7.

......

Louisville's point guard? Sounds like the consensus is Jackson Shelstad.

The last time he played a legitimate season:

Shelstad's assist rate: 15.5%
Shelstad's turnover rate: 13.3%

Similar numbers to Vaaks. Much lower assist rate, so Vaaks does seem like the more natural option, statistically. But, Shelstad is 6"1 while Vaaks is listed at 6"7, which means he'll supposedly have no issues being their point guard.

.....

Reading your other posts, you also seem to have a ton of stock into whether guys are "listed" as point guards.

Keaton Wagler was listed as a shooting guard by 247sports, but became our point guard:

Kasparas Jukucionis was listed as a shooting guard by 247sports, but became our point guard:

Marcus Domask was listed as a small forward by 247sports, but became our point guard:

They were all 6"5 or above; we didn't seem to have any issues with them. I don't think we'll have any issues with Vaaks either.