Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

[NarrowJ]

Coleman Hawkins his freshman year arrived as our #9thMan and was our #9thMan. He did not arrive with the expectation of being one of our highest paid and most sought after players like Petro.

Wagler was awesome, and therefore it's understandable that Petro wasn't one of our best players. But the fact that he couldn't even play and was the equivalent to a walk-on, makes him a bust from IIllinois's standpoint.

It's absolutely possible he goes to Seton Hall and has a great year. Just because it didn't work here doesn't mean it won't elsewhere.

Carey Booth was for all essence a "bust" in his time HERE (not quite to the degree of Petro; didn't exactly come in with starter expectations).

Was he a bust for Colorado State? I don't think so. Averaged 10.7pts / 5.7rebs / 41% from 3pt.

Exactly, Carey Booth isn't a bust -- he has already had moderately successful seasons for two other D1 programs.

So then if we nitpick the Hawkins example because he was a 3 star recruit, there's literally countless more that fit your (now goalposts moved) criteria.

Buddy Hield was a 4 star recruit coming into Oklahoma, shot 23% from 3 and averaged 7ppg as a freshman. Went on to become the National Player of the Year.

Was he a bust?

Ed O'Bannon entered college as the Gatorade National Player of the Year and averaged 3.6 ppg as a freshman. Eventually became the Division I National Player of the Year while leading UCLA to a National Championship.

Was he a bust?

Jalen Brunson was a consensus 5-star recruit and a McD AA coming out of high school. He averaged 9 points 2 assists as a freshman. Eventually became Division I National Player of the Year while leading Villanova to the National Championship.

Was he a bust?

Shelden Williams arrived at Duke as a consensus top 5 recruit. Averaged 8 pts as a freshman and frequently plagued by foul trouble. As a senior, he ended up being the 5th pick in the draft.

Was he a bust?

I can keep going, but the point is we don't know yet.

EDIT: So we have multiple goalpost moves here: (1) he was a bust 'at Illinois' and (2) he was more highly regarded than Hawkins (my example doesn't *count*)

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Exactly, Carey Booth isn't a bust -- he has already had moderately successful seasons for two other D1 programs.

So then if we nitpick the Hawkins example because he was a 3 star recruit, there's literally countless more that fit your (now goalposts moved) criteria.

Buddy Hield was a 4 star recruit coming into Oklahoma, shot 23% from 3 and averaged 7ppg as a freshman. Went on to become the National Player of the Year.

Was he a bust?

Ed O'Bannon entered college as the Gatorade National Player of the Year and averaged 3.6 ppg as a freshman. Eventually became the Division I National Player of the Year while leading UCLA to a National Championship.

Was he a bust?

Jalen Brunson was a consensus 5-star recruit and a McD AA coming out of high school. He averaged 9 points 2 assists as a freshman. Eventually became Division I National Player of the Year while leading Villanova to the National Championship.

Was he a bust?

Shelden Williams arrived at Duke as a consensus top 5 recruit. Averaged 8 pts as a freshman and frequently plagued by foul trouble. As a senior, he ended up being the 5th pick in the draft.

Was he a bust?

I can keep going, but the point is we don't know yet.

EDIT: So we have multiple goalpost moves here: (1) he was a bust 'at Illinois' and (2) he was more highly regarded than Hawkins (my example doesn't *count*)

For Illinois, he was a bust.

For somebody else, he could absolutely be a valuable piece.

It's entirely possible that he goes to Seton Hall and has a great year.

But for Illinois, he was a recruiting miss, and not good enough to play.

.....

It's a lot like Dembele for Barcelona.

Paid a ton of money and expected to be the Neymar replacement ---> struggles with injuries, doesn't go well.

Then goes to PSG, has led them to back-to-back UCLs, and won the Ballon Dor.

For Barca, he was a bust. For PSG, he was not.

 

[NarrowJ]

He was a 22 yr old freshman though, so it's not really fair to compare him to 17/18 year olds either.

Yet another restriction. If you guys keep creating more limitations on what we can compare it to, there will be none at all.

 

[NarrowJ]

For Illinois, he was a bust.

For somebody else, he could absolutely be a valuable piece.

It's entirely possible that he goes to Seton Hall and has a great year.

But for Illinois, he was a recruiting miss, and not good enough to play.

.....

It's a lot like Dembele for Barcelona.

Paid a ton of money and expected to be the Neymar replacement ---> struggles with injuries, doesn't go well.

Then goes to PSG, has led them to back-to-back UCLs, and won the Ballon Dor.

For Barca, he was a bust. For PSG, he was not.

Petro left so doesn’t get a chance to prove otherwise. But you’re moving the goalposts to win an argument I wasn’t participating in to begin with. From the very outset of this discussion I’d said: “I’d be willing to wager he has a productive season in the Big East this year”.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

If Petro played, and say averaged 9 and 6, with mediocre defense. And we are a 6 seed and lose in sweet 16 - is he a bust from an Illini standpoint?

There will always be examples of players reaching or falling short of broad expectations. But I reallllllly wanna be careful calling guys who didn’t get on the court for awesome teams busts.

He might've been the most unreliable/unplayable 9th man in the Brad Underwood era.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

He might've been the most unreliable/unplayable 9th man in the Brad Underwood era.

I have no idea what “unplayable” means.

I watched a lot of bad basketball before Brad came here and during the rebuild, where there was much worse players on the court than Petro.

We had a guy named Greg Eboigbodin who transferred to Northeastern and averaged 3 points his final year of college ball who was “playable”. I promise you Petro was better than Te’Jon Lucas and Jaylon Tate who were “playable

Some dude named Denim Wojick played for MSU this year.

Wild

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

If Petro wasn't a bust, then the term isn't even existent.

He was literally unplayable. Even when we needed him.

I think this is the most reasonable explanation: if he isn't a bust, then WHAT IS a bust in the first place?

For all intents and purposes, his value to the team was no more or less than AJ Redd (especially from Dec. onward). He was probably our 4th highest paid player.

 

[NarrowJ]

He might've been the most unreliable/unplayable 9th man in the Brad Underwood era.

A microcosm of what it’s like to debate with people on the internet:

When someone takes a frail position on something, they just change what the argument is about.

 

[NarrowJ]

I think this is the most reasonable explanation: if he isn't a bust, then WHAT IS a bust in the first place?

Kwame Brown, Darko Milicic, Anthony Bennett

Players who were highly regarded and had poor careers

NOT a guy who played one season behind the #5 overall pick

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

I have no idea what “unplayable” means.

I watched a lot of bad basketball before Brad came here and during the rebuild, where there was much worse players on the court than Petro.

We had a guy named Greg Eboigbodin who transferred to Northeastern and averaged 3 points his final year of college ball who was “playable”. I promise you Petro was better than Te’Jon Lucas and Jaylon Tate who were “playable

Some dude named Denim Wojick played for MSU this year.

Wild

"Playable" just means being able to get into games. (Unplayable would just be the opposite of that)

"In the Brad Underwood era" might be too far.

But our teams in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 all had more deplorable and playable 9th men than Petro. You just have to look at the games played, minutes per game, etc.

It just seemed to come down to the staff not trusting him. It hurt our depth.

 

[Sedino]

This conversation makes me want to bust my head open on a brick wall.

 

[tatupu70]

Yet another restriction. If you guys keep creating more limitations on what we can compare it to, there will be none at all."

Is that a restriction? I'm just saying it's much easier to explain why a 17/18 yr old freshman going against 22 yr olds might struggle initially than it is to make excuses for a 22 year old first year.

 

[wc_illini]

Here's this word you supposedly don't care about. Why would we argue over this word you don't care about (but also keep using)?

What I said was: "If all this is over the word "bust", then let's set that aside since it's silly to argue over words."

There are plenty of things that I think and even say but don't feel like arguing about. This is one of those times, especially since using words with a negative connotation around here becomes a lightning rod or even a litmus test for who is a true believer, which I think is ridiculous.

Edit: I posted the above before catching up on the last ~page. And this isn't directed just at you or your side of this debate, but can't we all at least try to accept that other people might have a different - but still reasonable - threshold for a subjective word? Who cares if someone thinks x/y/z constitutes a bust or not? We agree he didn't contribute what we wanted to get for the $ we invested in him. He might go on to be great or he might not, and that's separate from what we got for our $ when he came here. Maybe he would have given us something if Wagler hadn't exploded, but the coaches evidently didn't think it was much or they would have at least played him more. Some call that a bust. Some don't. That's ok

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Some dude named Denim Wojick played for MSU this year.

And he was behind Fears (just as Petro was behind Wagler).

Wojcik played in 31 (out of 35) Michigan State games, averaging 5.5 minutes and 1.2 assists in those minutes (though yes, he did not provide much scoring).

This was my idea for Petro at the bare minimum: come in and spell Wagler for around 5 or so minutes, and keep him from 40 minute watch every night.

Should be doable for a B10 backup point gaurd.

The fact that you're pointing out he couldn't even provide that (while pointing out a guy like Wojcik could), kind of contradicts your own point.

 

[Noblesville Illini]

This conversation makes me want to bust my head open on a brick wall.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

And he was behind Fears (just as Petro was behind Wagler).

Wojcik played in 31 (out of 35) Michigan State games, averaging 5.5 minutes and 1.2 assists in those minutes (though yes, he did not provide much scoring).

This was my idea for Petro at the bare minimum: come in and spell Wagler for around 5 or so minutes, and keep him from 40 minute watch every night.

Should be doable for a B10 backup point gaurd.

The fact that you're pointing out he couldn't even provide that (while pointing out a guy like Wojcik could), kind of contradicts your own point.

1) If that was Petro's numbers, I don't believe you, i think you'd still call him a bust because as you said, that was not your expectations coming into the year. I have no way to prove that, but i think you'd still be critical - which was my overall point on the term "playable".

2) Again, id love if the fanbase didn't say thing like "couldnt even do provide that" or "hes a total bust" - especially if you're in the camp of hoping for more depth. I want dudes on the team who want to be here, and preferably ones who are good basketball players. As our program rises, we're gonna get better players who may not play, or play a lot, especially right away. I dont want good players coming here, who may be behind lottery picks on really good teams being called useless - it doesnt help us.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

"Playable" just means being able to get into games. (Unplayable would just be the opposite of that)

"In the Brad Underwood era" might be too far.

But our teams in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 all had more deplorable and playable 9th men than Petro. You just have to look at the games played, minutes per game, etc.

It just seemed to come down to the staff not trusting him. It hurt our depth.

Who was our dependable 9th man in 2020?

By minutes the 9th man was either Tevian Jones or Jermaine Hamlin. Tev ended up having a good career but that particular season he shot 16.7% from the field and had negative win shares and a negative PER. And Jermaine Hamlin was Jermaine Hamlin.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

Who was our dependable 9th man in 2020?

By minutes the 9th man was either Tevian Jones or Jermaine Hamlin. Tev ended up having a good career but that particular season he shot 16.7% from the field and had negative win shares and a negative PER. And Jermaine Hamlin was Jermaine Hamlin.

I was thinking Coleman Hawkins.

My brain has become wired to think: 2020 = pandemic = bubble basketball = 1 seed season.

But yes, that was 2021.

 

[NarrowJ]

What I said was: "If all this is over the word "bust", then let's set that aside since it's silly to argue over words."

There are plenty of things that I think and even say but don't feel like arguing about. This is one of those times, especially since using words with a negative connotation around here becomes a lightning rod or even a litmus test for who is a true believer, which I think is ridiculous.

Edit: I posted the above before catching up on the last ~page. And this isn't directed just at you or your side of this debate, but can't we all at least try to accept that other people might have a different - but still reasonable - threshold for a subjective word? Who cares if someone thinks x/y/z constitutes a bust or not? We agree he didn't contribute what we wanted to get for the $ we invested in him. He might go on to be great or he might not, and that's separate from what we got for our $ when he came here. Maybe he would have given us something if Wagler hadn't exploded, but the coaches evidently didn't think it was much or they would have at least played him more. Some call that a bust. Some don't. That's ok

Merely pointing out that you suggested we “set it aside” and then you brought up that same word/point in your very next post.

Though I do agree that arguing over semantics here has became a feature rather than a bug.

I’ve been trying this entire time to use the term’s broader, general meaning as opposed to limiting it to one season/team (which is what’s transpired).

 

[Dr Copejam]

This conversation makes me want to bust my head open on a brick wall.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

Yet another restriction. If you guys keep creating more limitations on what we can compare it to, there will be none at all.

I agreed with you up until here. At 22, having played in a pro league, being fairly worldly and can legally have a cocktail after a game......that's different than 18, right out of HS and hasn't experienced much outside of being a kid and basketball. When we start going back to Ed O'Bannon and even a guy like Brunson, it's a whole different planet now. Those guys weren't getting paid a half million dollar and up to produce game 1. So, the rules, expectations and experience isn't remotely the same. If Petro was only getting his scholarship money and was 18, that's an even comp to those guys. Being 21, making more than 95% of the country in a single year....it's a different standard. Any player comps to the players now to even the players 4 years ago, it's really apples to oranges.

Maybe the insiders can enlighten us to what his paycheck was and we can compare it to others in his salary range(that feels wrong to even say that). That's probably a better measure of performance.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Maybe the insiders can enlighten us to what his paycheck was and we can compare it to others in his salary range(that feels wrong to even say that). That's probably a better measure of performance.

According to LVille, 1.5

 

[NarrowJ]

I agreed with you up until here. At 22, having played in a pro league, being fairly worldly and can legally have a cocktail after a game......that's different than 18, right out of HS and hasn't experienced much outside of being a kid and basketball. When we start going back to Ed O'Bannon and even a guy like Brunson, it's a whole different planet now. Those guys weren't getting paid a half million dollar and up to produce game 1. So, the rules, expectations and experience isn't remotely the same. If Petro was only getting his scholarship money and was 18, that's an even comp to those guys. Being 21, making more than 95% of the country in a single year....it's a different standard. Any player comps to the players now to even the players 4 years ago, it's really apples to oranges.

Maybe the insiders can enlighten us to what his paycheck was and we can compare it to others in his salary range(that feels wrong to even say that). That's probably a better measure of performance.

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I think the term’s definition has remained static over time: if a player’s overall career doesn’t live up to the expectations that were set.

If we start scoping it only to single seasons then I think the term loses its meaning/accuracy. Then we’re saying a player isn’t allowed to have even one single poor season, lest they’re a “bust”.

 

[wc_illini]

Merely pointing out that you suggested we “set it aside” and then you brought up that same word/point in your very next post.

Though I do agree that arguing over semantics here has became a feature rather than a bug.

I’ve been trying this entire time to use the term’s broader, general meaning as opposed to limiting it to one season/team (which is what’s transpired).

There's a difference between trying to use a certain meaning of a term and trying to get everyone else to use that same meaning.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

According to LVille, 1.5

View attachment 51327

Adam's representation was unfortunate.