Illini Basketball 2026-2027

#551      
Fly Illini Fly!
In the recruiting thread, the debate is whether Petrovic was a bust or not.

In this thread, the debate is whether we have a point gaurd or not.

Maybe there's something to be said about how the 6"1 point guard we're calling for, couldn't even get on the court last year?
 
#552      
the juiceman cometh
HoopsterMan said:
I did state college, but I knew this would come up. You won't find a Luka's in college. If we think Vaaks is Luka, let's go for it.

At this rate of Magic and Luka comparisons, we should really start turning all players 6'7" and above into PGs. It's only rational. Maybe Andrej and Mirk can get a whirl running point too. How are their passing rates?

Last 10 Cousy winners and height:

YearPlayerCollegeListed Height
2026Darius Acuff Jr.Arkansas6'2"
2025Braden SmithPurdue6'0"
2024Tristen NewtonUConn6'5"
2023Markquis NowellKansas State5'8" (measured 5'7" pro)
2022Collin GillespieVillanova6'3" (measured 6'1" pro)
2021Ayo DosunmuIllinois6'5"
2020Payton PritchardOregon6'2"
2019Ja MorantMurray State6'3"
2018Jalen BrunsonVillanova6'3"
2017Frank Mason IIIKansas5'11"
Click to expand...
For one, this is an incredibly small sample size. And also includes two guys, in Newton and Ayo, who are closer in size to Vaaks than they are to Fland. Greivous Vasquez won the Cousy award at 6-6, and more recently Wagler, also at 6-6, was a very successful PG in college (though for some reason he ended up winning the SG award but I mean we all watched play PG right?). So is the contention here that there's some barrier between say 6-6 and 6-7 that makes it impossible to play PG?

Most importantly, at one point I believe you challenged us to name one successful college PG at 6-7 or taller. I submit to you Julius Hodge, of NC State, finalist for the 2005 Bob Cousy award for best college point guard, standing at 6 foot, 7 inches tall. Debate over.

Parks And Recreation Mic Drop GIF by PeacockTV
 
#553      
Fly Illini Fly!
the juiceman cometh said:
more recently Wagler, also at 6-6, was a very successful PG in college (though for some reason he ended up winning the SG award but I mean we all watched play PG right?).
Click to expand...
I think this worked out well for us because if Wagler got listed as a PG, he wouldn’t have won the award over Acuff.

But because he was listed as a SG, he was simply better / more productive than the other names on the list (and thus won the award).
 
#554      
21ChampaignSt
You can be tall and be a point guard. Example: Magic.

You can be short, lead your team in assists, and not be a point guard. Example: AI

You can be tall and lead your team in ast% and not be a point guard. Example: Vlade Divac.

There's levels to this.

The truth is probably closer to: Our offense does not require a prototypical point guard to be efficient.
 
#556      
HoopsterMan
the juiceman cometh said:
For one, this is an incredibly small sample size. And also includes two guys, in Newton and Ayo, who are closer in size to Vaaks than they are to Fland. Greivous Vasquez won the Cousy award at 6-6, and more recently Wagler, also at 6-6, was a very successful PG in college (though for some reason he ended up winning the SG award but I mean we all watched play PG right?). So is the contention here that there's some barrier between say 6-6 and 6-7 that makes it impossible to play PG?

Most importantly, at one point I believe you challenged us to name one successful college PG at 6-7 or taller. I submit to you Julius Hodge, of NC State, finalist for the 2005 Bob Cousy award for best college point guard, standing at 6 foot, 7 inches tall. Debate over.

Parks And Recreation Mic Drop GIF by PeacockTV
Click to expand...
Not bad - badabing. Good old Julius. Forgot about that guy.
 
#557      
HoopsterMan
Combo said:
Although I disagree with you on Vaaks, you do make a good point. There seem to be a lot of posters here that just think you can put the biggest guy out there, whether it be PG, SF, or whatever, and you automatically win the game.

There's a reason there aren't many 6'7 PGs in college ball. Generally guys much smaller than that have better handles and are quicker.

But Vaaks at 6'7 looks like a PG to me (at least offensively).
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding - they have jets, tighter handles, can weave through traffic, keep the ball safe in pressure, run a break/acclerate. Think Nijel James at Marquette. There is a reason over the history of time, the vast majority of PG's have been the shortest guy on the floor - it's physics. There is less room between the hand and the ground, center of gravity. It's the same reason running backs are usually shorter.

Sure, you can whip out the EuroPG type with the hesis, two feet play, booty ball and eurostep, but they're usually not ready at the college level, or would already be in the NBA.

But yeah, in our offense a big PG could be a cleaner fit, similar to Newton in that UConn offense. I guess we'll know if/when a team applies pressure and/or Vaaks is getting downhilled on defense.
 
#558      
lstewart53x3
HoopsterMan said:
Ding ding ding - they have jets, tighter handles, can weave through traffic, keep the ball safe in pressure, run a break/acclerate. Think Nijel James at Marquette. There is a reason over the history of time, the vast majority of PG's have been the shortest guy on the floor - it's physics. There is less room between the hand and the ground, center of gravity. It's the same reason running backs are usually shorter.

Sure, you can whip out the EuroPG type with the hesis, two feet play, booty ball and eurostep, but they're usually not ready at the college level, or would already be in the NBA.

But yeah, in our offense a big PG could be a cleaner fit, similar to Newton in that UConn offense. I guess we'll know if/when a team applies pressure and/or Vaaks is getting downhilled on defense.
Click to expand...
Last year, we had one of the most efficient offenses in modern history without a point guard as you describe it. So I guess it’s not needed?
 
#559      
Get yourself a new map
HoopsterMan said:
Ding ding ding - they have jets, tighter handles, can weave through traffic, keep the ball safe in pressure, run a break/acclerate. Think Nijel James at Marquette. There is a reason over the history of time, the vast majority of PG's have been the shortest guy on the floor - it's physics. There is less room between the hand and the ground, center of gravity. It's the same reason running backs are usually shorter.

Sure, you can whip out the EuroPG type with the hesis, two feet play, booty ball and eurostep, but they're usually not ready at the college level, or would already be in the NBA.

But yeah, in our offense a big PG could be a cleaner fit, similar to Newton in that UConn offense. I guess we'll know if/when a team applies pressure and/or Vaaks is getting downhilled on defense.
Click to expand...
It’s been discovered that those skills and physical attributes classically associated with “point guards” do not correlate with winning basketball games, particularly with the rules and skill across all positions in the modern game. Think Nigel James at Marquette. Most teams have guys like that because there are a hell of a lot more 6’1” guys on the planet than there are 6’6”+ guys. Running backs only last 2.5 years in the NFL partly because they are comparatively easy to replace via the draft.
 
#560      
Combo
HoopsterMan said:
Ding ding ding - they have jets, tighter handles, can weave through traffic, keep the ball safe in pressure, run a break/acclerate. Think Nijel James at Marquette. There is a reason over the history of time, the vast majority of PG's have been the shortest guy on the floor - it's physics. There is less room between the hand and the ground, center of gravity. It's the same reason running backs are usually shorter.

Sure, you can whip out the EuroPG type with the hesis, two feet play, booty ball and eurostep, but they're usually not ready at the college level, or would already be in the NBA.

But yeah, in our offense a big PG could be a cleaner fit, similar to Newton in that UConn offense. I guess we'll know if/when a team applies pressure and/or Vaaks is getting downhilled on defense.
Click to expand...
He won't be guarding the opponent's PG too often. Why do you insist that our primary PG on offense has to guard the opponent's PG? You realize he can be our main PG on offense, yet a quicker guy like Coleman or Williams can get guard the opponent's PG?
 
Back