He's saying they are a disadvantage because they don't exist (or are super rare to exist).
Which I don't think is factually true, because our last THREE PGs have been the same prototype and size as Vaaks.
Illini Basketball 2026-2027
Which I don't think is factually true, because our last THREE PGs have been the same prototype and size as Vaaks.
Saun Livingston was a tall PG. They're around but all of them discussed so far other than Magic did not play CBB.
Crux of the discussion is that we are going into the season without a true traditional PG. We had one on the roster last year in senior Boswell, and then a miracle outlier in Wagler developed that created a really powerful backcourt. This year stepping into the season without one. So the argument is that Vaaks is that guy. My only point is that it's dangerous going into a season without a traditional PG, especially an offense that relies heavily on iso creation and where our two most efficient players on our last two great teams were the guards (Mirk and Boswell were close last year).
It's been now thoroughly explained why we don't. Your hypothesis was that guys 6'7" and above can't have the handles to play PG. That has been thoroughly debunked and now you're falling back on "it's uncommon." Yes, it's uncommon. Kinda makes the fact that we have one even cooler.
It's probably true that they are rare to exist.
But, the staff has proven to reliably find those "rare to exist" prospects (and build a great team around them).
Last edited:
I'm sure this has been shared:
Lot's of threes, but if you watch him on-ball, his handling looks like a 3 taking it to the paint, which he generally is. Does he have plus handles for a 3, sure. He's methodical with ball, and that may work. I'm not calling him a point guard, he's going to play more of a point forward role.
It feels like when UConn had to play McNeely at the point a couple years ago when their PG was hurt and that transfer stunk.
I think his handle looks great, actually. He's quicker and more elusive with it than Wagler (doesn't mean it translates to better player).
If his handle wasn't good, then ball security and turnovers would've been an issue. It wasn't.
Last edited:
Well we shall see. I'll be most comfortable if Quentin can also assume some ballhandling duties equitably. He's an exciting player, I just get a little uneasy not having a true PG as insurance.
I don't think Q4 opponents do anything special for efficiency ratings. You have to blow them out by even more than Q3 opponents, and that's an equal challenge on average. Some teams "play down" vs Q4, while others do the opposite, so if you know what you will have before you make your schedule, you could optimize around that, but I doubt that's easy to know.
And for the other parts of a resume, they are a no-win situation: they offer no benefit to your quad record or your WAB, etc., but could be a huge loss. In the past, Q4 might be a good way to work on different lineups or strategies without risk of a loss, but now that could hurt your efficiency ratings.
Winnable Q1 and Q2 games are the best for padding quad records, but I still think it's tricky to know who those are in advance, and it would mean avoiding (presumed) top 10 teams altogether, which would be bad for tournament preparation and for program exposure.
There may have been ways to game older metrics (I think the NET used to have a 10pt cap on margin of victory), but I'm not sure it's as straightforward now.
That's the beauty of a new team and season...it's no fun to watch a movie that you know its ending...I'm excited for our possibilities though...and I think there will be some surprises in store for us...
Never been to the United Center super pumped to go with my two HS buddies. We grew up in CU and have been Illini fans since the 90s.
Actually, trying to label these guys with skills according to their height is something that means nothing to BU, IMHO. To him, they are simply big guys who can shoot, pass, and handle and that fits his positionless system. Having Coleman hanging around makes it all comfortable and workable.
Did you order through the Ifund pre-order and got your ticket allotment today? Or did you order through another site? Just curious since I put in my orer through the Ifund and haven't seen anything yet.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
> Brad Underwood installs offensive system that allows 6’6 shooting guards to play point guard.
> This offensive system is responsible for the #3, #14, and #2 offenses in the country in back to back to back years lead by 3 different point guards and 6 different total guards (Domask & TJ, Kasparas & Riley, and Keaton & Kylan), who provided us with an E8 and F4.
> HoopsterMan yearns for an offensive system reliant on a 6’2 point guard like Michigan St, whose offenses over the same time period were ranked #49, #25, and #23.
You’re right that Vaaks likely wouldn’t be a good fit for an offensive system reliant on a traditional point guard. But that’s not the offense Brad runs. Vaaks/Mirk can likely be great lead guards in this offensive system just as Domask, Kasparas, and Keaton were.
Last edited:
Sounds about right.
I really wish we pulled out those MSU and UCLA wins. We’re really scarred by the Fears Jr.’s and Dents of the world.
Guys we lost on last sec possessions away to a 3 seed and a 7 seed.
Doesn’t mean our offense now needs an undersized PG. There’s a good chance our starting back court next year is Morillo at the point and Pettigrew at the 2-spot.
He talks about Nigel James at Marquette:
This was Marquette’s record last season:
And this is where they ranked offensively:
Last edited:
We went thru this entire point gaurd discussion in the 2023-24 offseason, and ended up just fine with Domask.
It's an old tale.
It's blatantly clear with the staff's recruiting philosophy, that they don't prioritize or want tiny guards.
I used the Capital One entertainment platform (gives my Capital One Venture X Rewards Miles at a rate of 5x for $ spent) which is facilitated by Vivid Seats. I price compared with SeatGeek and StubHub. And I paid about $240/ticket for Section 107 / Row 19.
Think I missed that deadline last week to buy direct from the offical Illini Athletics website and get the best price. But pretty happy with price for the view I'll be getting.
Nijel James is a phenomenal player, 25% higher efficiency rating than Vaaks, much on the defensive side. He's a poor example to reference, not a representative of a young and lousy Marquette team last year. Their issue was a really bad front court, ours made theirs look like the Washington Generals.
I'm all good with what we have going and excited about it, would have liked some type of PG on the roster/rotation for change of pace, defensive POA, shifty creation.
This is what I mean about having options, ways to adjust. When you run one trick, you're easier to plan for when the going gets tough.
The offense right now is not rocket science - high 3pt rate, high offensive rebounding rate, low assist rate. The low assist rate is a wild outlier because it's not in good company, most teams down at 240 are not good, so defying the odds.
I hardly think Illinois offense is a 'one-trick pony'. They run multiple layers of actions, its a pretty sophisticated spread/5-out continuity framework. If the primary action can't render a positive result, it flows immediately into secondary and tertiary options like slot cuts, "cut and slide' weak side movement, or pinch-post (and more). I loved the ram screens this year, they'll do more of that for sure (Purdue/Smith got cooked via ram screens; couldn't figure it out). Lot of improvisation as well, which is honestly what you're asking for: its the one thing teams can't game plan for. They can know a player's tendencies, but never on any given play can they read it because there's very little that is hard-scripted.
The offense isn't rocket science: its actually one of the more complex ones out there. There is this misconception that we basically just run ISOs all game; not true at all. Again, lots of improvisation, read-and-react, recognizing space and making decisions on where to drive / cut / move, utilizing nuanced concepts like ghost cuts, inverted screens, and the high-post playmaking that flips the defense upside down (bigs leave the lane, and our lengthy offensive players now have to score over 6'3" guys instead of 6'11" guys).
What the Illinois offense is not, is an ISO-every-play offense that a lot of casual fans get duped into falsely identifying it as (probably due to it being ISO heavy, but even ISO actions have nuance to them and aren't necessarily minimalistic in nature).
Last edited:
blackdog
- Champaign
There was literally just an hour long in depth breakdown of all of these concepts posted. No reason for there to be any confusion about the offensive concepts anymore or the fact that they are running a really high level, well thought out, detail oriented scheme. That also does not need a "true" PG pounding the ball up top.
You’re forgetting about low turnover rate:
Overall, our team assist-to-turnover ratio is not bad:
We’re probably not ripping bullet passes all over the court. But we’re also not turning it over. Seems like a pretty fair trade-off.
Fascinating in terms of how they describe and exhibit gold medal shots here, as they are all assisted. It would seem contrary to the very low assist rate.
SIX of the top10 offenses on KenPom, were top 20 in lowest turnover rate:
Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue, Alabama, Arkansas, Vanderbilt.
Taking care of the rock is a good formula to have an efficient offense.
(Houston not too bad either with the 3rd best TOV rate and 15th best offense. Everyone who saw Houston last year knows how poor their floor spacing was, but because they didn't turn the ball over, they had a relatively efficient offense.)
Last edited:
Last edited: