Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

[NarrowJ]

Truly inane line of criticism.

"Its raining outside, if I brought an umbrella into work I'd be dry." Is just as logical as "illinois lost games late due to turnovers. Another experienced ballhandler would've won those games for Illinois".

It sounds like if the weekend breaks right we're getting multiple solid ball handlers so its all good!

I do love that this staff constantly sees the same game we all do and improves so much in season and out.

Not to keep pounding you further into the ground, but youre continuing to drive this false narrative extremely hard for whatever reason. It just bugs me, I guess.

But its not apples and apples as water is wet so X is the reason we didn't win the NC. We were top 20 percentile in turnovers. Wasn't the reason we lost games. How about when we missed 37 layups vs NW or when we went 6 minutes without a FG against MSU? Or the Maryland game where we couldn't guard their 2-man game? Or the Marquette game because Kolek decided to go ape? We had 7 turnovers in the UConn game.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

Clingan is gone? Maybe I am wrong but I didn't think that he declared yet. He is only a sophomore isn't he?

He is, but most mock drafts have him in the first round. He doesn't have much left to prove at this level.

 

[Thompson]

It’s going to be very refreshing to watch players dribble with ease next year

 

[Actually...]

I find it intriguing —- and probably valid —- how we seem to chase year after year the on-court skill set that caused us serious issues during the prior season. Recent examples include:

1. Swept by Maryland’s slashing wings (in comes Terry Shannon Jr)

2. 0-3 against Penn State’s booty ball (in comes M. Demask)

3. Beat down and winless against the dominant big-bodied Purdue/UConn centers (in comes ???)

On the surface I see what you're saying, some fans are asking what we're doing about certain areas of need from the past season, but overall we're bringing in multiple players at multiple positions with a wide range of skills that a complete basketball team needs in order to win.

And fans didn't just complain about the need for a big-bodied big, they also wanted a pg and shooters. And Terry and Demask (?) sound like great players that you would want regardless of specific losses from the prior year

Having said all that, , I think your pattern only exists if you only look at those games and those players and ignore everything else

 

[jamarvelous31]

Not to keep pounding you further into the ground, but youre continuing to drive this false narrative extremely hard for whatever reason. It just bugs me, I guess.

But its not apples and apples as water is wet so X is the reason we didn't win the NC. We were top 20 percentile in turnovers. Wasn't the reason we lost games. How about when we missed 37 layups vs NW or when we went 6 minutes without a FG against MSU? Or the Maryland game where we couldn't guard their 2-man game? Or the Marquette game because Kolek decided to go ape? We had 7 turnovers in the UConn game.

For someone who started this thread by whining about people talking about PGs you sure seem to want to talk about PGs.

"Pounding me into the ground" pretends like other people don't agree or that I ever claimed that nothing else impacted the games. The responses are essentially yOu DoNt HaVe A tImE mAcHiNe So YoU cAnT gUaRuNtEe It WoUlD bE dIfFeReNt. Which ok, sure.

I also notice you're not criticizing Indys even more difinitive statement. Please just stop.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

I've been hating on Boswell because of the shooting, which is still valid. That said, I forgot that Boswell moved up a class. Makes it a little more projectable for further shooting improvement.

Well, if you're taking that stance on Boswell, you'd have to be hating on Sencire and Ty as well. The concern there is valid and it POTENTIALLY a problem unless there's significant improvement. We'll have to see. I trust Brad and I'm sure he's accounted for everything while he's constructing the 2024 roster.

 

[NarrowJ]

For someone who started this thread by whining about people talking about PGs you sure seem to want to talk about PGs.

"Pounding me into the ground" pretends like other people don't agree or that I ever claimed that nothing else impacted the games. The responses are essentially yOu DoNt HaVe A tImE mAcHiNe So YoU cAnT gUaRuNtEe It WoUlD bE dIfFeReNt. Which ok, sure.

I also notice you're not criticizing Indys even more difinitive statement. Please just stop.

A) Didn't start the thread
B) I already stopped last night but you kept going with this with other posters. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to let it go.

Did you know?: Illinois actually averaged LESS turnovers per game in losses than they did in wins? Not the reason we lost games. Sorry.

Yes I also disagree with Indy. I don't do it often, but in this case, yes. However he's not incessantly pushing the narrative like you are (and he's actually polite in his responses as well which is helpful when having a discussion where two folks disagree).

EDIT: You are being rude, condescending, and ruining this thread/message board for everyone with this... well, whatever it is you're trying to do, I'm not real sure, exactly. You're calling people whiners, starting out messages calling their viewpoints "inane" (definition: silly; stupid). Try to have some tact, good grief.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

Not to keep pounding you further into the ground, but youre continuing to drive this false narrative extremely hard for whatever reason. It just bugs me, I guess.

But its not apples and apples as water is wet so X is the reason we didn't win the NC. We were top 20 percentile in turnovers. Wasn't the reason we lost games. How about when we missed 37 layups vs NW or when we went 6 minutes without a FG against MSU? Or the Maryland game where we couldn't guard their 2-man game? Or the Marquette game because Kolek decided to go ape? We had 7 turnovers in the UConn game.

I don't think RayJ changes the trajectory of this season. However one of the biggest false narratives out there is that you measure the impact of a point guard by assists and turnovers.

 

[Dawgss4life]

I love all the transfers but there was something about watching a kid like Trent Frazier or Coleman grow as a player and a man in our program and bleed orange and blue! Hope Ty, Luke snd Sencire are 4 year guys!

That was the best part of college basketball. Watching the players develop thru the years. Imaging how good we would be each year. That was the one thing I complained about the loudest. Now, anyone can build a team overnight. There’s very little loyalty

 

[mydosburns]

Assuming if we land Maddox that one of our guards will think its best to find a new home?

 

[OrangeLife]

 

[Combo]

He was a liability in only 3 games....2 vs Purdue and 1 vs UConn. In all other games, he was either a wash or used his quickness and experience to gain advantage and make it tough for opponents to score. His shot blocking was outstanding most of the time.

I watched CoHawk defend fairly closely in every game and he was not easily moved and certainly not physically dominated by anyone but those two.

Furthermore, I did not see anyone dominate either Klingan or Edey. And in spite of Clingan, by himself without double help, made Edey work hard for every bucket he scored....while allowing his teammates to keep Purdue off the three point arc. This of course was a brilliant strategy that most opponents would like to have done for the past two years, but literally no one had the personnel to pull it off. But, IMHO, Hawk defended the post remarkably well.

Agreed. There are very few 7'+ quality guys in college basketball. You can generally do fine with a guy like Hawkins at the 5. Lots of National Champs have had lineups with their tallest guy 6'8-6'10. While I would love a 7' beast on our team, it's not as vital as some are making it out to be.

BTW, what's the news on Edey and Clingan. Are they coming back. I really wish Edey would leave.

 

[sdiver68]

I find it intriguing —- and probably valid —- how we seem to chase year after year the on-court skill set that caused us serious issues during the prior season. Recent examples include:

1. Swept by Maryland’s slashing wings (in comes Terry Shannon Jr)

2. 0-3 against Penn State’s booty ball (in comes M. Demask)

3. Beat down and winless against the dominant big-bodied Purdue/UConn centers (in comes ???)

Edey was Kofi 2.0, not the other way around.

 

[redwingillini11]

Agreed. There are very few 7'+ quality guys in college basketball. You can generally do fine with a guy like Hawkins at the 5. Lots of National Champs have had lineups with their tallest guy 6'8-6'10. While I would love a 7' beast on our team, it's not as vital as some are making it out to be.

BTW, what's the news on Edey and Clingan. Are they coming back. I really wish Edey would leave.

….

If Edey comes back I may just quit. I can’t watch another year of babying the freaking giant on the floor.

 

[Poe's Law]

A) Didn't start the thread
B) I already stopped last night but you kept going with this with other posters. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to let it go.

Did you know?: Illinois actually averaged LESS turnovers per game in losses than they did in wins? Not the reason we lost games. Sorry.

Yes I also disagree with Indy. I don't do it often, but in this case, yes. However he's not incessantly pushing the narrative like you are (and he's actually polite in his responses as well which is helpful when having a discussion where two folks disagree).

EDIT: You are being rude, condescending, and ruining this thread/message board for everyone with this... well, whatever it is you're trying to do, I'm not real sure, exactly. You're calling people whiners, starting out messages calling their viewpoints "inane" (definition: silly; stupid). Try to have some tact, good grief.

Careful making definitive assertions from averages. Hard pressed to say turnovers weren’t the reason we lost the Penn State or Michigan State games.

Pace in a game like MSU would be slower and decrease the number of turnovers in that loss. The Penn State game we had 18 (EIGHTEEN!!) turnovers. Some of the other losses must be dragging down the average assuming the stat you listed was accurate.

 

[ChiefGritty]

No single insider has said that Tre White is going to be the star here. If anything they've been tempering expectations and saying not to expect him to be anything more than a bench contributor because of the other pieces expected to join but that Brad thinks he can get more out of him than he showed at Louisville (not mutually exclusive).

I understand that. *I* am saying that White has star potential and always did (he was rated comparable to Ayo out of HS and was Pac12 All-Frosh), that the staff is bringing him here in hopes of unlocking it, and that if it happens people saying "he's nothing more than a bench contributor" because it's a euphemism for "he's a bit of a head case and might give us nothing" are going to look pretty silly!

And I am observing it was a similar situation with Domask where many posters denigrated his possible central role on the team because that was coded as "optimistic" when we were still in Denzel mode around here.

 

[Joel Goodson]

trifecta time, baby!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778402219714338846

 

[NarrowJ]

Careful making definitive assertions from averages. Hard pressed to say turnovers weren’t the reason we lost the Penn State or Michigan State games.

Pace in a game like MSU would be slower and decrease the number of turnovers in that loss. The Penn State game we had 18 (EIGHTEEN!!) turnovers. Some of the other losses must be dragging down the average assuming the stat you listed was accurate.

Not hard pressed at all, really. We lost the PSU game because Coleman missed 2 FTs and then seconds later fouls a 3 point shooter. At MSU, we didn't score for 6 minutes (we had 9 turnovers in that game; ie, not the reason we lost).

The MSU game - 168 points were scored... don't think pace was slow.

I'm open to opposing viewpoints, thank you for being kind in your reply.

 

[Joel Goodson]

Agreed. There are very few 7'+ quality guys in college basketball. You can generally do fine with a guy like Hawkins at the 5. Lots of National Champs have had lineups with their tallest guy 6'8-6'10. While I would love a 7' beast on our team, it's not as vital as some are making it out to be.

BTW, what's the news on Edey and Clingan. Are they coming back. I really wish Edey would leave.

+1

Plus, adding another big (beyond Booth), could be the domino that prompts Hansberry to leave. don't want that at all. I think he has all-conference potential as an upper class-man.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

A) Didn't start the thread
B) I already stopped last night but you kept going with this with other posters. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to let it go.

Did you know?: Illinois actually averaged LESS turnovers per game in losses than they did in wins? Not the reason we lost games. Sorry.

Yes I also disagree with Indy. I don't do it often, but in this case, yes. However he's not incessantly pushing the narrative like you are (and he's actually polite in his responses as well which is helpful when having a discussion where two folks disagree).

I think that this conversation is moot at this point. I THINK what he's trying to say is that it's not the plays that Domask did make, but potentially the plays that he didn't make, which we'll never know. We know the turnover rate was good, we know that he was crucial in what he did for us from a scoring perspective and we know that the offense was productive. Those are facts and anyone disputing them is arguing just to argue.

If we want to really rehash a wildly successful season and try to see how it could have been better, it's a bit silly, but to chime in....

If you have a true PG on the roster, it automatically gives you more depth and maybe some guys wouldn't have been on the floor when they were. Ty was a violator when it came to missed bunnies. Maybe he's not playing in some critical minutes. Luke couldn't guard a statue and was in games late. Maybe it's another option for a better foul shooting option? We got caught in spots where we were in and either/or situation. It was the perceived bring Ty in for defense and Luke in for offense which more than a few times backfired.

You note 6 minutes without field goals, missed bunnies, not guarding the two man game, etc...I do think that personnel, not named Domask, might have been an issue.

Obviously, this is all pure speculation and Monday morning quarterbacking. You're also taking a protective stance with regards to Domask. He deserves no criticism. Without him, we're probably an above average team vs a great team all year. In the tournament, let's face it....TJ went nuclear, which was the driving force when it came to our run.

This is long winded, but I submit that instead of focusing on who was on the floor, we can focus on who potentially didn't have to be on the floor and it would have been one less decision for Brad.

I'm bothered by saying this because I feel like I'm throwing Luke and Ty under the bus, which is not the intention. They were good options, but with the true PG and moving Domask off the ball, we probably have great options.

This is just food for thought as we look at the post mortem, needlessly in my opinion.

 

[NoDetails]

I know HS recruiting is funky now but do any of the Insiders have any info on where we stand with these guys:

AJ Dybantsa
Nikolas Khamenia
Shon Abaev
Chuck Love
Colt Langdon
Bryce Heard
Alexis Alston
Melvin Bell
Dietrich Richardson
Ian Miletic

Everything I’ve read said these are the only HS kids we are after.

 

[genxrex]

 

[Poe's Law]

Not hard pressed at all, really. We lost the PSU game because Coleman missed 2 FTs and then seconds later fouls a 3 point shooter. At MSU, we didn't score for 6 minutes (we had 9 turnovers in that game; ie, not the reason we lost).

The MSU game - 168 points were scored... don't think pace was slow.

I'm open to opposing viewpoints, thank you for being kind in your reply.

Coleman’s free throws don’t matter if we take care of the ball because it’s a 10 point game. There is a fair amount of chicken versus egging when you try to hang your hat on a single cause for a loss.

For MSU, I’d successfully suppressed most of that game and just assumed it was a grind it out game. Looking back, the 2 turnovers down the stretch (Domask and Harmon) were killers, but the reason we lost that game was our defense was atrocious. If those two turnovers weren’t at the end and we weren’t leading with under 3 minutes to go, I doubt I’d remember them at all even though they were awful.

 

[Bbuck21]

With all due respect, I agree with your post. With that being said, I can't agree more. Irregardless, you have pointed me towards somethings like an expresso machine this morning. (I also dislike BOOM)

Seriously? How about when used properly?

 

[ChiefGritty]

For someone who started this thread by whining about people talking about PGs you sure seem to want to talk about PGs.

"Pounding me into the ground" pretends like other people don't agree or that I ever claimed that nothing else impacted the games. The responses are essentially yOu DoNt HaVe A tImE mAcHiNe So YoU cAnT gUaRuNtEe It WoUlD bE dIfFeReNt. Which ok, sure.

I also notice you're not criticizing Indys even more difinitive statement. Please just stop.

I take it the question is whether we would have been better with RayJ?

For one thing we would have been so different it's just kinda hard to picture.

For another, when you finish 6th in the country, how much better can you be? It's kinda all downside, I don't think we're UConn with RayJ.

But even though RayJ isn't a very good defender, paradoxically I think a more conventional lineup structure might have made defending a bit easier for us, given how much "switch everything" often lulled us into being way too passive.

Domask is a bit turnover prone (yikes, remember that argument?) and he's not much of a defender either, but he did a spectacular job as a secondary facilitator, then a sort of hybrid point forward, and finally by about February just a straight up point guard. As it all turned out, we kinda DID have RayJ, if that makes sense.

So my point is sort of twofold. The team without RayJ shouldn't have worked, and those who think otherwise are wrong, but it miraculously DID work, and I tend to think denying or downplaying that is also wrong.