Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#951      
bavanga3
So we stole the #1 player from MO and the #1 player from Wisconsin. When was the last time we had two #1 players from any 2 states?
Click to expand...
Mirk and Tomi are two #1 players from two different countries.
 
#952      
Det_Illini_fan
Next year, we won’t be relying on the current freshman to all be starters as sophomores. We’ll bring in a star studded transfer class.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t this be called a rebuild as I mentioned? If we won’t be relying on the current freshmen and bringing in star studded transfer class, we’d be rebuilding the roster from scratch as opposed to how it’s constructed this year with majority returning players. I’m not questioning whether we’ll be “good” in following years, or even this year. We’ll be an Elite 8 team with a shot at more for sure. But with a star guard from the portal we’ll be in that upper echelon territory that usually is 3-4 teams actually vying for it all. That’s all I’m saying.
To me, what sucks the most about missing out on Blackwell is who he was last year is exactly what this team needs next year.

Let Vaaks be Keaton light (there’s a Keystone Light joke in there somewhere) and then slide Blackwell into the Boswell role as our starting shooting guard. Then move Coleman to the flame thrower off the bench role.

The problem is, the role Blackwell had last year isn’t the role he wants next year. He wants to be on ball because he sees himself as an NBA 1.

But I’m not sure the staff sees him as a better lead guard for our offense than Vaaks.
Click to expand...
I agree on literally every single point here. Having Blackwell in his role from last year, with Coleman as a star bench role as he acclimates and develops would give us win-now fire power, and set us up for a strong future. We wouldn’t be compromising on our chances at the title when we’re on the fringe of it.

But yeah, unfortunately it doesn’t look like he wants that role.
 
#954      
Ryllini
Sorry…don’t have time to catch up on all 32 pages. Can someone just tell me whether we are going to be good or not next season? ;)
Click to expand...
I hope you slept tight. We should be really good.
 
#955      
Dbell1981
If Brandon Lee wasn't good enough to play as a freshman, then neither is Brown. Lee was the 99th OVR prospect and Brown is 118th.

Yes recruiting rankings DO matter. Plus, we're talking about freshman (this isn't 3 or 4 years down the line).

Keaton was the exception, not the rule.

Actually, Jakstys is more likely to see a rise in PT than Brown. Will be his 4th year in the program... and his rebound rate is terrific in the minimal time he's gotten - 17.5% OR and 22.5% DR. Seemed decently athletic as a lob threat.
Click to expand...
There is A LOT of room between what Keaton brought and what Lee brought to the table. Why you gotta put people in boxes? Any one of these young men could have a great season by freshmen standards. Its really not a Wagler or Lee situation for any of these guys. Take a break from the board dude.
 
#956      
Big Jack
Do any of you not understand that it is Blackwell who did not want to come here..... Brad would take him in a second.... Blackwell wants to be the dominant lead guard and show off his skills, he wants to showcase himself and be on a great team that can cover his mistakes. Sorry but we do not need that on this team when we have 7-8 other quality players who play as a team and share the load.

We would all love another backup plan at guard but no transfer is gonna want to come and sit. After the dust settles on the portal maybe someone will be left out that we can snag. Me I am fine with where we are right now.
 
#957      
SummerofGeorge
I am beyond thrilled about next year’s team, both in our returnees and our incoming freshmen class. Make no mistake though, there are going to be new guys running the offense and to expect anyone to be KW will be setting ourselves up for disappointment. I am excited to see how this group comes together though!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back