2021 Target List

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
61,733
Likes
13,486
JJJ or Gaines, I'd presume.
So Barnes is fine rolling with those guys this year, or Keon, not sure why that would necessarily change a year from now.

6’5” 200lbs is plenty big enough for the 3, especially if you are playing a smaller lineup...that’s pretty much Josh Richardson territory and he played quite a bit of 3 for Tennessee early on.
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
22,518
Likes
16,298
So Barnes is fine rolling with those guys this year, or Keon, not sure why that would necessarily change a year from now.

6’5” 200lbs is plenty big enough for the 3, especially if you are playing a smaller lineup...that’s pretty much Josh Richardson territory and he played quite a bit of 3 for Tennessee early on.
I think we're all fine with JJJ logging the majority of minutes at the SF position, this year. Pons and even EJA can provide minutes there, as well, if necessary, in addition to Gaines.

My point was that in '21-22, three of those four could be gone. It's certainly no guarantee Keon Johnson is here, either, though I'd probably bet on it, as of now.
 
Likes: Volfan1000

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
61,733
Likes
13,486
I think we're all fine with JJJ logging the majority of minutes at the SF position, this year. Pons and even EJA can provide minutes there, as well, if necessary, in addition to Gaines.

My point was that in '21-22, three of those four could be gone. It's certainly no guarantee Keon Johnson is here, either, though I'd probably bet on it, as of now.
2021-2022

Bailey/Vescovi
Springer/Johnson
James/Gaines
Walker/ORN/Pember
Plavsic

Johnson can play 3, Walker also potentially could, TBD if Pember develops the mobility to. I don’t think the 3 is any more glaring than any other position, especially considering that in Barnes system he himself has said the 2/3 are effectively the same.
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
22,518
Likes
16,298
2021-2022

Bailey/Vescovi
Springer/Johnson
James/Gaines
Walker/ORN/Pember
Plavsic

Johnson can play 3, Walker also potentially could, TBD if Pember develops the mobility to. I don’t think the 3 is any more glaring than any other position, especially considering that in Barnes system he himself has said the 2/3 are effectively the same.
There is quite a bit of assumption within that lineup, and if ideally plays out that way, I agree, it's less of a concern.

And I agree the 2 and 3 are interchangeable. I guess the longer answer involves what we bring in at the 4 and 5. We can get away with less size at the 3 if we have a couple bulldogs at the 4 and 5 and adequate depth, as well.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
61,733
Likes
13,486
Ingram off the board...

Rivals article today makes it sound like Tennessee could lead for Mashack, also in it as well for Holmes.


#2 Paolo Banchero - (6'9" PF)
#4 Jabari Smith - (6'10" PF)
#5 Brandon Huntley-Hatfield** (6'8" PF)
#9 Caleb Houstan (6’8” SF)
#10 Kennedy Chandler (6'1" PG)
#11 Hunter Sallis (6'3" Combo G)
#22 Charles Bediako (6'11" C)
#30 Daron Holmes ll (6’8” PF)
#48 Jahmai Mashack (6’4” SG)
#50 Micawber Etienne (6'10" C)
#62 Carter Whitt (6'3" PG)
#86 Ryan Mutombo (6'11" C)


**currently in 2022 class but expected to reclassify to 2021
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
22,518
Likes
16,298
The fact that Ingram included Harvard and Buffalo in his Top-6 but not us is wild. Maybe our staff were the ones the back off?
His comments seem to indicate. He said his hardest cut was Tennessee, but that he seemed to want them (Tennessee) more than they wanted him.

Seems hard to believe that would be the case, but who knows.
 
Likes: Volfan1000
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
61,733
Likes
13,486
His comments seem to indicate. He said his hardest cut was Tennessee, but that he seemed to want them (Tennessee) more than they wanted him.

Seems hard to believe that would be the case, but who knows.
I do wonder if Tennessee felt Purdue/Stanford was going to be tough to overcome and so they just felt their resources were better spent elsewhere (Mashack, Holmes etc.)
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
22,518
Likes
16,298
I do wonder if Tennessee felt Purdue/Stanford was going to be tough to overcome and so they just felt their resources were better spent elsewhere (Mashack, Holmes etc.)
That's the only reasoning I was able to come up with. Caleb Houstan, too, possibly, if they wanted to swing for the fences with one elite SF.
 
Likes: Volfan1000
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
2,712
Likes
4,455
It’s weird. I know Maschack has a good offer list and is a good player, but I just struggle to get excited about him possibly committing here. Probably because of all the hype around Banchero, Smith, Chandler, etc. Maschack certainly wouldn’t be a bad pickup. Just don’t have the same excitement.

Gotta love the position we’re in right now where the #48 player would be a “back-up” plan of sorts.
 
Likes: coskramer

LeannaVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
287
Likes
376
It’s weird. I know Maschack has a good offer list and is a good player, but I just struggle to get excited about him possibly committing here. Probably because of all the hype around Banchero, Smith, Chandler, etc. Maschack certainly wouldn’t be a bad pickup. Just don’t have the same excitement.

Gotta love the position we’re in right now where the #48 player would be a “back-up” plan of sorts.
I wouldn’t turn down a Banchero type player but I have always thought a player ranked around 50 or so is the sweet spot for UT. Someone with talent that will likely be around 3 or 4 years. Continuity with teammates and coaches not having to recruit a new roster every year.
 
Likes: cncchris33

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top