John Fulkerson officially back for a 6th season

#28

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
25,079
Likes
21,489
#28
Personally I would love to see a guard and big transfer added and Tamba ‘22, but seems they’re gonna take Tamba for ‘21...which I get, get him in here and to work so hopefully he can be ready for some minutes the following year.
Yeah, I’m not opposed to your plan, either. I’m just opposed to that guard being Tyreke Key. If he were the only guard option, I’d just as soon save the spot as to add an average talent like Key into the mix at guard. If we take a guard, I want it to be someone who can make an immediate impact, otherwise, just keep with what we have.
 
Likes: The Dog
#29

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,584
Likes
18,365
#29
Yeah, I’m not opposed to your plan, either. I’m just opposed to that guard being Tyreke Key. If he were the only guard option, I’d just as soon save the spot as to add an average talent like Key into the mix at guard. If we take a guard, I want it to be someone who can make an immediate impact, otherwise, just keep with what we have.
I think Key would bring an immediate impact, I Siri think he’s about the best of guys who would come here and not b!tch about minutes
 
Likes: Namorto1
#32

Jonboy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
2,217
Likes
454
#32
He has some unfinished business to settle considering how he was assaulted that ended his season. This could be a special UT team with the talent coming in and veteran leadership we have coming back. Could be even better if we are able to land BHH.
Boy do I have some news for you...

Brandon Huntley-Hatfield commits
 
#35

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
25,079
Likes
21,489
#35
I think Key would bring an immediate impact, I Siri think he’s about the best of guys who would come here and not b!tch about minutes
Not sure he brings any more immediate impact than Vescovi, Bailey, or Powell. And true, he might be the best guard we can get that won't complain over PT, but if that's the case, we really don't need him, do we?
 
#37

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
25,079
Likes
21,489
#37
We could use another ball handler behind Chandler.

Just my opinion.
I think you have to believe in Chandler to play 30 minutes at PG. That leaves 10 minutes available. Powell played PG at Auburn, Vescovi has 2 years experience playing PG, and Bailey dabbled in it, a bit, last year. I think we have enough guys who can backup at that position.
 
#39

Namorto1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
307
Likes
546
#39
Not sure he brings any more immediate impact than Vescovi, Bailey, or Powell. And true, he might be the best guard we can get that won't complain over PT, but if that's the case, we really don't need him, do we?
Based on nothing more than video clips, Key is a different player than Vescovi, Bailey and throw James in there too. He is a willing driver and a guard who can post. Kind of a sturdy guard at 6’3 and 205. While not in the same category as Keon or Jaden, we don’t have any other returning guards or wings who have demonstrated the ability to do that. Haven’t seen much of Powell but he is more of a perimeter shooter it seems. I wouldn’t be disappointed with Key. Experience could be worthwhile and he is a proven 15-17 ppg scorer (3 years in a row) in a fairly underrated conference. 37% career 3 pt FG% to boot. That isn’t bad. I could see a lot of 3 guard lineups with him as well. Pretty decent rebounder too. Have no idea if he can play defense. We may miss having a disruptive perimeter defender next year.

I would like to get another PG but who could we find knowing that Chandler is going to get the bulk of the minutes or perhaps another experienced post player, but that may be difficult to find as well, especially with Fulkerson likely returning. I’m not sure I am on the Tamba train but understand the rationale to sign and develop a big. Seems like a reach at this point.
 
Likes: Vols All Day
#41

aWhiteLoftonChism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
254
Likes
211
#41
Thrilled to see Fulkerson get the chance to work with other bigs and not have to carry the load by himself. Hope the other guys develop quickly to make it a reality.
I totally agree with this! He’s been consistently playing guys 2-3inches taller and 20-40lbs heavier his entire career. He shouldn’t have to play the 5 a single minute next season. Happy to see him back
 
#44

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,584
Likes
18,365
#44
Not sure he brings any more immediate impact than Vescovi, Bailey, or Powell. And true, he might be the best guard we can get that won't complain over PT, but if that's the case, we really don't need him, do we?
If Chandler gets hurt or has issues with foul trouble I think we will wish we had a backup PG. if another guard or wing gets hurt we’ve got plenty of bodies there.
 
#48

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
25,079
Likes
21,489
#48
If Chandler gets hurt or has issues with foul trouble I think we will wish we had a backup PG. if another guard or wing gets hurt we’ve got plenty of bodies there.
I guess so, if you consider him a PG. He looks a lot more like a combo guard/off guard to me. He isn't quick or sudden with the ball. He relies on craftiness, strength, and "old man ball" for a lot of his moves, and I just question how that will translate to a league that is infinitely more athletic than the MVC.

The most compelling argument I've seen presented was @Namorto1 making the point that he is a willing driver, which Bailey and Vescovi have been shy about, although, Key relies on getting fouled a lot on drives rather than finishing the shot. Again, does the athleticism of the SEC allow for fewer foul calls in his favor, and instead, more steals and blocked shots on his drive attempts? His post moves, at 6-3, aren't going to be nearly as effective, either, and I don't think he'll have near the freedom offensively at Tennessee that he does at ISU. I'd guess his role would be much more restricted/structured.

Physically, he reminds me of a poor man's Jaden Springer. His shot isn't "pretty" but is effective, though it has become dramatically less efficient each of the last 3 seasons. For his career, he's a 14.5 point scorer, with only 3.9 of those points coming via the 3-ball.

I guess my reasoning for passing, is that he is neither a great PG (career 1.7:1.6 assist:TO ratio) or a proven elite shooter. As a SO and JR, he shot a combined 41.25% from 3...that seems elite. But as a FR and SR, he shot a combined 31.95% from 3? Which is the truth, because those are astonishing differences.

If we are taking another guard, I'd want him to be an incredible ball-handler/facilitator, or be an elite shooter. I'm just not certain Key is either of those things.
 
#49

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,584
Likes
18,365
#49
I guess so, if you consider him a PG. He looks a lot more like a combo guard/off guard to me. He isn't quick or sudden with the ball. He relies on craftiness, strength, and "old man ball" for a lot of his moves, and I just question how that will translate to a league that is infinitely more athletic than the MVC.

The most compelling argument I've seen presented was @Namorto1 making the point that he is a willing driver, which Bailey and Vescovi have been shy about, although, Key relies on getting fouled a lot on drives rather than finishing the shot. Again, does the athleticism of the SEC allow for fewer foul calls in his favor, and instead, more steals and blocked shots on his drive attempts? His post moves, at 6-3, aren't going to be nearly as effective, either, and I don't think he'll have near the freedom offensively at Tennessee that he does at ISU. I'd guess his role would be much more restricted/structured.

Physically, he reminds me of a poor man's Jaden Springer. His shot isn't "pretty" but is effective, though it has become dramatically less efficient each of the last 3 seasons. For his career, he's a 14.5 point scorer, with only 3.9 of those points coming via the 3-ball.

I guess my reasoning for passing, is that he is neither a great PG (career 1.7:1.6 assist:TO ratio) or a proven elite shooter. As a SO and JR, he shot a combined 41.25% from 3...that seems elite. But as a FR and SR, he shot a combined 31.95% from 3? Which is the truth, because those are astonishing differences.

If we are taking another guard, I'd want him to be an incredible ball-handler/facilitator, or be an elite shooter. I'm just not certain Key is either of those things.
Well he primarily played PG at ISU, so I would say he’s at the very least capable and probably more so than anyone not named Chandler. I agree there are better options out there, but:

1. How attractive is our guard rotation to a higher level transfer? Probably not very.

2. Key is a 1 year guy, there aren’t a ton of those...having that scholarship available for ‘22 would be nice.
 
#50

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
25,079
Likes
21,489
#50
Well he primarily played PG at ISU, so I would say he’s at the very least capable and probably more so than anyone not named Chandler. I agree there are better options out there, but:

1. How attractive is our guard rotation to a higher level transfer? Probably not very.

2. Key is a 1 year guy, there aren’t a ton of those...having that scholarship available for ‘22 would be nice.
Agree on both points. My concern would be is he good enough to make enough of a contribution in his one year that we can't coax out of Powell, Vescovi, or Bailey? If we are talking about having an available scholarship for the future, I think I'd rather hold the open spot for a midyear guy like Tshiebwe or Mills as opposed to using it on a 1-yr guy who might provide you 10-12 mpg, and minimal impact to the box score.
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top