Recruiting Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,679
#1,679
#1,680
#1,680
jeffborzello: Ohio State transfer Austin Grandstaff told ESPN that Butler, St. John's, Oregon, Tennessee, Nebraska, SMU, others have already reached out.

Was a four-star SG in the class of 2015 on 247.
 
#1,681
#1,681
Fingers said:
jeffborzello: Ohio State transfer Austin Grandstaff told ESPN that Butler, St. John's, Oregon, Tennessee, Nebraska, SMU, others have already reached out.

Was a four-star SG in the class of 2015 on 247.
Click to expand...

Can we waste a scholarship on this kid when we need bigs????
 
#1,682
#1,682
cwbytruckers said:
Can we waste a scholarship on this kid when we need bigs????
Click to expand...

Waste a scholarship? Not sure that's what I would call landing a former top 50 recruit, but if you say so. Fwiw it also to me seems like this staff isn't interested in adding a developing high school big to this class, such as Fernando or someone like that. You've got Alexander who's a freshman and Kasongo just a sophomore, I see it as more of a waste to bring in a similar type of player (not saying Fernando is) to those 2 guys, than bringing in a guy who would bring a skill set nobody on the projected roster possesses.
 
#1,683
#1,683
bleedingTNorange said:
Waste a scholarship? Not sure that's what I would call landing a former top 50 recruit, but if you say so. Fwiw it also to me seems like this staff isn't interested in adding a developing high school big to this class, such as Fernando or someone like that. You've got Alexander who's a freshman and Kasongo just a sophomore, I see it as more of a waste to bring in a similar type of player (not saying Fernando is) to those 2 guys, than bringing in a guy who would bring a skill set nobody on the projected roster possesses.
Click to expand...

And he's white 😁
 
#1,684
#1,684
bleedingTNorange said:
Waste a scholarship? Not sure that's what I would call landing a former top 50 recruit, but if you say so. Fwiw it also to me seems like this staff isn't interested in adding a developing high school big to this class, such as Fernando or someone like that. You've got Alexander who's a freshman and Kasongo just a sophomore, I see it as more of a waste to bring in a similar type of player (not saying Fernando is) to those 2 guys, than bringing in a guy who would bring a skill set nobody on the projected roster possesses.
Click to expand...

Huh?


Surely you arent saying we are willing to go to battle after months and months of saying we absolutely have to find a rim protector with any scholarship that opens up with these 3 kids at the 4/5

Kasongo
Alexander
Fulkerson


It doesn't matter how good a kid is if he plays the 1/2/3 spot we 100% can't bring him in,which is what the op was asking, UNLESS our current roster changes. Now with another transfer that isn't Alexander or kasongo I could see entertaining the idea but even then I wouldn't agree with taking anyone but a 4/5
 
#1,685
#1,685
And that's your opinion bruin, we happen to disagree in this case, shocker. It's still entirely possible there's more attrition and that spot is used for a big man, I know you hate to admit it because it's too easy of an answer, but numbers work themselves out.

You also left off Williams and Schofield who are capable of getting minutes at the 4, Schofield has already gotten minutes at the 4/5 this year.

So do I think we could manage to make it with these guys at the 4/5:

Schofield
Williams
Fulkerson
Kasongo
Alexander


Yes I do, may not be ideal, but I don't think it's any worse off than this year in the post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,686
#1,686
bleedingTNorange said:
And that's your opinion bruin, we happen to disagree in this case, shocker. It's still entirely possible there's more attrition and that spot is used for a big man, I know you hate to admit it because it's too easy of an answer, but numbers work themselves out.

You also left off Williams and Schofield who are capable of getting minutes at the 4, Schofield has already gotten minutes at the 4/5 this year.

So do I think we could manage to make it with these guys at the 4/5:

Schofield
Williams
Fulkerson
Kasongo
Alexander


Yes I do, may not be ideal, but I don't think it's any worse off than this year in the post.
Click to expand...

A couple things here

You have stated that Schoefield and Williams are more 3s than anything else.

And more importantly now all of a sudden we aren't trying to upgrade in the post from this year. Comical how anyone can watch this team and be ok with that.


Last yes I already stated IF the roster changes with more attrition taking another gaurd at least wouldn't fall into the category of a wasted scholarship
 
#1,687
#1,687
Grant Williams is never gonna play the 3. Dude is a Charles Barkley type player. Also I don't see how you pass up on a former Top 50 guy who can shoot very well and possesses a great skill set. I would rather take a transfer big than him but I wouldn't want to take another guy that we have to develop at the 5 for the next 2 years. If Mostella does leave, like some think, then you have two spots open. I'd say one would be used for 2017 class and one for a transfer guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,689
#1,689
BruinVol said:
A couple things here

You have stated that Schoefield and Williams are more 3s than anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have ever stated that

And more importantly now all of a sudden we aren't trying to upgrade in the post from this year. Comical how anyone can watch this team and be ok with that.
Click to expand...

I think a lot could depend on how Kasongo and Alexander continue to develop, their gonna have their chances. If those 2 guys emerge and build off the last game and show that and more every night, I think Barnes is ok riding with those guys next season. On the flip side if both guys digress and show no development at all then the need becomes more glaring.

Last yes I already stated IF the roster changes with more attrition taking another gaurd at least wouldn't fall into the category of a wasted scholarship
Click to expand...

You seemed to be saying that even then though it shouldn't be used on a guard, regardless of how good they are, and j disagreed with that.
 
#1,690
#1,690
bleedingTNorange said:
I don't believe I have ever stated that



I think a lot could depend on how Kasongo and Alexander continue to develop, their gonna have their chances. If those 2 guys emerge and build off the last game and show that and more every night, I think Barnes is ok riding with those guys next season. On the flip side if both guys digress and show no development at all then the need becomes more glaring.



You seemed to be saying that even then though it shouldn't be used on a guard, regardless of how good they are, and j disagreed with that.
Click to expand...

You did but again I know how you twist words. See the rob gray post from last week
For evidence.

Fair point on kasongo and Alexander. If the FAU game is an indicator that is a positive sign for sure.


If we are talking about 1 spot only I don't think it matters how good a gaurd is and you don't take him regardless. Even with 2 spots I wouldn't but understand the thinking of doing so. keep in mind the 17 class is one all seem to pointing to so Why limit our spots with what we are pointing to as a chance for highly recruited guys?
 
#1,691
#1,691
BruinVol said:
You did but again I know how you twist words.
Click to expand...

I have said they both COULD play the 3, and have said there was some questions as to whether one or both could trim down and become a 3, but I have NEVER said those guys "are more 3's than anything else".

Fair point on kasongo and Alexander. If the FAU game is an indicator that is a positive sign for sure.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so making the claim on December 17th that it would be a waste of a scholarship is a bit preemptive. If those guys continue to develop in the post there's little reason to add a big man who would be behind them in development and experience.

If we are talking about 1 spot only I don't think it matters how good a gaurd is and you don't take him regardless. Even with 2 spots I wouldn't but understand the thinking of doing so. keep in mind the 17 class is one all seem to pointing to so Why limit our spots with what we are pointing to as a chance for highly recruited guys?
Click to expand...

Grandstaff was a top 50 recruit, you think we're going to go out and land 3-4 top 50 guys in 2017? I don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,692
#1,692
Can't ever have too many high percentage shooters.
And there will be more attrition.
 
#1,693
#1,693
bleedingTNorange said:
I have said they both COULD play the 3, and have said there was some questions as to whether one or both could trim down and become a 3, but I have NEVER said those guys "are more 3's than anything else".



Exactly, so making the claim on December 17th that it would be a waste of a scholarship is a bit preemptive. If those guys continue to develop in the post there's little reason to add a big man who would be behind them in development and experience.



Grandstaff was a top 50 recruit, you think we're going to go out and land 3-4 top 50 guys in 2017? I don't.
Click to expand...


The question being discussed here isn't 3-4 spots for 17 but 1 or 2

If reality was 3-4 I would agree with you but it's not
 
#1,694
#1,694
BruinVol said:
The question being discussed here isn't 3-4 spots for 17 but 1 or 2

If reality was 3-4 I would agree with you but it's not
Click to expand...

You, nor I, have any idea how many spots there will be, so you can't say that number as if it's concrete. Again, even if it's 2-3 spots, it doesn't seem likely Tennessee would sign 3 top 50 guys in 2017, it's called hedging your bets. If somehow they are able to sign 3 top 50 guys in 2017 and only have room for 2, then someone leaves, just like McGhee did this year.
 
#1,695
#1,695
bleedingTNorange said:
You, nor I, have any idea how many spots there will be, so you can't say that number as if it's concrete. Again, even if it's 2-3 spots, it doesn't seem likely Tennessee would sign 3 top 50 guys in 2017, it's called hedging your bets. If somehow they are able to sign 3 top 50 guys in 2017 and only have room for 2, then someone leaves, just like McGhee did this year.
Click to expand...

Well I tried to be a clear as possible about the spots

We have 2 spots right now with McGee leaving. If that's all we have then taking any gaurd is a waste IMO

If we have 1 more then It makes more sense. I wouldn't use it on a guard but wouldn't argue that it's a waste

Not sure why that's hard to follow
 
#1,696
#1,696
BruinVol said:
Well I tried to be a clear as possible about the spots

We have 2 spots right now with McGee leaving. If that's all we have then taking any gaurd is a waste IMO

If we have 1 more then It makes more sense. I wouldn't use it on a guard but wouldn't argue that it's a waste

Not sure why that's hard to follow
Click to expand...

Not hard at allow, however I thought you were familiar with the fact acholarships are year to year and that almost all teams have attrition, McGhee is proof of that already this year.

Again, if Alexander and Kasongo prove to be quality big men, and Fulkerson adds some good weight, you've got 5 scholarship players who can play at the 4/5 positions. You do realize Armani Moore is 6'4", right? And that's he's played the 3/4/5 positions? We lose 6'7" Reese and 6'4" Moore, and add 6'9" Fulkerson and 6'7" Williams, it seems pretty clear to me we are adding size to next years team already, not sure why that's so hard to follow.
 
#1,697
#1,697
Fulkerson is growing by the day around here. Will be 6'11 by New Years

It's simple . We can't win more than 16-17 games without a taller front line. If 16-17 is the goal then by all means keep spending those last few precious spots on guards.
 
#1,698
#1,698
BruinVol in the past 30 days has gone from vol optimist to innocent marauder to "be nice to Dallas" advocate, to overly anti-confrontational guy to general pessimist and has now given into the BTO trap. (Even though BTO is right in this argument)

Seeing the lifecycle of this guy is similar to that of Ricketty Crickett in Always Sunny in Philidephia who went from Priest to homeless drug addict thief over the course of like 2 episodes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,699
#1,699
IndianapolisVol said:
BruinVol in the past 30 days has gone from vol optimist to innocent marauder to "be nice to Dallas" advocate, to overly anti-confrontational guy to general pessimist and has now given into the BTO trap. (Even though BTO is right in this argument)

Seeing the lifecycle of this guy is similar to that of Ricketty Crickett in Always Sunny in Philidephia who went from Priest to homeless drug addict thief over the course of like 2 episodes.
Click to expand...

Lol

I dont recall much of the optimist me
 
#1,700
#1,700
BruinVol said:
Fulkerson is growing by the day around here. Will be 6'11 by New Years

It's simple . We can't win more than 16-17 games without a taller front line. If 16-17 is the goal then by all means keep spending those last few precious spots on guards.
Click to expand...

Fulkerson has been listed anywhere from 6'8"-6'9", nobody has once mentioned he'll grow to 6'11" except for you, of course him being 6'8"-6'9" doesn't fit your narrative so you'd prefer not to believe it.

If Barnes can win 16-17 games this year with a frontline going 6'4" & 6'7" why can't he win more games than that with a frontline going 6'8" & 6'9"? Your aguement makes very little sense, as I pointed out, next years team will be taller than this years team, so.....

What I find most ironic is that if Tennessee were to go out and sign a 7' big man, with decent stats, few offers, and an average ranking who needed to be developed you would criticize the move and say we weren't adding talented enough guys. 2017 signing day is a long ways away, a lot can happen by then, assuming there will be zero attention is beyond naive though.
 
Last edited:
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top