You can never have too many scorers on your team. Need evidence look at this past season? After flag and Cryer got hurt the only guy willing and hunting his shot was Akinjo. And no I'm not saying we need some PG whose going to average 15 a game. And I'll add this I seriously doubt Dale Bonner is the starting PG next year. Better chance he RS next season then that happening
Dillon Hunter decommits
9,323 Views |
73 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Crawfoso1973
Agreed on both points.IowaBear said:
You can never have too many scorers on your team. Need evidence look at this past season? After flag and Cryer got hurt the only guy willing and hunting his shot was Akinjo. And no I'm not saying we need some PG whose going to average 15 a game. And I'll add this I seriously doubt Dale Bonner is the starting PG next year. Better chance he RS next season then that happening
I absolutely LOVE Bonner's hustle and what he did for us this year, being thrust into a key role during what shoudl have been a redshirt year. But I don't see him ever developing the ball-handling ability or court vision to play PG for a national title contender. For a team of our stature, his ideal role is an energy guy off the bench as a backup wing who can give 10-20 minutes of defense and hustle.
I have been the biggest defender of Akinjo on these boards but in all honesty I am not the biggest fan. He is a flawed player and will never sniff the NBA. But a lof of hate directed toward him was unfair because people were expecting him to be Davion or Butler who will go down as 2 of the best in program history. He is obviously not as good as those guys but was a damn good college PG. We will be extremely fortunate to get someone of his caliber in the portal for next season.
You want every player on your team to be capable of scoring. But there are only so many shots to go around. The best teams at any level of basketball are those that give the most shots to their most efficient scorers. We've got four extremely efficient wing scorers. We need a point guard who can get those guys the ball in positions to score, not one who is looking first to score himself.IowaBear said:
You can never have too many scorers on your team. Need evidence look at this past season? After flag and Cryer got hurt the only guy willing and hunting his shot was Akinjo. And no I'm not saying we need some PG whose going to average 15 a game. And I'll add this I seriously doubt Dale Bonner is the starting PG next year. Better chance he RS next season then that happening
Minutes and shots are zero-sum games, and our four best players (presumably in the case of George and Love) all play the same position. That's not probably an ideal way to build a roster, but it is what it is. Scott Drew's challenge next year will be building a rotation that maximizes the impact of each of those players in a way that puts the team in the best position to succeed. That's unlikely to be done by bringing in a point guard with which they'll be competing for minutes and shots.
And if you read what I posted, I'm not saying that Dale Bonner will be the starting point guard. I'm saying I'd prefer him at point guard to a transfer that doesn't fit the needs/makeup of next year's team. I don't want a high-usage, volume-scoring point guard on next year's roster. Period.
Dale Bonner was a point guard his entire career before coming to Baylor. You can say you don't think he's a Big 12 caliber starting point guard, and I'd agree. But he's already got the skills to play that position. There's no major transition needed to switch back to the position he played at his previous school. He just needs to hone and improve on the skills he already has.Crawfoso1973 said:Agreed on both points.IowaBear said:
You can never have too many scorers on your team. Need evidence look at this past season? After flag and Cryer got hurt the only guy willing and hunting his shot was Akinjo. And no I'm not saying we need some PG whose going to average 15 a game. And I'll add this I seriously doubt Dale Bonner is the starting PG next year. Better chance he RS next season then that happening
I absolutely LOVE Bonner's hustle and what he did for us this year, being thrust into a key role during what shoudl have been a redshirt year. But I don't see him ever developing the ball-handling ability or court vision to play PG for a national title contender. For a team of our stature, his ideal role is an energy guy off the bench as a backup wing who can give 10-20 minutes of defense and hustle.
I have been the biggest defender of Akinjo on these boards but in all honesty I am not the biggest fan. He is a flawed player and will never sniff the NBA. But a lof of hate directed toward him was unfair because people were expecting him to be Davion or Butler who will go down as 2 of the best in program history. He is obviously not as good as those guys but was a damn good college PG. We will be extremely fortunate to get someone of his caliber in the portal for next season.
And frankly, he was at his best this is past season when he was creating for others and himself with the ball in his hands. He's a good slasher with a 2-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio. He's a bad catch-and-shoot wing player. Moving him back to point full time, whether in a starting or backup role, will allow him to do more of what he does best and less of what he doesn't do well, while giving our four natural wing players one less player to compete with for shots.
Please point to where anyone was calling for a high volume, usage PG? Is that something you made up in your mind for the sake of arguing. Bonner will be the 5th or 6th guard on next years team. He's not going to play much unless injuries stack up
If you read my posts throughout this thread in the context in which they were posted, my point here is both clear and consistent.IowaBear said:
Please point to where anyone was calling for a high volume, usage PG? Is that something you made up in your mind for the sake of arguing. Bonner will be the 5th or 6th guard on next years team. He's not going to play much unless injuries stack up
But it's pretty obvious from your last two replies to me here -- and most of your posts in general -- that that's beyond your limited capabilities.
A conversation that didn't start with you in it isn't required to meet arbitrary standards you set for it. If I'm not replying directly to you, I'm not talking to you or addressing/rebutting any point you've made. It's you here that's being argumentative, based on a discussion you were too lazy to read and simple points you are apparently too dull to understand.
Pot me kettle much ? No where did anyone say they wanted a high volume PG in fact the opposite has been said. But most on here you included are weary of the current PG situation. So if anything your agreeing with what I and most are saying. Quit making a mountain out of a mole hill. There was nothing argumentative about what I said. DB will be the 5th or 6th guard in next year. I don't think that's an unreasonable take by any stretch
This was a discussion until you became involved. Then it became a debate because you can't help yourself.IowaBear said:
Pot me kettle much ? No where did anyone say they wanted a high volume PG in fact the opposite has been said. But most on here you included are weary of the current PG situation. So if anything your agreeing with what I and most are saying. Quit making a mountain out of a mole hill
Go re-read this thread -- a lot to ask of you, I know. See who shifted this discussion away from the our point guard situation and made it a stupid personal pissing match. Now go do the same in all of the other threads you participate in and see how often that person is you.
My point is here is a clear, consistent and frankly, innocuous one. Others are saying we need a point guard transfer. I'm saying we only need a point guard transfer if it's the right type of player. Adding a high-usage point guard who demands heavy minutes and shots won't make this team better next year IMO.
Unlike others, I think we have the bodies on our roster to handle the ball-handling duties, if need be. That's it. No one is making a mountain out of a mole hill. It was a slight, nuanced disagreement that you blew out of proportion and made personal for reasons only you understand.
No where was this a pissing match, craw and I were having a discussion until as usual captain know everything bear2be interjected himself. But that's usual you can't help but get your 2 cents in. I ask you a simple question where did anyone say we need a high usage, volume shooting PG? You've yet to answer that. You felt the need to include that in your response to craw and I'd discussion. So I ask a simple question.
Cry more. You don't get to dictate the discussions others participate in on a free discussion forum. If you can't handle differing opinions without getting triggered, a message board may not be for you.IowaBear said:
No where was this a pissing match, craw and I were having a discussion until as usual captain know everything bear2be interjected himself. But that's usual you can't help but get your 2 cents in. I ask you a simple question where did anyone say we need a high usage, volume shooting PG? You've yet to answer that. You felt the need to include that in your response to craw and I'd discussion. So I ask a simple question.
As to your question -- which was not asked in good faith, but I'll answer anyway -- the suggestion that we need a point guard transfer implies that the addition of any point guard is better than no point guard transfer at all. That would include score-first, high-usage point guards. I disagree.
I'm all for adding a transfer point guard but only a distributing one. If we can't find a pass-first point guard in the portal, I would rather go with the five-guard rotation we have. That's it. That's the argument that you took such umbrage with. Drama queens need their drama, I guess.
I'm as far from drama as they get, all you had to do was answer the question. There's a mutual thought in this thread at least it seems that if we do add a PG it'll be one that's more of a distributor of the ball. Doesn't need to be a15 ppg 10 shot kind of guy. Rather a guy who can score if, when needed all while finding our wings, shooting guards George, Flagler, Cryer etc. the other discussion was the forward position which is also a glaring need. That player or players don't need to be big time scoring threats either
IowaBear said:
Why are you trying to prove this team was better without Akinjo? That's laughable, I know you're the king of asinine takes but there's no way you believe that. And Drew has always always preferred to have a true PG on the roster. There's nothing to suggest that's changed
Akinjo was frustratingly inconsistent last year. He was mostly good but really bad in some games. Granted he was our best ball handler, but our offense often stagnated with him in the game. At other times he was an assist machine. I can't put my finger on it, but I sure hope we can find more consistency this year. He was a terrific talent, and I hesitate even to mention any of this because he always gave effort and played good D. I'll always be thankful for what he gave us.
bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
bear2be2 said:Cry more. You don't get to dictate the discussions others participate in on a free discussion forum. If you can't handle differing opinions without getting triggered, a message board may not be for you.IowaBear said:
No where was this a pissing match, craw and I were having a discussion until as usual captain know everything bear2be interjected himself. But that's usual you can't help but get your 2 cents in. I ask you a simple question where did anyone say we need a high usage, volume shooting PG? You've yet to answer that. You felt the need to include that in your response to craw and I'd discussion. So I ask a simple question.
As to your question -- which was not asked in good faith, but I'll answer anyway -- the suggestion that we need a point guard transfer implies that the addition of any point guard is better than no point guard transfer at all. That would include score-first, high-usage point guards. I disagree.
I'm all for adding a transfer point guard but only a distributing one. If we can't find a pass-first point guard in the portal, I would rather go with the five-guard rotation we have. That's it. That's the argument that you took such umbrage with. Drama queens need their drama, I guess.
I wonder if we can find a point forward that can focus on bringing the ball up, rebounding, and defense. If we could have 3 of our shooters spread out on the perimeter waiting to be fed, opposing teams may pay a big price for trying to press/double team.
That would be really nice, but those guys are hard to find. I think it's more likely that the power forward we add is a defense-minded rebounder whose primary function on offense is cleaning up misses and extending possessions. But I would love to have another guy who could do for us what Sochan did this year and be a creator from the high post.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:Cry more. You don't get to dictate the discussions others participate in on a free discussion forum. If you can't handle differing opinions without getting triggered, a message board may not be for you.IowaBear said:
No where was this a pissing match, craw and I were having a discussion until as usual captain know everything bear2be interjected himself. But that's usual you can't help but get your 2 cents in. I ask you a simple question where did anyone say we need a high usage, volume shooting PG? You've yet to answer that. You felt the need to include that in your response to craw and I'd discussion. So I ask a simple question.
As to your question -- which was not asked in good faith, but I'll answer anyway -- the suggestion that we need a point guard transfer implies that the addition of any point guard is better than no point guard transfer at all. That would include score-first, high-usage point guards. I disagree.
I'm all for adding a transfer point guard but only a distributing one. If we can't find a pass-first point guard in the portal, I would rather go with the five-guard rotation we have. That's it. That's the argument that you took such umbrage with. Drama queens need their drama, I guess.
I wonder if we can find a point forward that can focus on bringing the ball up, rebounding, and defense. If we could have 3 of our shooters spread out on the perimeter waiting to be fed, opposing teams may pay a big price for trying to press/double team.
Akinjo was a warrior who played injured several games with a tailbone / back injury. In hindsight he should have just sat them out until fully healthy, but some people believed it was just a pain tolerance issue and he could tough it out. Since he was our only PG he took one for the team and played through injury. But he had no lift on his shot. His shot selection and shooting %s have never been stellar but he was particularly bad in that stretch of games when he played injured. He did also have a tendency to over-dribble, but a lof of that was because he was our only PG and the only player we had capable of penetrating in half-court situations (until we unleashed Sochan as a point forward late in conference play). A lot of our offense bogging down happened during that stretch of injuries when our team overall lost its offensive rhythm due to injuries to multiple players which hurt spacing and offensive continuity. Akinjo was often forced to put up low percentatge shots to beat the shot clock when the offense bogged down. Akinjo definately had his flaws, and will never be confused for Davion or Butler, but we would be extremely fortunate to get someone of his talent in the portal. I was hoping he would return and accept a lower-usage role with more offensive weapons and ball-handlers around him, but I can understand why he would want to leave and start making $ overseas. I was not the biggest fan of his game, but I respect that he was an absolute warrior while wearing the green and gold and wish him nothing but the best in his pro career.Chuckroast said:IowaBear said:
Why are you trying to prove this team was better without Akinjo? That's laughable, I know you're the king of asinine takes but there's no way you believe that. And Drew has always always preferred to have a true PG on the roster. There's nothing to suggest that's changed
Akinjo was frustratingly inconsistent last year. He was mostly good but really bad in some games. Granted he was our best ball handler, but our offense often stagnated with him in the game. At other times he was an assist machine. I can't put my finger on it, but I sure hope we can find more consistency this year. He was a terrific talent, and I hesitate even to mention any of this because he always gave effort and played good D. I'll always be thankful for what he gave us.
I would say our PG need is a 9 on a scale of 1-10. Looking at our guard group they are almost all scoring guards. Keyonte will end up our highest useage player by a longshot, and will have the ball in his hands a huge % of the time when on the floor, but we need someone else to take the pressure off of him. Love is a combo guard and is coming off a serious knee injury so he might need to be eased back in. Cryer (who may or may not be healthy) and Flagler have proven they need to play exclusively off the ball. Bonner is still a developmental guy who at this point is just a hustle player and in a perfect world would take a redshirt year. College hoops is a guard-oriented game, and we need a starting PG who can complement Keyonte. Someone who can take on defensive pressure and get our offense in gear. A low-useage, efficient player who can defend, distribute, and hit open shots. I am confident our staff may already have someone in place ready to fill this role.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
I think your opinion on Flagler as a ball-handler is outdated. He struggled mightily early in his transition to point guard, but by the end of the season, he was much, much better in that role. In his two best games of the year -- at Oklahoma State and against UNC in the tournament -- he played most of the second half on the ball and was nothing short of dominant. He's certainly capable of handling that role for half a game. Committee the point the other 20 minutes and you're fine.Crawfoso1973 said:I would say our PG need is a 9 on a scale of 1-10. Looking at our guard group they are almost all scoring guards. Keyonte will end up our highest useage player by a longshot, and will have the ball in his hands a huge % of the time when on the floor, but we need someone else to take the pressure off of him. Love is a combo guard and is coming off a serious knee injury so he might need to be eased back in. Cryer (who may or may not be healthy) and Flagler have proven they need to play exclusively off the ball. Bonner is still a developmental guy who at this point is just a hustle player and in a perfect world would take a redshirt year. College hoops is a guard-oriented game, and we need a starting PG who can complement Keyonte. Someone who can take on defensive pressure and get our offense in gear. A low-useage, efficient player who can defend, distribute, and hit open shots. I am confident our staff may already have someone in place ready to fill this role.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
If we can find the type of point guard you describe here, great. Go get him. But the situation isn't as dire as you suggest. Once we get into the halfcourt, Keyonte George is going to be doing the bulk of the creating anyway.
bear2be2 said:I think your opinion on Flagler as a ball-handler is outdated. He struggled mightily early in his transition to point guard, but by the end of the season, he was much, much better in that role. In his two best games of the year -- at Oklahoma State and against UNC in the tournament -- he played most of the second half on the ball and was nothing short of dominant. He's certainly capable of handling that role for half a game. Committee the point the other 20 minutes and you're fine.Crawfoso1973 said:I would say our PG need is a 9 on a scale of 1-10. Looking at our guard group they are almost all scoring guards. Keyonte will end up our highest useage player by a longshot, and will have the ball in his hands a huge % of the time when on the floor, but we need someone else to take the pressure off of him. Love is a combo guard and is coming off a serious knee injury so he might need to be eased back in. Cryer (who may or may not be healthy) and Flagler have proven they need to play exclusively off the ball. Bonner is still a developmental guy who at this point is just a hustle player and in a perfect world would take a redshirt year. College hoops is a guard-oriented game, and we need a starting PG who can complement Keyonte. Someone who can take on defensive pressure and get our offense in gear. A low-useage, efficient player who can defend, distribute, and hit open shots. I am confident our staff may already have someone in place ready to fill this role.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
If we can find the type of point guard you describe here, great. Go get him. But the situation isn't as dire as you suggest. Once we get into the halfcourt, Keyonte George is going to be doing the bulk of the creating anyway.
I agree. It's not like our other guards have terrible ballhandling skills. I don't think we have the luxury of going after one guy who is a press breaker all by himself. With four guys on the court who will have adequate ballhandling skills, I think we just need to look to pass a whole lot more. My hope is that Jaylen Bridges will have decent ballhandling skills himself, because as you have mentioned, that position may not be defended with a ball hawking type of defender. According to the stats I saw, he rarely turned the ball over. I think once we get into our half court offense, I'm hoping we will have enough great shooters on the perimeter that we can really swing the ball around. We didn't have that luxury last year, and I think our overall offensive chemistry suffered for it.
We did have that luxury. We just too often didn't swing it.
Without Cryer, we were a well below-average 3-point shooting team. That won't be the case next season.BUCANDOIT82 said:
We did have that luxury. We just too often didn't swing it.
Hunter committed to Clemson.
Signed contracts mean virtually nothing anymore.
Signed contracts mean virtually nothing anymore.
Signed contracts have never meant anything when there was mutual interest in dissolving them.MashedPotatoes said:
Hunter committed to Clemson.
Signed contracts mean virtually nothing anymore.
And even if it wasn't mutual, the last thing fans should want is to see players held hostage in situations they don't want to be in. Separation is best for all involved in those cases.
We can agree to disagree on Flagler. Flagler can handle the ball adequately but he is not a PG and that was painfully obvious all season. Try as you may, you can't force a square peg into a round hole. Flagler lacks PG vision and instincts, and while I agree he improved as a decent secondary ballhandler, there is much more nuance to playing the PG position than being able to dribble the ball up the court. Even the 2 games you mention, he was terrific scoring but was not a distributor: @ OSU 2 assists in 41 minutes; UNC 2 assists in 41 minutes. Flagler is an efficient assassin playing off the ball and thrives with guys who can create and hit him in his spots. But every possession you force him to initiate offense as the primary PG on the floor and play with the ball in his hands is a possession you take him away from what he does best.bear2be2 said:I think your opinion on Flagler as a ball-handler is outdated. He struggled mightily early in his transition to point guard, but by the end of the season, he was much, much better in that role. In his two best games of the year -- at Oklahoma State and against UNC in the tournament -- he played most of the second half on the ball and was nothing short of dominant. He's certainly capable of handling that role for half a game. Committee the point the other 20 minutes and you're fine.Crawfoso1973 said:I would say our PG need is a 9 on a scale of 1-10. Looking at our guard group they are almost all scoring guards. Keyonte will end up our highest useage player by a longshot, and will have the ball in his hands a huge % of the time when on the floor, but we need someone else to take the pressure off of him. Love is a combo guard and is coming off a serious knee injury so he might need to be eased back in. Cryer (who may or may not be healthy) and Flagler have proven they need to play exclusively off the ball. Bonner is still a developmental guy who at this point is just a hustle player and in a perfect world would take a redshirt year. College hoops is a guard-oriented game, and we need a starting PG who can complement Keyonte. Someone who can take on defensive pressure and get our offense in gear. A low-useage, efficient player who can defend, distribute, and hit open shots. I am confident our staff may already have someone in place ready to fill this role.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
If we can find the type of point guard you describe here, great. Go get him. But the situation isn't as dire as you suggest. Once we get into the halfcourt, Keyonte George is going to be doing the bulk of the creating anyway.
And Cryer is essentially Flagler 2.0 but coming off very serious injuries to both feet. We don't know if Cryer will ever be the same guy again, and even if he returns healthy he might be on a minutes restriction and eased back into the rotation.
Love is a capable secondary ballhandler and creator, but he too is coming off of serious injury and may not be ready for heavy minutes right out of the gate.
I agree Keyonte will dominate the ball in half-court possessions, but I've always felt our offense looks better with at least 2 PGs / combo guards playing on the floor at the same time. Butler / Teague / Davion thrived playing together because defenses couldn't focus on stopping just one of them, allowing us to exploit perimeter mismatches. Butler and Davion in particular could score from the perimeter, penetrate, and create for others. We need another guy who at minimum can run the offense when Keyonte is out of the game, and we need someone who can take the ballhandling and playmaking pressure off of him so he can score more efficiently and take on less defensive pressure.
Good thing because we wouldn't have landed Butler.MashedPotatoes said:
Hunter committed to Clemson.
Signed contracts mean virtually nothing anymore.
Great analysis Craw
Did Quinten Winters decommit?
I'm not arguing that Flagler is a great or even natural point guard. I'm arguing that he and Bonner (the most natural point guard on our roster) are capable ball-handlers in an offense that is likely to spend as much time as not isolating scoring guards in the halfcourt. In other words, I don't think next year's team needs an elite point guard, which is good because we're unlikely to find one at this stage anyway.Crawfoso1973 said:We can agree to disagree on Flagler. Flagler can handle the ball adequately but he is not a PG and that was painfully obvious all season. Try as you may, you can't force a square peg into a round hole. Flagler lacks PG vision and instincts, and while I agree he improved as a decent secondary ballhandler, there is much more nuance to playing the PG position than being able to dribble the ball up the court. Even the 2 games you mention, he was terrific scoring but was not a distributor: @ OSU 2 assists in 41 minutes; UNC 2 assists in 41 minutes. Flagler is an efficient assassin playing off the ball and thrives with guys who can create and hit him in his spots. But every possession you force him to initiate offense as the primary PG on the floor and play with the ball in his hands is a possession you take him away from what he does best.bear2be2 said:I think your opinion on Flagler as a ball-handler is outdated. He struggled mightily early in his transition to point guard, but by the end of the season, he was much, much better in that role. In his two best games of the year -- at Oklahoma State and against UNC in the tournament -- he played most of the second half on the ball and was nothing short of dominant. He's certainly capable of handling that role for half a game. Committee the point the other 20 minutes and you're fine.Crawfoso1973 said:I would say our PG need is a 9 on a scale of 1-10. Looking at our guard group they are almost all scoring guards. Keyonte will end up our highest useage player by a longshot, and will have the ball in his hands a huge % of the time when on the floor, but we need someone else to take the pressure off of him. Love is a combo guard and is coming off a serious knee injury so he might need to be eased back in. Cryer (who may or may not be healthy) and Flagler have proven they need to play exclusively off the ball. Bonner is still a developmental guy who at this point is just a hustle player and in a perfect world would take a redshirt year. College hoops is a guard-oriented game, and we need a starting PG who can complement Keyonte. Someone who can take on defensive pressure and get our offense in gear. A low-useage, efficient player who can defend, distribute, and hit open shots. I am confident our staff may already have someone in place ready to fill this role.Chuckroast said:bear2be2 said:You have to adapt to the talent you have. Hunter leaving opens up another spot for a guard and I'll bet we use it. But you're not going to have enough minutes for six guards to get quality playing time. And we've got four high-level shooting guards that are all going to want to play. If you add another point guard, that's going to cut into somebody's time -- and it's likely the player losing time is better on the whole than whoever we bring in.Crawfoso1973 said:
There is a lot more to playing PG then dribbling the ball up the floor. Our staff is not dumb, I have no inside info but I can guarantee you we will not be going into the season with a PG-by-committee led by Flagler. This would be inviting disaster. It was painfully obvious Flagler is not a PG and every second you force him to play a PG role takes away from what he does best. Cryer is even worse when forced to play PG and he is still recovering from injury. We all saw how much our offense bogged down last year the games where Akinjo was out or playing injured. Love and Keyonte are both combo guards and can play PG in a pinch, but neither will be the primary PG for us. We don't need a superstar PG or another volume scorer, just a low-usage guy who can initiate offense, hit open shots, distribute, and defend the perimeter.
You also have the issue of roster composition, and every additional guard we bring in closes a scholarship to needed help in the frontcourt.
This isn't as simple as just saying, "Go get a point guard." If the right fit is out there, you pounce. If it's not, we've got guys on this team who can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense. We don't need and won't want a ball-dominant point guard next year with the talent we've got on the wings. I'd just as soon let Bonner be a purely distributing point guard and go with a five-guard rotation next year than go add someone who is going take minutes and shots from Flagler, Cryer, George and Love.
Agree. We have bigger needs elsewhere.
If we can find the type of point guard you describe here, great. Go get him. But the situation isn't as dire as you suggest. Once we get into the halfcourt, Keyonte George is going to be doing the bulk of the creating anyway.
And Cryer is essentially Flagler 2.0 but coming off very serious injuries to both feet. We don't know if Cryer will ever be the same guy again, and even if he returns healthy he might be on a minutes restriction and eased back into the rotation.
Love is a capable secondary ballhandler and creator, but he too is coming off of serious injury and may not be ready for heavy minutes right out of the gate.
I agree Keyonte will dominate the ball in half-court possessions, but I've always felt our offense looks better with at least 2 PGs / combo guards playing on the floor at the same time. Butler / Teague / Davion thrived playing together because defenses couldn't focus on stopping just one of them, allowing us to exploit perimeter mismatches. Butler and Davion in particular could score from the perimeter, penetrate, and create for others. We need another guy who at minimum can run the offense when Keyonte is out of the game, and we need someone who can take the ballhandling and playmaking pressure off of him so he can score more efficiently and take on less defensive pressure.
If we're not adding a difference maker or a true distributing point guard to take the 15-20 minutes and deferential role I'm currently allocating to Bonner, I would much rather go with our current five-guard rotation and maximize the playing time and impact of our four best playmakers. Next year's team doesn't need a point guard to dominate the ball or create for others. It just needs someone who can get the ball up the court and get it in the hands of guys who are capable of creating for themselves.
Good discussion and don't get me wrong I love Bonner and what he did to step up and help us before he was ready, but he is still a developmental guy at this point and allocating meaningful PG minutes to him would be an invitation to disaster. Teams would turn him over and sag off inviting him to shoot which he is not good at. He shot a horrid 19% from downtown. I know he played the position at the D 3 level but for a team with national championship aspirations I think he at most a 10 minute hustle guy off the bench as a wing defender. I agree we might not get an all-conference impact transfer like Akinjo, but I would love to get a lower usage guy like Kenny Chery who can drive the bus and score when needed.
Bonner played meaningful point guard minutes for a top-10 team this past season, and it wasn't a disaster.Crawfoso1973 said:
Good discussion and don't get me wrong I love Bonner and what he did to step up and help us before he was ready, but he is still a developmental guy at this point and allocating meaningful PG minutes to him would be an invitation to disaster. Teams would turn him over and sag off inviting him to shoot which he is not good at. He shot a horrid 19% from downtown. I know he played the position at the D 3 level but for a team with national championship aspirations I think he at most a 10 minute hustle guy off the bench as a wing defender. I agree we might not get an all-conference impact transfer like Akinjo, but I would love to get a lower usage guy like Kenny Chery who can drive the bus and score when needed.
You seem to be under the impression that he'd be playing out of position at point guard. The truth is, he was playing out of position as a shooting guard. He averaged five assists per game over two years at Fairmont (a Division II school, not DIII). He's certainly capable of giving us 15-20 minutes per game as a distributing point guard.
Sorry but Bonner didn't play PG for us this year. When Akinjo was out it was mostly Flagler dribbling it up the floor.
Off topic but Collins from St Louis is the kind of PG you guys are describing (if we were to go after one) dudes an assist machine. Can score if/when needed but is extremely comfortable feeding the scorers
Bonner saw minutes at point as well. Bonner was one of two available guards for multiple Big 12 games and Flagler/Akinjo didn't play 40 minutes in those games. Bonner definitely served as our primary ball-handler at times this season, and it wasn't a disaster when he did. He's a better ball-handler and passer than both Flagler and Cryer, though Flagler improved in both areas over the course of the season.Crawfoso1973 said:
Sorry but Bonner didn't play PG for us this year. When Akinjo was out it was mostly Flagler dribbling it up the floor.
Bonner played minutes for us but I don't recall him playing PG even when Akinjo was out. I remember Sochan and to an extent Kendall Brown playing point forward which was an awesome adjustment from our staff. Bonner played off the ball and was a great hustle player defensively and on the boards.bear2be2 said:Bonner saw minutes at point as well. Bonner was one of two available guards for multiple Big 12 games and Flagler/Akinjo didn't play 40 minutes in those games. Bonner definitely served as our primary ball-handler at times this season, and it wasn't a disaster when he did. He's a better ball-handler and passer than both Flagler and Cryer, though Flagler improved in both areas over the course of the season.Crawfoso1973 said:
Sorry but Bonner didn't play PG for us this year. When Akinjo was out it was mostly Flagler dribbling it up the floor.
Nice find! On paper, he fits the profile of what would be a perfect fit!IowaBear said:
Off topic but Collins from St Louis is the kind of PG you guys are describing (if we were to go after one) dudes an assist machine. Can score if/when needed but is extremely comfortable feeding the scorers
Featured Stories
See All
Commits React to Dave Aranda Officially Returning Next Season
by Grayson Grundhoefer
The Midweek Tilt: Bowling, Balling & The Kings of Texas?
by Craig Smoak
Player's Club: 'We're Trying To Get The Best Bowl Game We Can'
by Levi Caraway
BUbearinARK
Commits React to Dave Aranda Officially Returning Next Season
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
36
Rufus Gee
Commits React to Dave Aranda Officially Returning Next Season
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
20
Ludwig von Missi
Texas Bowl? Pop Tarts Bowl? Latest Bowl Projections for Dave Aranda, Baylor Football
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
9
rrochetti
Commits React to Dave Aranda Officially Returning Next Season
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
7