Roster and Rumors for 2022 - 2023

[DAG10]

Painter really wanted Sasha but you’re right, MP did not have a scholarship until the last minute. Different than a fringe recruit, IMO. Haarms literally would have been coming in unplanned in January, him playing year one was never a consideration. Agree that Wheeler got recruited over.

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make. Yes, Purdue is inherently a developmental program as they rarely land five stars. I’m not arguing that redshirting top 100 players should be a common practice. OP has been posting for years that redshirting is a waste. It’s clearly not in some situations as illustrated by Sasha and likely to be further shown by Mason and possibly by Brandon.

If it was not a waste, I think it stands to be one more likely now with the transfer portal...I would agree in that regard/on that point. Even if Gillis or Newman play a 5th year, there is no guarantee that it is at Purdue...the crazy ironic thing is that Isaiah was the guy most likely to redshirt for physical reasons...he did not, and, he is the one that ended up leaving.

I just think it will be very rare that, aside of a marginal recruit (which does not mean that the kid is not capable of being good....even very good), you will see a kid redshirt and be there for a 5th year...Gillis made sense in part because of his injury, but, he showed signs of being able to play even...it was a combination likely of recovering, and, guys at his position (Boudreaux...maybe Haarms at times)...Newman will be interesting...heck, we were not even sure that he would be back this year, never mind another 2 years...Kaufman-Renn will be really interesting.

The other thing that I don't like is it creates or compounds the problem of class imbalance...Purdue had no graduating Senior a year ago, and, does not have one again this year....that is never a good model long-term.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

If it was not a waste, I think it stands to be one more likely now with the transfer portal...I would agree in that regard/on that point. Even if Gillis or Newman play a 5th year, there is no guarantee that it is at Purdue...the crazy ironic thing is that Isaiah was the guy most likely to redshirt for physical reasons...he did not, and, he is the one that ended up leaving.

I just think it will be very rare that, aside of a marginal recruit (which does not mean that the kid is not capable of being good....even very good), you will see a kid redshirt and be there for a 5th year...Gillis made sense in part because of his injury, but, he showed signs of being able to play even...it was a combination likely of recovering, and, guys at his position (Boudreaux...maybe Haarms at times)...Newman will be interesting...heck, we were not even sure that he would be back this year, never mind another 2 years...Kaufman-Renn will be really interesting.

The other thing that I don't like is it creates or compounds the problem of class imbalance...Purdue had no graduating Senior a year ago, and, does not have one again this year....that is never a good model long-term.

I really think the class imbalance issue is not as big a deal moving forward. With the portal I think you can more easily go out and rectify any potential problems on a year to year basis.

 

[BoilerBF]

If you are gambling on guys, sure it makes sense...nothing to lose...but, if it was a solid plan with guys that can play, it would not be unique to Purdue, never mind as unique.

See Jay Wright and Bo Ryan. Wright recruits at a higher level than Purdue, and still redshirts players. Because it makes sense, for certain players based on circumstances of the particular year.

 

[BoilerBF]

Where did I say any player harmed the program by redshirting? I didn't.

I don't agree with redshirting talent. It very rarely, if ever, works out. And with the current transfer rules, you're rarely going to get 5th year. All you're doing is wasting valuable time that player could get in game time situations that can't be simulated in practice.

I guess we'll see how Furst has developed with real minutes vs TKR next year...

We couldn't play 11 or 12 players this year, and TKR & Waddell ended up getting hurt anyway. There was no harm done in redshirting them this year. And there's no reason to spend time worrying about whether they will play 5 years. You are trying to create drama, where literally none should exist. In real time as long as both players were open to it, redshirting made sense. TKR literally approached Painter about doing it. Painter was fine either way. TKR's uncle was a former college player and understood the benefits of redshirting.

 

[77 grad]

If it was not a waste, I think it stands to be one more likely now with the transfer portal...I would agree in that regard/on that point. Even if Gillis or Newman play a 5th year, there is no guarantee that it is at Purdue...the crazy ironic thing is that Isaiah was the guy most likely to redshirt for physical reasons...he did not, and, he is the one that ended up leaving.

I just think it will be very rare that, aside of a marginal recruit (which does not mean that the kid is not capable of being good....even very good), you will see a kid redshirt and be there for a 5th year...Gillis made sense in part because of his injury, but, he showed signs of being able to play even...it was a combination likely of recovering, and, guys at his position (Boudreaux...maybe Haarms at times)...Newman will be interesting...heck, we were not even sure that he would be back this year, never mind another 2 years...Kaufman-Renn will be really interesting.

The other thing that I don't like is it creates or compounds the problem of class imbalance...Purdue had no graduating Senior a year ago, and, does not have one again this year....that is never a good model long-term.

Except Tre, Hunter and Stefanovic, all of whom were seniors who I think will graduate. All three have Covid extra-year options they've announced they won't use, although Hunter seems to still be leaving that open.

If you mean next year, IT leaving means so far no seniors. A transfer might change that.

 

[DAG10]

We couldn't play 11 or 12 players this year, and TKR & Waddell ended up getting hurt anyway. There was no harm done in redshirting them this year. And there's no reason to spend time worrying about whether they will play 5 years. You are trying to create drama, where literally none should exist. In real time as long as both players were open to it, redshirting made sense. TKR literally approached Painter about doing it. Painter was fine either way. TKR's uncle was a former college player and understood the benefits of redshirting.

Purdue will never play 11 or 12 players...they could, if they wanted to or it somehow made sense, but, that has never happened and is a virtual certainty that it never will...thus, it is essentially irrelevant. I mean, it won't play 11 or 12 next year either, but, it will have at least 12 guys on scholarship, and, likely 13, all of whom are more than capable of playing...yet, I am hard pressed to believe that Loyer AND Smith redshirt (which gets you down still to 11 assuming there are 13 on scholarship), and, not like Colvin and Gibbs-Lawhorn are planning to redshirt....so, you might have 13 guys with no redshirts if that is the case.

It worked this year...not because it had to in any way, and, it may have helped Purdue long-term...it may have hurt Purdue short-term....certainly no way to know on the latter, and, time will tell on the former.

There is no drama...genuine or being created. It only made sense if they both play 4 years from now, and, it only made sense for Purdue if they are playing that 4th year at Purdue.

Whether Trey approached Painter or not, I am pretty confident that he did not go to Purdue, or commit to Purdue even, thinking that he would redshirt. Circumstances made it make some sense to consider it...his apparently wanting to do it led to it happening....who knows if it was ultimately beneficial or not, or will be?

The point remains...guys are not going just to Purdue to redshirt because Purdue has some plan in place that nobody else in major college basketball does, or, that it makes sense only at Purdue, or, works only at Purdue. And, in the case(s) of genuinely good players, it is going to be the exception rather than the rule that it happens.

 

[DAG10]

I really think the class imbalance issue is not as big a deal moving forward. With the portal I think you can more easily go out and rectify any potential problems on a year to year basis.

Perhaps...but, if Purdue adds Pack, it actually compounds the problem potentially if he stays for 2 years.

This year there are 6 freshman...that is essentially half a roster. If Purdue adds Pack, you have a class then of Newman, Gillis, Edey, Morton and Pack that all will be Seniors a year from now....all who will have another year of eligibility if they wish to use it.

Furst was the only freshman that played this year, so, you have another year coming up where you only have one Senior and one scholarship available as such...unless someone from above is back for a 5th year, or, if he somehow elected to play a 5th year.

We already know that there stands to be an issue a year from now...as it stands, there is one scholarship available and 2 guys coming in.

 

[DAG10]

Except Tre, Hunter and Stefanovic, all of whom were seniors who I think will graduate. All three have Covid extra-year options they've announced they won't use, although Hunter seems to still be leaving that open.

If you mean next year, IT leaving means so far no seniors. A transfer might change that.

Purdue has two guys coming in, and, as it stands...one scholarship available...so, if Purdue uses that scholarship still for this next year, it has to be for a senior with only a year of eligibility...and, even then, you still have an issue if the other goes to Pack (or anyone else that is not a senior with only a year of eligibility).

 

[northside100]

If you're going to disprove me, then please cite the 5th year players who had meaningful playing time in the last 5 to 7 years. But you won't because they're the exception and not the rule.

And my point stands that you're likely not going to see many 5th year seniors playing at the same school due to transfers.

You are literally making yourself look like you are incapable of understanding the difference between redshirting a Mason, Newman and TKR and redshirting

I can’t speak to your motive, maybe you think it makes you look smart to uninformed fans? Your argument that is just silly to anyone who follows the program closely.

If it was not a waste, I think it stands to be one more likely now with the transfer portal...I would agree in that regard/on that point. Even if Gillis or Newman play a 5th year, there is no guarantee that it is at Purdue...the crazy ironic thing is that Isaiah was the guy most likely to redshirt for physical reasons...he did not, and, he is the one that ended up leaving.

I just think it will be very rare that, aside of a marginal recruit (which does not mean that the kid is not capable of being good....even very good), you will see a kid redshirt and be there for a 5th year...Gillis made sense in part because of his injury, but, he showed signs of being able to play even...it was a combination likely of recovering, and, guys at his position (Boudreaux...maybe Haarms at times)...Newman will be interesting...heck, we were not even sure that he would be back this year, never mind another 2 years...Kaufman-Renn will be really interesting.

The other thing that I don't like is it creates or compounds the problem of class imbalance...Purdue had no graduating Senior a year ago, and, does not have one again this year....that is never a good model long-term.

I understand your point. You are correct, there are no guarantees. I would reiterate the point already made here, that whether it makes sense really depends upon the individual situation. I'd argue that the developmental type players that Painter often recruits and the way that he recruits them, promising an opportunity to get better and win a lot of games versus a promise of early playing time, better positions Purdue to effectively continue to use redshirts, but you're right, we really don't know.

I think what gets lost in these discussions is the real value of options, i.e. that there is value in the potential of a player staying for a fifth year, even if they don't end up playing that fifth year at Purdue.

Link - economic definition of option value

 

[BoilerBF]

Purdue will never play 11 or 12 players...they could, if they wanted to or it somehow made sense, but, that has never happened and is a virtual certainty that it never will...thus, it is essentially irrelevant. I mean, it won't play 11 or 12 next year either, but, it will have at least 12 guys on scholarship, and, likely 13, all of whom are more than capable of playing...yet, I am hard pressed to believe that Loyer AND Smith redshirt (which gets you down still to 11 assuming there are 13 on scholarship), and, not like Colvin and Gibbs-Lawhorn are planning to redshirt....so, you might have 13 guys with no redshirts if that is the case.

It worked this year...not because it had to in any way, and, it may have helped Purdue long-term...it may have hurt Purdue short-term....certainly no way to know on the latter, and, time will tell on the former.

There is no drama...genuine or being created. It only made sense if they both play 4 years from now, and, it only made sense for Purdue if they are playing that 4th year at Purdue.

Whether Trey approached Painter or not, I am pretty confident that he did not go to Purdue, or commit to Purdue even, thinking that he would redshirt. Circumstances made it make some sense to consider it...his apparently wanting to do it led to it happening....who knows if it was ultimately beneficial or not, or will be?

The point remains...guys are not going just to Purdue to redshirt because Purdue has some plan in place that nobody else in major college basketball does, or, that it makes sense only at Purdue, or, works only at Purdue. And, in the case(s) of genuinely good players, it is going to be the exception rather than the rule that it happens.

Did you notice anything in common for the two teams that won the big ten this year? Now in these cases it was covid year being used. But same concept applies.

There are four options with redshirts that aren't going to get much playing time as freshman:

1) they don't develop into players that are needed at Purdue. Everytime this has happened, they have transferred out, thus not occupying a needed scholarship. (Weatherford, Smotherman)
2) they develop into big minute players (Sasha, and Cline if he would've redshirted).
3) they played minutes over the years, but see a diminishing role as a 5th year player, so transfer. (Wheeler)
4) develop and leave for NBA before 5 years (hasn't happened yet).


There is no downside to redshirting in any of those 4 scenarios. The only downside in redshirting is if they would've made a significant difference as a true freshman.

Yet so much angst on the message boards, every single time a player redshirts at Purdue. The angst literally makes no sense.

 

[POTFHBTFU]

Purdue has two guys coming in, and, as it stands...one scholarship available...so, if Purdue uses that scholarship still for this next year, it has to be for a senior with only a year of eligibility...and, even then, you still have an issue if the other goes to Pack (or anyone else that is not a senior with only a year of eligibility).

In the transfer portal world there will be attrition. No way does pack and Edey both stay AND no one transfers out. I think a second guard ideally would be here for one year or next year we will be very heavy at guard.

 

[purduepat1969]

You are literally making yourself look like you are incapable of understanding the difference between redshirting a Mason, Newman and TKR and redshirting

I can’t speak to your motive, maybe you think it makes you look smart to uninformed fans? Your argument that is just silly to anyone who follows the program closely.

I understand your point. You are correct, there are no guarantees. I would reiterate the point already made here, that whether it makes sense really depends upon the individual situation. I'd argue that the developmental type players that Painter often recruits and the way that he recruits them, promising an opportunity to get better and win a lot of games versus a promise of early playing time, better positions Purdue to effectively continue to use redshirts, but you're right, we really don't know.

I think what gets lost in these discussions is the real value of options, i.e. that there is value in the potential of a player staying for a fifth year, even if they don't end up playing that fifth year at Purdue.

Link - economic definition of option value

And again, you call me silly and can't provide evidence of redshirts staying 5 years that isn't an exception. What you clearly don't get is that there won't be any benefit whatsoever for a program to think they're going to develop marginal players over 5 years as their strategy to "get old and stay old", which was the point of my post in the first place.

That strategy ain't gonna work with the transfer portal...

 

[northside100]

And again, you call me silly and can't provide evidence of redshirts staying 5 years that isn't an exception. What you clearly don't get is that there won't be any benefit whatsoever for a program to think they're going to develop marginal players over 5 years as their strategy to "get old and stay old", which was the point of my post in the first

I’m not calling you silly or anything else, you’re making yourself look unable to understand an issue unless it’s in very simplistic terms (which I don't think is true btw, I've seen you make very intelligent comments in other areas).

Who do you think should not have redshirted? What are the comparable examples of previous players who have redshirted that you’d compare them to? It would be silly for me to list examples that are not comparable because they have no bearing on the conversation.

 

[purduepat1969]

I’m not calling you silly or anything else, you’re making yourself look unable to understand an issue unless it’s in very simplistic terms (which I don't think is true btw, I've seen you make very intelligent comments in other areas).

Who do you think should not have redshirted? What are the comparable examples of previous players who have redshirted that you’d compare them to? It would be silly for me to list examples that are not comparable because they have no bearing on the conversation.

Again, I understand Gillis was injured his senior year. I get that TKR was recovering from a hand issue, although I think he would have added some value this year from a shooting perspective.

We'll forget about previous redshirt scenarios. What I'm trying to say is that the strategy of "get old and stay old" is not going to work moving forward with the transfer policy the way it is. So unless there's some exceptional individual circumstances that would warrant a redshirt, I wouldn't use it as a means to hold over a player for a year to fill gaps for the next 4 years, because you can't count on anyone staying for 5 years anymore...

 

[Indy_Rider]

Again, I understand Gillis was injured his senior year. I get that TKR was recovering from a hand issue, although I think he would have added some value this year from a shooting perspective.

We'll forget about previous redshirt scenarios. What I'm trying to say is that the strategy of "get old and stay old" is not going to work moving forward with the transfer policy the way it is. So unless there's some exceptional individual circumstances that would warrant a redshirt, I wouldn't use it as a means to hold over a player for a year to fill gaps for the next 4 years, because you can't count on anyone staying for 5 years anymore...

With TKR I think it was a combo of injury and he was basically sold on the idea of being a 3/4 at Purdue. So time to recover and develop into basically a new position for him.

I think people are over looking the position change with TKR and giving him a year to focus and develop skills to be able to play at the 3. I'm excited to see what we have in him next year.

 

[northside100]

Again, I understand Gillis was injured his senior year. I get that TKR was recovering from a hand issue, although I think he would have added some value this year from a shooting perspective.

We'll forget about previous redshirt scenarios. What I'm trying to say is that the strategy of "get old and stay old" is not going to work moving forward with the transfer policy the way it is. So unless there's some exceptional individual circumstances that would warrant a redshirt, I wouldn't use it as a means to hold over a player for a year to fill gaps for the next 4 years, because you can't count on anyone staying for 5 years anymore...

I understand your point and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I mentioned earlier that I think it's possible that Painter's recruiting style, which almost certainly has cost him high end recruits at times, better positions Purdue to keep players who are not playing as much as they'd like their first couple of years, i.e. an Ethan Moron or a Brandon Newman. The recruiting focus is on working hard to become the best player you can and winning as a team, versus individual PT or accolades. That's just a hopeful theory, it's certainly possible that we start seeing first and second year players starting to transfer out a high rate.

 

[MLB007]

I really think the class imbalance issue is not as big a deal moving forward. With the portal I think you can more easily go out and rectify any potential problems on a year to year basis.

Talent wise maybe. But now your "team leader" (typically) as a senior is also a new guy. Far from the ideal I think.

 

[MLB007]

I understand your point and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I mentioned earlier that I think it's possible that Painter's recruiting style, which almost certainly has cost him high end recruits at times, better positions Purdue to keep players who are not playing as much as they'd like their first couple of years, i.e. an Ethan Moron or a Brandon Newman. The recruiting focus is on working hard to become the best player you can and winning as a team, versus individual PT or accolades. That's just a hopeful theory, it's certainly possible that we start seeing first and second year players starting to transfer out a high rate.

That's not theory. He's said it many times in the press and reported as told to players/recruits. It IS who he is and of course it helps that he's been telling Ethan and Brandon and Everyone Else that they'll earn their own minutes from their first recruiting visit. Both guys seem ready to make that happen.

 

[northside100]

That's not theory. He's said it many times in the press and reported as told to players/recruits. It IS who he is and of course it helps that he's been telling Ethan and Brandon and Everyone Else that they'll earn their own minutes from their first recruiting visit. Both guys seem ready to make that happen.

Sorry, my writing clarity skills have been lacking this week. What I'd meant to articulate is that Ethan and Brandon are the example of how it works well and that the theory / hope would be that it works that way for future players.

 

[Aamesker]

Talent wise maybe. But now your "team leader" (typically) as a senior is also a new guy. Far from the ideal I think.

I disagree that your team leader is going to be the guy you just picked up as a senior transfer. A good group of juniors (like the 2016-17 team) can and probably will be the team leaders

 

[purduepat1969]

I understand your point and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I mentioned earlier that I think it's possible that Painter's recruiting style, which almost certainly has cost him high end recruits at times, better positions Purdue to keep players who are not playing as much as they'd like their first couple of years, i.e. an Ethan Moron or a Brandon Newman. The recruiting focus is on working hard to become the best player you can and winning as a team, versus individual PT or accolades. That's just a hopeful theory, it's certainly possible that we start seeing first and second year players starting to transfer out a high rate.

I don't see this team getting to a Final Four or Championship by this strategy alone, from a personnel perspective. Painter's going to need higher level talent like Ivey in bigger doses to get them there. Painter's done an admirable job coaching up low 3 star players like Sasha, to some extent. But even Sasha was an Achilles heel on this year's team when he went into a shooting slump.

 

[Aamesker]

I don't see this team getting to a Final Four or Championship by this strategy alone, from a personnel perspective. Painter's going to need higher level talent like Ivey in bigger doses to get them there. Painter's done an admirable job coaching up low 3 star players like Sasha, to some extent. But even Sasha was an Achilles heel on this year's team when he went into a shooting slump.

Like the '23 recruiting class? There's been more attention to these hyper athletes, just need to start securing them from outside the typical Purdue recruiting area

 

[purduepat1969]

Like the '23 recruiting class? There's been more attention to these hyper athletes, just need to start securing them from outside the typical Purdue recruiting area

Yep, exactly...

 

[arcb102000]

The transfer portal has essentially made players free agents. The question then becomes does a team of free agents make it to National Championship or at least a Final Four? It can well be argued that it does. Duke is a team that has recruited a number of "One and Dones" in recent years and made the FF this year. O&Ds are essentially collegiate free agents. Baylor was similar but did not make it. Kentucky as well has had a history of collegiate free agents and has not won an NC in a few years. UNC and Kansas are recognized cheaters so I question how they can be viewed as anything but in pursuing their goals. Villanova has run an excellent program with superior coaching; how they will react going forward will be interesting to see.

As for Purdue and Painter: Painter has been recognized as a good coach who can do better than his recruiting number indicate. He has been able to step up recruiting in the past few years, probably helped by that reputation. He is also known as an excellent identifier of talent early on so his recruiting is watched and often poached. My guess is that with the changing of the coaching guard in the near future, Painter will get recruits previously lost to MSU and I do not believe Howard will have success at Michigan in the coming years. As for Woodson at IU - his NBA style is unlikely to see success at IU as their fans define and demand it. I see Illinois as the main competitor to Purdue going forward.

 

[Aamesker]

The question then becomes does a team of free agents make it to National Championship or at least a Final Four?

Baylor and Arkansas have been heavily transfer dependent the last two seasons and have made it fairly far

 

[arcb102000]

Baylor got to the S16 this year as did Purdue. Arkansas has made it to consecutive E8s. Those are far. I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that the 2021 NC Baylor team had the bulk of its players around a bit.

There is not enough of a sample size under the new portal rules to really see if relying upon free agents gets you a NC. It can make you a ranked team for sure, but many teams have done that without going free agent.

 

[BoilerAndy]

That's Painter logic. He's gotta get out of the logic of those that practice well and know the "system" play. The "system" failed the team this year because Painter didn't adjust it to account for the team he had. This is no longer a game where deserving players get the playing time. Bob Knight wouldn't make it anymore. If you don't get talent on the floor immediately and develop them in the line of fire, you might as well just step away from the game..

This is the argument that people made to say Painter was wrong to not play Wheeler over Grady.

 

[BoilerAndy]

And thus why you don't redshirt any longer. If they develop quicker than expected, you give them playing time and they stay. If not, you've likely lost them anyway...

If they develop quickly, pull the redshirt. If you give them a redshirt and they don't develop, you're likely to lose them? Doesn't that make sense for the player and the team? I'm not seeing the downside of redshirting.

 

[purduepat1969]

This is the argument that people made to say Painter was wrong to not play Wheeler over Grady.

Yeah, sorry. Grady was a solid player and deserved to be playing over Wheeler. But if, as a Top 25 team we're relying on major playing time from a Grady type of player, don't expect a FF or Championship anytime soon. This dumb mentality about playing hard work from marginal players over talent is just that, dumb. I'm not suggesting did that in this particular case, as Wheeler was a miss by Painter and he didn't have a recruiting or transfer backup plan. And now you see why we have Gillis, Furst, and TKR (aka, we're loaded at the four).

 

[purduepat1969]

If they develop quickly, pull the redshirt. If you give them a redshirt and they don't develop, you're likely to lose them? Doesn't that make sense for the player and the team? I'm not seeing the downside of redshirting.

You're limited in the number of games you can play and still redshirt, right? So how do you know if someone develops if they aren't playing in games. And please don't use the stupid "practice" reasoning...

 

[Aamesker]

You're limited in the number of games you can play and still redshirt, right? So how do you know if someone develops if they aren't playing in games. And please don't use the stupid "practice" reasoning...

You can't play and keep the redshirt. A massive injury crisis is really the only reason you'd pull the redshirt off a player.

 

[arcb102000]

You can't play and keep the redshirt. A massive injury crisis is really the only reason you'd pull the redshirt off a player.

In fairness, the Covid year did give essentially a redshirt but allow unlimited game playing. So you could play someone often to see how they really developed.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

You're limited in the number of games you can play and still redshirt, right? So how do you know if someone develops if they aren't playing in games. And please don't use the stupid "practice" reasoning...

Extremely limited - zero.

NCAA basketball doesn't have the same rule as football. Only way you'd get a year of eligibility back is through an injury (and the school's application for a medical hardship waiver and there are limitations for qualifying for that).....oh......and if there was another free COVID year in the future I suppose.

 

[BoilerAndy]

You're limited in the number of games you can play and still redshirt, right? So how do you know if someone develops if they aren't playing in games. And please don't use the stupid "practice" reasoning...

Agan, this is exactly what people were saying about Grady vs. Wheeler. Painter sees these guys for hours every single day. Fans see a guy on the bench and know for a fact he's better than the guy playing. And they think Painter is stupid for not seeing what they see.

 

[purduepat1969]

Agan, this is exactly what people were saying about Grady vs. Wheeler. Painter sees these guys for hours every single day. Fans see a guy on the bench and know for a fact he's better than the guy playing. And they think Painter is stupid for not seeing what they see.

How did that work with Sasha and IT in the back half of the season? But goodness, they were "practicing" so well...

Practice isn't the same as playing in real games, period...

 

[collegehoopsfan123]

Yeah, sorry. Grady was a solid player and deserved to be playing over Wheeler. But if, as a Top 25 team we're relying on major playing time from a Grady type of player, don't expect a FF or Championship anytime soon. This dumb mentality about playing hard work from marginal players over talent is just that, dumb. I'm not suggesting did that in this particular case, as Wheeler was a miss by Painter and he didn't have a recruiting or transfer backup plan. And now you see why we have Gillis, Furst, and TKR (aka, we're loaded at the four).

Wish Gillis could play the 3. He has the height of a 3. Mike Robinson did so, is Gillis quick enough?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Wish Gillis could play the 3. He has the height of a 3. Mike Robinson did so, is Gillis quick enough?

No. Need more of a shot creator at the 3 ideally anyway.

 

[MLB007]

I disagree that your team leader is going to be the guy you just picked up as a senior transfer. A good group of juniors (like the 2016-17 team) can and probably will be the team leaders

see "typically"

 

[MLB007]

Wish Gillis could play the 3. He has the height of a 3. Mike Robinson did so, is Gillis quick enough?

Probably not. he's our strongest guy lb for lb I reckon. Seldom do big strong guys have lots of fast twitch muscle.
Enjoy him for what he brings.

 

[3ZSDAD]

The 3 is for TKR, Heide, Waddell and Morton. Morton unfortunately as I would rather see him at the point.