Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC:

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351683

  • Logen
  • Logen's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3445
  • Thank you received: 1855

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


I wouldn’t see why we would wait for him either. However, I am not in the we are “desperate for a PG” camp though. Reality is we have not had a true PG in quite a long time. I would like to get one besides McGriff but I believe we have other options to initiate offense. We have enough ball handlers to handle presses. I acknowledge many disagree.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Fred Solomon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351685

  • Chicago Days
  • Chicago Days's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5337
  • Thank you received: 3126

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


That's the thing.
It looked like a perfect match between a team in desperate need of a seasoned PG and an experienced mid-major PG with less-than-stellar stats in search of the ideal stage to cap his career: starting PG for a storied high-major program in NYC.
Why didn't it happen?
Either one or the other or both said 'still looking' and/or other roster configurations are in play.
We shall see.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351686

  • Tommy O 54
  • Tommy O 54's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Thank you received: 300
Lets hope they think they have a real shot with Glover and are waiting for an answer.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351687

  • Chicago Days
  • Chicago Days's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5337
  • Thank you received: 3126

Logen wrote:

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


I wouldn’t see why we would wait for him either. However, I am not in the we are “desperate for a PG” camp though. Reality is we have not had a true PG in quite a long time. I would like to get one besides McGriff but I believe we have other options to initiate offense. We have enough ball handlers to handle presses. I acknowledge many disagree.


That's exactly what I mean by other 'roster assignments/configurations'.
It's at least possible that while the Staff acknowledges it must 'cover' the PG spot, they may eye both Glover and Johnson as the best realistic recruiting options available at this point, and believe that between McGriff/Williams/Heron/Glover/Figueroa--they have a good mix of good -to-adequate ball handlers to work their offense.
Dunno, but interesting variables may be in the mix.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Tommy O 54

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Chicago Days.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351688

  • Chicago Days
  • Chicago Days's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5337
  • Thank you received: 3126

Chicago Days wrote:

Logen wrote:

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


I wouldn’t see why we would wait for him either. However, I am not in the we are “desperate for a PG” camp though. Reality is we have not had a true PG in quite a long time. I would like to get one besides McGriff but I believe we have other options to initiate offense. We have enough ball handlers to handle presses. I acknowledge many disagree.


That's exactly what I mean by other 'roster assignments/configurations'.
It's at least possible that while the Staff acknowledges it must 'cover' the PG spot, they may eye both Glover and Johnson as the best realistic recruiting options available at this point, and believe that between McGriff/Williams/Heron/Glover/Figueroa--they have a good mix of good -to-adequate ball handlers to work their offense.
Dunno, but interesting variables may be in the mix.


And, to add, Glover looks like he's a good ball handler, in addition to his scintillating athleticism.
If a guy like that is available this late , you grab him.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Tommy O 54

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351689

  • NCJohnnie
  • NCJohnnie's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4112
  • Thank you received: 4799
I love the staff Coach Anderson has assembled and am really pretty confident that they will fill out the roster with the right guys based on (i) who is available to them and (ii) who is the best fit in terms of what they want to do on the court this year and down the road. I do think we could use another point guard/ball handler, especially to handle presses, but there are several kids I haven't seen play a game yet. Pretty sure we'll be fun to watch and show steady improvement over time.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Paultzman, IDRAFT, Andrew, Tommy O 54

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351692

  • Paultzman
  • Paultzman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 26962
  • Thank you received: 19555

NCJohnnie wrote: I love the staff Coach Anderson has assembled and am really pretty confident that they will fill out the roster with the right guys based on (i) who is available to them and (ii) who is the best fit in terms of what they want to do on the court this year and down the road. I do think we could use another point guard/ball handler, especially to handle presses, but there are several kids I haven't seen play a game yet. Pretty sure we'll be fun to watch and show steady improvement over time.

Very sensible, grounded post v conspiracy theories. Lol
The following user(s) said Thank You: NCJohnnie

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351694

  • Logen
  • Logen's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3445
  • Thank you received: 1855

Chicago Days wrote:

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


That's the thing.
It looked like a perfect match between a team in desperate need of a seasoned PG and an experienced mid-major PG with less-than-stellar stats in search of the ideal stage to cap his career: starting PG for a storied high-major program in NYC.
Why didn't it happen?
Either one or the other or both said 'still looking' and/or other roster configurations are in play.
We shall see.


The key phrase being “looked like”. As I said, I don’t think we are desperate and your description of Rutherford’s “search” criteria is 100% conjecture from your perspective as a fan. Maybe his wants for his last year are something completely different. As for his stats, we don’t know what his role was, what the coaches expectations of him were. Maybe he performed to that role perfectly. Maybe he had the discipline to not look for his own because that’s what the coaches asked him to do. For whatever reason, he is not publicly committed and so be it. I personally don’t really care why unless there is an extraordinary reason that reveals a “systemic” flaw in our staff.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351695

  • Chicago Days
  • Chicago Days's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5337
  • Thank you received: 3126

Logen wrote:

Chicago Days wrote:

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


That's the thing.
It looked like a perfect match between a team in desperate need of a seasoned PG and an experienced mid-major PG with less-than-stellar stats in search of the ideal stage to cap his career: starting PG for a storied high-major program in NYC.
Why didn't it happen?
Either one or the other or both said 'still looking' and/or other roster configurations are in play.
We shall see.


The key phrase being “looked like”. As I said, I don’t think we are desperate and your description of Rutherford’s “search” criteria is 100% conjecture from your perspective as a fan. Maybe his wants for his last year are something completely different. As for his stats, we don’t know what his role was, what the coaches expectations of him were. Maybe he performed to that role perfectly. Maybe he had the discipline to not look for his own because that’s what the coaches asked him to do. For whatever reason, he is not publicly committed and so be it. I personally don’t really care why unless there is an extraordinary reason that reveals a “systemic” flaw in our staff.


Funny. If my 'scenario' is "100% conjecture", so is yours man. Lol.
But, I'm not arguing. Your 'conjecture' may be correct. Who knows?
But, to be clear, I trust this Staff implicitly.
We haven't had a Staff like this in ages, if ever.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

2019 Transfers 1 year 1 month ago #351696

  • Logen
  • Logen's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3445
  • Thank you received: 1855

Chicago Days wrote:

Logen wrote:

Chicago Days wrote:

L J S A wrote:

Logen wrote: Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”


I don't think a team desperate for a PG waits for him, so if he wants to be here, he'd better commit before they move on to next option. This is for course assuming the staff still wants him after his visit.


That's the thing.
It looked like a perfect match between a team in desperate need of a seasoned PG and an experienced mid-major PG with less-than-stellar stats in search of the ideal stage to cap his career: starting PG for a storied high-major program in NYC.
Why didn't it happen?
Either one or the other or both said 'still looking' and/or other roster configurations are in play.
We shall see.


The key phrase being “looked like”. As I said, I don’t think we are desperate and your description of Rutherford’s “search” criteria is 100% conjecture from your perspective as a fan. Maybe his wants for his last year are something completely different. As for his stats, we don’t know what his role was, what the coaches expectations of him were. Maybe he performed to that role perfectly. Maybe he had the discipline to not look for his own because that’s what the coaches asked him to do. For whatever reason, he is not publicly committed and so be it. I personally don’t really care why unless there is an extraordinary reason that reveals a “systemic” flaw in our staff.


Funny. If my 'scenario' is "100% conjecture", so is yours man. Lol.
But, I'm not arguing. Your 'conjecture' may be correct. Who knows?
But, to be clear, I trust this Staff implicitly.
We haven't had a Staff like this in ages, if ever.


Of course my possibilities would be considered conjecture if I meant them as anything but examples. That is why I don’t play that game because I could give you a million other “conjectures” which would be just as pointless. The reality is the only people who know what happened and why is Rutherford and Anderson and their respective “teams.”
The following user(s) said Thank You: Paultzman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Logen.
Moderators: mkras99SJUFAN2espkengmanlawmanfankranmarsOhioFanotisredmannorthKnight