All Things 2019 Gophers Basketball Recruiting Thread - Tweets, Links, Video, Analysis

Donate To GopherHole
die hard gopher said:
If Amir doesn't come back then ideally i'd rather take a solid grad transfer guard. We need all the immediate contributors we can get if we want to have any shot at making the tournament without Amir.

And if Amir does come back i'd also rather take a grad transfer guard because we would have 6 guys who can play the 3 if Amir is back and only one true PG on the roster. Willis and Coffey can give some minutes as the backup point but ideally, i'd prefer a grad transfer as the primary backup point and potential 6th man.

I'd be fine with taking Brown as a consolation prize, he is a solid recruit, especially at this time of year but a solid grad transfer guard is still my #1 preference.
Click to expand...

I don’t see a grad transfer point guard coming in. It’s unlikely, based on who is out there, that they would get any time at point ahead of the three you listed (Carr, Willis, Coffey), unless Coffey doesn’t return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NWMetroGopherFan said:
RJ is saying over on GI that Brown is most likely headed to Missouri. I personally would be surprised if Amir doesn't return for his senior season.
Click to expand...

Can't blame him. With his Texas A&M pick, he probably wanted to be close to him. And Missouri has playing time to offer. Its going to be competitive to get clock here right away.
 

leib0039 said:
Anyone think Brown is dependent on Amir? If Amir leaves we take him but if Amir announced he was coming back we pull the offer type thing or no?
Click to expand...

I wonder if it is the other way around -- he is looking for playing time, and would be more likely to come here if Amir is gone, and is not coming here if Amir returns.

I remember some talk about how we were selling him on the "tall PG" role Amir played.
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
I don’t see a grad transfer point guard coming in. It’s unlikely, based on who is out there, that they would get any time at point ahead of the three you listed (Carr, Willis, Coffey), unless Coffey doesn’t return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Willis is not a PG.
 

Brown tweeted he will be announcing his choice this upcoming Tuesday at 230pm. Sounds like Mizzou is the heavy favorite. Won't be too disappointed if he does not select the Gophers - has nice size for a wing but appears to have limited athleticism and shooting. Would be more of a depth guy on Pitino's current roster imo.
 


A nonymous said:
Brown tweeted he will be announcing his choice this upcoming Tuesday at 230pm. Sounds like Mizzou is the heavy favorite. Won't be too disappointed if he does not select the Gophers - has nice size for a wing but appears to have limited athleticism and shooting. Would be more of a depth guy on Pitino's current roster imo.
Click to expand...

His videos show great handles, passing and decent shooting form. He looks pretty athletic to me for 6-7. Perhaps not a high riser but decent hops.
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
I don’t see a grad transfer point guard coming in. It’s unlikely, based on who is out there, that they would get any time at point ahead of the three you listed (Carr, Willis, Coffey), unless Coffey doesn’t return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Otis said:
Willis is not a PG.
Click to expand...
We have to stop thinking of positions as set in one area. With the change in offensive philosophy the need for a true point guard is falling away. What is required is the ability to drive and pass back out. Passing and shooting are of greater value than pure dribbling skills.
Now, if you find a person who can dribble, pass and shoot, you likely have an all conference player on your hands. Are there any grad transfers like that in the portal?
 

MennoSota said:
We have to stop thinking of positions as set in one area. With the change in offensive philosophy the need for a true point guard is falling away. What is required is the ability to drive and pass back out. Passing and shooting are of greater value than pure dribbling skills.
Now, if you find a person who can dribble, pass and shoot, you likely have an all conference player on your hands. Are there any grad transfers like that in the portal?
Click to expand...

We need to have at least one player on the court at all times who is capable of running the offense and being the primary ball handler. It's just easier to call those players point guards. Not sure why some people have issues with that. Referring to a player as a point guard does not mean that other players on the floor aren't allowed to handle the ball or initiate the offense.

I've never seen Willis play, but if he's a catch and shoot guy who struggles as a primary ball handler, then saying he is not a PG is accurate.

It's like the cool new thing to "correct" people when they use logical labels for certain types of players.
 
Last edited:

Keyser Söze said:
We need to have at least one player on the court at all times who is capable of running the offense and being the primary ball handler. It's just easier to call those players point guards. Not sure why some people have issues with that. Referring to a player as a point guard does not mean that other players on the floor aren't allowed to handle the ball or initiate the offense.

I've never seen Willis play, but if he's a catch and shoot guy who struggles as a primary ball handler, then saying he is not a PG is accurate.

It's like the cool new thing to "correct" people when they use logical labels for certain types of players.
Click to expand...

This
 



MinnGopher said:
This
Click to expand...

Yep, this x 2.

It's kind of like the analytics crowd.

I'm fine with people who living & dying with analytics is their thing, but don't force it down my throat. If I want to call a guy that's primarily a ball-handler a PG (think Arriel McDonald), I'm going to do it. Ditto if I want to call a guard that's more of a shooter (think Blake Hoffarber) a SG, or a guy that's a nice combination of both (think Bobby Jackson) a combo guard.
 

Keyser Söze said:
We need to have at least one player on the court at all times who is capable of running the offense and being the primary ball handler. It's just easier to call those players point guards. Not sure why some people have issues with that. Referring to a player as a point guard does not mean that other players on the floor aren't allowed to handle the ball or initiate the offense.

I've never seen Willis play, but if he's a catch and shoot guy who struggles as a primary ball handler, then saying he is not a PG is accurate.

It's like the cool new thing to "correct" people when they use logical labels for certain types of players.
Click to expand...

Its not's just the "cool" thing, its the way coaches are looking at and evaluating the game. You are totally right that it's fine to use some logical labels. My issue lies when some (not saying you specifically as I don't always think you fit this) can't understand the fact or see that the logical labels aren't always the same as they once were. The lack of stationary offenses and development of transition and motion offenses has made the "point guard" position significantly different. Teams don't run tons of sets anymore, they run actions that are read based and everyone needs to be aware. So people saying Willis or Williams are not "point guards" really can't be sure because it can depend on the tempo, style of offense, and team needs that dictate that position.
 

Keyser Söze said:
We need to have at least one player on the court at all times who is capable of running the offense and being the primary ball handler. It's just easier to call those players point guards. Not sure why some people have issues with that. Referring to a player as a point guard does not mean that other players on the floor aren't allowed to handle the ball or initiate the offense.

I've never seen Willis play, but if he's a catch and shoot guy who struggles as a primary ball handler, then saying he is not a PG is accurate.

It's like the cool new thing to "correct" people when they use logical labels for certain types of players.
Click to expand...

It’s not the cool new thing, it’s been around for awhile that many teams have multiple ball handlers on the floor rather than a primary. When you don’t have multiple who can do that, you may resort to one. When Gophers were most successful the last part of the year they were fluid between Amir and Dupree in handling the ball. It’s a preference that Pitino has stated in the past...

That said, many teams still have a preference for a point guard, but few have the traditional 2,3,4,5 positions anymore. Instead, most teams now prefer players that guard multiple positions and play on the perimeter. I think it’s funny people still get so hung up on having a SF, PF, C.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
It’s not the cool new thing, it’s been around for awhile that many teams have multiple ball handlers on the floor rather than a primary. When you don’t have multiple who can do that, you may resort to one. When Gophers were most successful the last part of the year they were fluid between Amir and Dupree in handling the ball. It’s a preference that Pitino has stated in the past...

That said, many teams still have a preference for a point guard, but few have the traditional 2,3,4,5 positions anymore. Instead, most teams now prefer players that guard multiple positions and play on the perimeter. I think it’s funny people still get so hung up on having a SF, PF, C.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Calling someone a point guard does not mean other players on the floor aren't ball handlers too. Calling someone a point guard or combo guard or whatever they are is just a succinct, easy way to generalize what they bring to the table and who they can guard. You can play with multiple point guards if you want to, as long as they can guard someone.

Calling someone a SF, PF, or C doesn't mean you think they need to have a specific skill set. You can't throw out 5 guys who are 6'0". You would get destroyed. You need someone who can defend the other team's biggest player. This person is the center. You also need someone to defend the other team's second biggest player. He is the PF. Their style of play offensively can vary, but they need to be able to guard someone, and it's easier to communicate these things by giving players labels. No one thinks a SF, PF or C is required to do super specific things based on their position like you seem to be implying. The people who always "correct" people for labeling players are arguing with points that literally no one is making. I think we would all love players to be versatile offensively and are aware that one PF can have an entirely different style of play than another PF. One thing they will have in common though is who they can guard.
 
Last edited:



Keyser Söze said:
Calling someone a point guard does not mean other players on the floor aren't ball handlers too. Calling someone a point guard or combo guard or whatever they are is just a succinct, easy way to generalize what they bring to the table. You can play with multiple point guards if you want to.

Calling someone a SF, PF, or C doesn't mean you think they need to have a specific skill set. You can't throw out 5 guys who are 6'0". You would get destroyed. You need someone who can defend the other team's biggest player. This person is the center. You also need someone to defend the other team's second biggest player. He is the PF. Their style of play offensively can vary, but they need to be able to guard someone, and it's easier to communicate these things by giving players labels. No one thinks a player is required to do super specific things based on their position. People like you are arguing with points that literally no one is making.
Click to expand...

This part is more or less you, many others I feel do not understand or appreciate this concept however the flaw is that short people have to be guards. Example would be Ben Simmons or LeBron. Both are primary ball handlers, neither guard the other primary ball handler. Other examples would Cameron Johnson from UNC being the second tallest or tallest guy on UNC's lineup but he guarded wings. Most teams look for 4 guys at least who are comfortable out on the perimeter and have one who'd be "post", that also applies defensively will all the switching that happens now too.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Yep, this x 2.

It's kind of like the analytics crowd.

I'm fine with people who living & dying with analytics is their thing, but don't force it down my throat. If I want to call a guy that's primarily a ball-handler a PG (think Arriel McDonald), I'm going to do it. Ditto if I want to call a guard that's more of a shooter (think Blake Hoffarber) a SG, or a guy that's a nice combination of both (think Bobby Jackson) a combo guard.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Not sure why some people are bothered by that.
 

manderson1984 said:
This part is more or less you, many others I feel do not understand or appreciate this concept however the flaw is that short people have to be guards. Example would be Ben Simmons or LeBron. Both are primary ball handlers, neither guard the other primary ball handler. Other examples would Cameron Johnson from UNC being the second tallest or tallest guy on UNC's lineup but he guarded wings. Most teams look for 4 guys at least who are comfortable out on the perimeter and have one who'd be "post", that also applies defensively will all the switching that happens now too.
Click to expand...

Part of that is true but the reciprocal is not. While a 6'8" player may be your primary ball handler (though the exception and not the rule), a 6'0" player cannot be your center or power forward. Thus, that person is a guard. Personally, I still like a quick, great dribbling guard that can break pressure and break down a defense and distribute. I call that a point guard. There are less than 20 kids in the country taller than 6'5" that can do that, in my opinion.
 

TNGophfan said:
Part of that is true but the reciprocal is not. While a 6'8" player may be your primary ball handler (though the exception and not the rule), a 6'0" player cannot be your center or power forward. Thus, that person is a guard. Personally, I still like a quick, great dribbling guard that can break pressure and break down a defense and distribute. I call that a point guard. There are less than 20 kids in the country taller than 6'5" that can do that, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're a lottery pick if you do that efficiently, so yes you're right there. I also don't disagree with the the idea that height may be a limitation and sure you can't play five 6'0 guys out there at the same time. You could play five 6'6-6'7 guys truly if you wanted too though. My main point that I get frustrated with is when we people say we are lacking depth a 1, 2, 3, or even a 4. I think you just say we need more wing depth. Same with "4's/5's" as those are just front court guys. All successful teams need multiple ball handlers and we should get so caught up in a "position" in my opinion.
 

There has to be a mom joke in there somewhere with all of the talk about different positions.
 



manderson1984 said:
You're a lottery pick if you do that efficiently, so yes you're right there. I also don't disagree with the the idea that height may be a limitation and sure you can't play five 6'0 guys out there at the same time. You could play five 6'6-6'7 guys truly if you wanted too though. My main point that I get frustrated with is when we people say we are lacking depth a 1, 2, 3, or even a 4. I think you just say we need more wing depth. Same with "4's/5's" as those are just front court guys. All successful teams need multiple ball handlers and we should get so caught up in a "position" in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Keyser Söze said:
We need to have at least one player on the court at all times who is capable of running the offense and being the primary ball handler. It's just easier to call those players point guards. Not sure why some people have issues with that. Referring to a player as a point guard does not mean that other players on the floor aren't allowed to handle the ball or initiate the offense.

I've never seen Willis play, but if he's a catch and shoot guy who struggles as a primary ball handler, then saying he is not a PG is accurate.

It's like the cool new thing to "correct" people when they use logical labels for certain types of players.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Pitino wants a “positionless” team. Hmm, so are we going to see Oturu bring the ball up the court against the press? Ah, probably not. Are we going to see Carr posting up Matt Haarms on offense? Ah, probably not. There will always be positions and point guards. Is it nice to have multi-talented players who can dribble, pass, rebound and shoot who are also long and athletic? Of course! But most of those guys go to play for Puke. I would like to see that change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This thread is funny to read when watching the Houston Golden State game. PJ Tucker (6'5") and Draymond Green (6'7") are playing center. Kevin Durant is the tallest player and definitely not a center
 

pharmacygopher said:
This thread is funny to read when watching the Houston Golden State game. PJ Tucker (6'5") and Draymond Green (6'7") are playing center. Kevin Durant is the tallest player and definitely not a center
Click to expand...

If you were trying to make a point about positionless basketball and not labeling players, you kinda contradicted yourself by labeling the players.
 

Keyser Söze said:
If you were trying to make a point about positionless basketball and not labeling players, you kinda contradicted yourself by labeling the players.
Click to expand...

Making no point. The bickering is funny...especially when you see teams just putting their best teams out there and having success. Think people just need to chill. This is a recruiting thread and read the last few pages.... wouldn't know it
 

Bordergopher said:
Agree with this. Pitino wants a “positionless” team. Hmm, so are we going to see Oturu bring the ball up the court against the press? Ah, probably not. Are we going to see Carr posting up Matt Haarms on offense? Ah, probably not. There will always be positions and point guards. Is it nice to have multi-talented players who can dribble, pass, rebound and shoot who are also long and athletic? Of course! But most of those guys go to play for Puke. I would like to see that change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not just a Pitino thing, 85-90% of any college basketball program believes in it. If Oturo had the skill to bring the ball up, he would bring it up. The idea of positionless basketball is not new. Eddie Sutton did it for years as di Tark. Truthfully the whole point of a motion offense is to have 5 guys move freely to take advantage of a mismatch. So yeah Carr won't post up Haarms, but he will have Oturo set a ball screen to see if they can get a switch and then Carr vs Haarms on the perimeter is an advantage for Carr. So you're wrong with the idea that their will always be positions and put guards. It's changing in high schools currently and will continue in the youth levels and you'll continue to see it with the skill development of players.

Will there still be a place for a big who rebounds and alters shots? Of course and that skill has become even more valuable with the data showing that the most efficient offenses either shoot lay ups or 3s. Will there always be a spot for a ball handling wing? Of course as long as there are guys around him that can shoot 3s. Do coaches attach "positions" to ones skills? No a high majority don't.
 

pharmacygopher said:
Making no point. The bickering is funny...especially when you see teams just putting their best teams out there and having success. Think people just need to chill. This is a recruiting thread and read the last few pages.... wouldn't know it
Click to expand...

Wrote a rant and then read this. I'll respect the recruiting part of this thread from here out. Good call and I apologize.
 

manderson1984 said:
It's not just a Pitino thing, 85-90% of any college basketball program believes in it. If Oturo had the skill to bring the ball up, he would bring it up. The idea of positionless basketball is not new. Eddie Sutton did it for years as di Tark. Truthfully the whole point of a motion offense is to have 5 guys move freely to take advantage of a mismatch. So yeah Carr won't post up Haarms, but he will have Oturo set a ball screen to see if they can get a switch and then Carr vs Haarms on the perimeter is an advantage for Carr. So you're wrong with the idea that their will always be positions and put guards. It's changing in high schools currently and will continue in the youth levels and you'll continue to see it with the skill development of players.

Will there still be a place for a big who rebounds and alters shots? Of course and that skill has become even more valuable with the data showing that the most efficient offenses either shoot lay ups or 3s. Will there always be a spot for a ball handling wing? Of course as long as there are guys around him that can shoot 3s. Do coaches attach "positions" to ones skills? No a high majority don't.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. On the pro level, where almost all players are Uber-skilled, this makes sense. However, at the college level this is mostly a dream. Most teams have players with pretty clear positions-even the good ones. Unless the overall talent and skill pool improves dramatically, you will always have a large supply of big guys who can’t effectively play on the perimeter or in general handle the ball below the shoulders. My son doesn’t watch college basketball anymore for that reason, as in his view, there are so many bad basketball players. That’s what I like about college ball-the limitations of players causes coaches to have to adjust their strategies to work with what they have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

We are going to see Omersa bring the ball up the court. Coast to coast. He is about to break out.
 

Can we get back to recruiting now? If you want to continue this debate on “positionless” basketball I recommend starting a thread for it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom