I'm excited for Thorpe BUT

[Knicks411]

Since you're convinced of such, and in your view no question of fact exists, proceed with the filing of your summary judgement.

Just like no one in the nba plays defense is the consensus?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm assuming you're referring to Quade Green. But he would've been a one-and-done anyway so what difference would it make with regard to your point?

No, I'm referring to the other players we could have had that aren't Quade Green that we bailed on.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

No, I'm referring to the other players we could have had that aren't Quade Green that we bailed on.

I like the go big or go grad philosophy.

I hope it is used next year as well. If we cant get JC or DD, hold out for a grad and go stud hunting again in '19-'20. We have the depth now to it.

 

[RF2044]

I like the go big or go grad philosophy.

I hope it is used next year as well. If we cant get JC or DD, hold out for a grad and go stud hunting again in '19-'20. We have the depth now to it.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with trying to mine the grad transfer market. It is a new form of recruiting, and people had better get used to it.

I think that what I'm seeing most people express displeasure about is having to use it to fill key holes that we aren't able to fill via recruiting / better roster management. Hopefully, the class of 2018 rights the ship, and the NCAA penalties being loosened over the next two seasons giving us 2 more scholarships to use helps correct the depth issue. After which there won't be anything wrong with trying to bring in the best "free agent" we can via 5th year transfer, to bolster depth or add a potential impact player.

I just don't like to see it used to fill roster holes after we struck out on other prospects. But hopefully that won't be what we have to resort to after this class. The class of 2017 went a long way toward stuffing the pipeline with quality multi-year talent.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with trying to mine the grad transfer market. It is a new form of recruiting, and people had better get used to it.

I think that what I'm seeing most people express displeasure about is having to use it to fill key holes that we aren't able to fill via recruiting / better roster management. Hopefully, the class of 2018 rights the ship, and the NCAA penalties being loosened over the next two seasons giving us 2 more scholarships to use helps correct the depth issue. After which there won't be anything wrong with trying to bring in the best "free agent" we can via 5th year transfer, to bolster depth or add a potential impact player.

I just don't like to see it used to fill roster holes after we struck out on other prospects. But hopefully that won't be what we have to resort to after this class. The class of 2017 went a long way toward stuffing the pipeline with quality multi-year talent.

yeah

 

[orangecuse]

Just like no one in the nba plays defense is the consensus?

Nice attempt. I didn't say 'no one in the NBA plays defense.' If you revisit my post, I used the word "general," meaning generally, or broad, but certainly not absolute or 100%. Additionally, I also said "seemingly" (appearance). Yours..."The Warriors have a great defense. They have the best offense in the history of the league. Both statements can (are true)" on the other hand is certainty/absolute.

 

[two3zone]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with trying to mine the grad transfer market. It is a new form of recruiting, and people had better get used to it.

It shouldn't be. Two of our main pieces last year were 5th years and a main piece this year is a 5th year. I don't know any team that is a contender that utilizes this form of recruiting in the P5 that are contenders. If we want to get back on track we need to recruit legit top 100 guys and keep pounding the pavement. Waiting for a list of guys at the end of the season to fill out your roster isn't the way to go.

 

[Cuse'91]

It shouldn't be. Two of our main pieces last year were 5th years and a main piece this year is a 5th year. I don't know any team that is a contender that utilizes this form of recruiting in the P5 that are contenders. If we want to get back on track we need to recruit legit top 100 guys and keep pounding the pavement. Waiting for a list of guys at the end of the season to fill out your roster isn't the way to go.

What? You don't like fashioning a Frankenstein's monster of a team at the last minute two years in a row?!:bang:

 

[RF2044]

It shouldn't be. Two of our main pieces last year were 5th years and a main piece this year is a 5th year. I don't know any team that is a contender that utilizes this form of recruiting in the P5 that are contenders. If we want to get back on track we need to recruit legit top 100 guys and keep pounding the pavement. Waiting for a list of guys at the end of the season to fill out your roster isn't the way to go.

Louisville does.

Otherwise, you're making a similar point to me. We shouldn't be relying upon this to fill glaring holes in the lineup. We should be using it situationally to add a piece here and there to improve depth or add shooting, or to pick up a potential difference maker to supplement an already solid foundation. Not to plug the dam.

 

[two3zone]

Louisville does.

Otherwise, you're making a similar point to me. We shouldn't be relying upon this to fill glaring holes in the lineup. We should be using it situationally to add a piece here and there to improve depth or add shooting, or to pick up a potential difference maker to supplement an already solid foundation. Not to plug the dam.

On the positive side I doubt we go that route next year as we have a small amount of scholarships available.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

On the positive side I doubt we go that route next year as we have a small amount of scholarships available.

But one of the few schollies we have seems like it would be slotted for a pg.

And if we don't get a stud pg (Carey or Duke) then what do you want SU to do? Go with FH and HW alone, get a lesser pg who probably would not be in the rotation (similar to our expectations of HW this year), or get a grad ?

 

[SoBeCuse]

But one of the few schollies we have seems like it would be slotted for a pg.

And if we don't get a stud pg (Carey or Duke) then what do you want SU to do? Go with FH and HW alone, get a lesser pg who probably would not be in the rotation (similar to our expectations of HW this year), or get a grad ?

I don't even want to think about that predicament. :bang:

 

[two3zone]

But one of the few schollies we have seems like it would be slotted for a pg.

And if we don't get a stud pg (Carey or Duke) then what do you want SU to do? Go with FH and HW alone, get a lesser pg who probably would not be in the rotation (similar to our expectations of HW this year), or get a grad ?

If that's the case then who's accountable for not being able to sign a stud point guard for 4 years?

 

[Sgt Cuse]

If that's the case then who's accountable for not being able to sign a stud point guard for 4 years?

I would say ultimately the accountability for no stud point guard would fall on JB. But that happens. And it could happen again for the '18-'19 class.

You're the one who is anti-grad so if we don't get Carey or Duke what would you like to see happen?

 

[cuseattle]

Can we use the full word "transfer"? It's only one more letter

 

[two3zone]

I would say ultimately the accountability for no stud point guard would fall on JB. But that happens. And it could happen again for the '18-'19 class.

You're the one who is anti-grad so if we don't get Carey or Duke what would you like to see happen?

It's not that I'm anti, if we have to we have to, I just am frustrated we have to. There obviously isn't any other option.

 

[Dave85]

I like the go big or go grad philosophy.

I hope it is used next year as well. If we cant get JC or DD, hold out for a grad and go stud hunting again in '19-'20. We have the depth now to it.

"" LOL!

 

[RoatanCuse]

"" LOL!

Keep a close eye on the uniform...

 

[Niastri]

First of all we passed on a handful of PG's that could have started for us this year because we were waiting on Green. Second we spend the rest of the winter recruiting Ayala and trying to get him to reclassify. So that left very few available class of 17 kids that could come in and start at PG and even fewer that we had a chance with. I understand not wanting to rely on GRAD transfers every season. It has its advantages and disadvantages but its not the ideal situation to be in. The good news is that we are only integrating one GRAD transfer into the system this year.

I'm not sure if anyone has made this comparison but here are the stats from Gillon and Thorpe before transferring to SU:

FG% .384, 3P% .335, FT% .879, MPG 32, PTS 13.2, AST 3.9, TOV 2.3
FG% .394, 3P% .375, FT% .846, MPG 33, PTS 15.1, AST 4.6, TOV 3.0

Those are some eerily similar stat lines. Gillon's biggest issues moving to a P5 conference was size. He was maybe 5-10 which hurt him tremendously in our defense and got him into all sorts of trouble driving, not just finishing but seeing what was going on. Thorpe has plenty of size to compete with P5 guards. At 6-4 he is already a huge upgrade in the zone. I think he will have a successful season at SU.

I agree with most of this post, but I do have a quibble on the stat line comparison. I think there is a single dramatic difference in the two stat lines. Discounting the differences in competition levels at South Florida and Colorado State (which is better probably depends on the year), Thorpe has significantly better 3pt shooting and thus a higher scoring average.

Thorpe has a slightly worse FT% (although you take 85% anytime...) and slightly worse assist to TO ratio. Thorpe ended far more possessions in either an assist or a turnover. Thorpe seems like more of a true point while Gillin was a scorer who had to play point because he is short.

The height differences will be most visible on defense, but I bet it also helps account for Thorpe's better 3pt % as it is much harder to contest a tall guard than a short guard. I am pretty excited about Thorpe.