It was a longshot anyway

[BryceC]

1. Garrett
2. Petey
3. Buckley
4. Staiger
5. Ike
6. Lee

I am not saying they are all options as starter, but the depth is there. Nothing funny about it.

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think Ike, Lee, or Staiger are viable options at the 1. I like Lee but I don't think he should be running the show on offense which is required by a PG in the system. I like Staiger but he is a prototypical wing. Eik is also a prototypical wing player and he's also a freshman.

Basically, I think our PG position looks exactly the same next year as it does this year, except we add another freshman. So, our PG position doesn't look any better to me next year without improvement from our already existing guys or a surprise huge contribution from a freshman.

 

[Logicalfan]

It's one thing to question the coach who makes 3/4 of a $1 million, but its another thing to question bash BP because of his talent. Especially when BP is giving everything he has to the team and program. It's so easy to sit on your high horse like you have all of the answeres...but in reality, it's obvious you don't.

Who was bashing Brian Peterson, oops excuse me I need to act like an insider, BP??? What did I say that could be construed as bashing??? He isn't athletic, sorry. I know that it is unacceptable to be anything but blindly optimistic on here, but you know what, Brian is not playing because he is athletic. He is playing because he is "heady" and went through a stretch when we played bad teams, and Purdue, that he didn't turn the ball over.

Dude, get over yourself.:no:

 

[ISUFan22]

I really don't see the need or reasoning behind all these subtle and obvious swipes at one another. Passion and opinions are one thing - they're quite welcome here.

Yet the childish games are not.

 

[Logicalfan]

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think Ike, Lee, or Staiger are viable options at the 1. I like Lee but I don't think he should be running the show on offense which is required by a PG in the system. I like Staiger but he is a prototypical wing. Eik is also a prototypical wing player and he's also a freshman.

Basically, I think our PG position looks exactly the same next year as it does this year, except we add another freshman. So, our PG position doesn't look any better to me next year without improvement from our already existing guys or a surprise huge contribution from a freshman.

Be careful there Bryce, you are not being blindly optimistic. Is Eik a wing??? He seems more like a two to me. But, is he going to play next year???

BTW, you are right about the backcourt, and that is what scares me. Good for you to approach anything resembling candor.

 

[BryceC]

Since the 2 and the 3 position perform the same duties in the offense, I pretty much consider anybody who plays on the perimeter and is not a primary ballhandler to be a wing.

It's not hard to have something resembling candor if you try. Unfortunately you do not.

 

[Cy Hard]

Logical - I haven't commented on this yet, but you're a hater. I've seen you hate on virtually every subject and person in here differing from your opinion. Settle down and spend a little time being positive. Positive thinking, positive talk breeds positive results!

 

[Cydkar]

Still laughing.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think Ike, Lee, or Staiger are viable options at the 1. I like Lee but I don't think he should be running the show on offense which is required by a PG in the system. I like Staiger but he is a prototypical wing. Eik is also a prototypical wing player and he's also a freshman.

Basically, I think our PG position looks exactly the same next year as it does this year, except we add another freshman. So, our PG position doesn't look any better to me next year without improvement from our already existing guys or a surprise huge contribution from a freshman.

I'm not saying they are the answer as starters, but they are capable of doing it. My point is that we simply don't have the bodies at center right now that we do at the point, which is why I am more concerned about the center position.

 

[Aclone]

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think Ike, Lee, or Staiger are viable options at the 1. I like Lee but I don't think he should be running the show on offense which is required by a PG in the system. I like Staiger but he is a prototypical wing. Eik is also a prototypical wing player and he's also a freshman.

Basically, I think our PG position looks exactly the same next year as it does this year, except we add another freshman. So, our PG position doesn't look any better to me next year without improvement from our already existing guys or a surprise huge contribution from a freshman.

I don't think a solid contribution from Buckley would be a "huge surprise". After all, Mac wanted him badly enough that he took a commitment around the same time Diante committed. And unlike Garrett, at 6-2 185 he's not skinny, and won't need as much time adapting physically. That's aside from the fact that Diante, with another 10-15 pounds, will be vastly improved.

Be careful there Bryce, you are not being blindly optimistic. Is Eik a wing??? He seems more like a two to me. But, is he going to play next year???

Twos and threes are "wings". As opposed to fours and fives ("posts") and ones ("points").

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Twos and threes are "wings". As opposed to fours and fives ("posts") and ones ("points").

Very true. That's a better way to look at it for sure.

 

[Seth]

I'm not saying they are the answer as starters, but they are capable of doing it. My point is that we simply don't have the bodies at center right now that we do at the point, which is why I am more concerned about the center position.

I tend to agree with you here snowcraig2.0. Another way to think of it is like this: at what positions are we losing starters? 1 C (Jiri) and 1 PF/SF (Rahshon). True, we are getting a C (Hamilton) and a PF (Mann), but I don't expect either to contribute big minutes next year.

However, we're returning all of our guards, including 2 PG's (BP, DG) and 2-3 SG's (AH, LS, WJ). In addition we're picking up another PG and another SG.

Just based on who we're losing vs. who we're retaining, I also think a big should be a target. I'm also expecting DG to continue to improve so that the PG isn't so glaringly weak next year.

 

[CyRocket]

Everyone has an opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is thinking that your opinion is the only intelligent one. Dear MR. Illogical you are not the only one with a brain and an opinion. And some of those expressed by your inferiors have a sound basis. Are you related to #1 or do you just drink the same bile?

 

[Cydkar]

Why do people think that because we are recruiting Appleton so hard and want him really bad that we aren't after bigs as well?

If Petey and Garrett are our best PG then we aren't a top B12 team. Throw in a freshman (see Garrett and Brackins' struggles), Buckley, and my statement still rings true.

All in my humble opinion which apparently jives with Mac's.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Why do people think that because we are recruiting Appleton so hard and want him really bad that we aren't after bigs as well?

If Petey and Garrett are our best PG then we aren't a top B12 team. Throw in a freshman (see Garrett and Brackins' struggles), Buckley, and my statement still rings true.

All in my humble opinion which apparently jives with Mac's.

What, I couldn't hear you?

 

[BryceC]

Good point, I don't think it would be a huge surprise to see Buckley get the nod - I just think it would be surprising to see him come in and get 25+ minutes with the experience ahead of him. Don't get me wrong, I hope he does. I just don't think it's realistic to expect it.

 

[Cydkar]

That was weird.

 

[iastate08]

hey this is my first ever post on here so dont bash me that hard please, thanks, as a relativly new cyclone fan (going to ISU next fall) i think obviously appleton would be a huge sign and could potentially lead to bubble/tournament consideration. BUT another thing to consider is that next year the 3 point line will be moved back by some amount (not sure what) and this will open up the inside and lead to a revival of the college post game. So in my oppinion having a good defensive presence in the paint (with depth) will be A MUST next year. So i would rather recruit a AT type with better offensive polish than another guard, even if he is a game changing player like Appleton. YAY first post done!

 

[Cydkar]

It's not a one or the other proposition. We are recruiting Appleton and bigs.

Your post was just fine (as if I'm judge & jury) and good point about the 3 point line. I heard they are moving it 1 foot. I don't know if that is consistent all the way around or what.