Yeah I get that, but a top 10 is pretty meaningless unless he took a visit or we went out to watch him play a lot which doesn't seem to be the case. I think Spears is an interesting alternative to take a flier on.
Do we think a very good PG like this, with 3 years of eligibility, is compatible with Castle/Newton? Because I'm not seeing that really. Not that we wouldn't want him, but that he'd be looking to start. If Castle reclasses, that would be 3 guys expecting to start at one position.
I don't expect him to come here because he'll have a ton of options, but yes. All 3 would be capable of playing the 1 or 2 and could get 25+ minutes easily. Unless the staff thinks Newton is a 2 year player, then I could see the logjam you mention next year
Well you've also got Hawkins needing minutes at the 2. I simply don't think he will find the prospect appealing. He will have options where he's the clear #1 PG.
Hawkins will be getting the majority of his minutes at the 3. And that's whether the guard we bring in is Hunter or someone else
I'm not getting all the we have a guard crunch posts. We have one guard who can handle and score on the entire roster as of now.
We don't know that...
Of course not, but we can pretty confidently infer that from who the staff is reaching out to and what the roster construction is
Yeah I don't really get it. We have 5 open scholarships and it seems like some people think we're set at basically every position. We have a ton of minutes to offer guards
People don't want to get hurt again. Can't be betrayed by transfers out from not getting enough minutes if everyone is playing 30 minutes a night.
I’m not saying we are set at guard. I’m saying that a kid who may now be the best player in the portal, isn’t the kind of guard who is going to come here, when there are schools where he’d be a clear #1 PG. We need guys who are ok coming off the bench. Hawkins is working on his handle, he will be fine as a ball handler.
We need a starting guard from the portal.
We "need" a guard who will start over Hawkins? I mean, if such a person exists and is willing to commit, I'd be thrilled, but I don't agree that we need it. We do need more at the guard position, but finding someone to start over Hawkins seems like gravy, not a necessity.
another starting G means we're either committing to a small ball lineup (e.g. hunter / newton / hawk / aj / sanogo) or hawkins is not starting...
Nope. Jackson isn’t the starting 4. He’s the 3. Hawkins the 2. Newton the 1. If DH doesn’t want Johnson as the 4 then we need a 4. But what we need most is a backup 1 and a backup 2/3. The 2/3 will get lots of minutes. The backup 1 less so, but still 10+. If we treat AJ as the backup 1, then we need two guys in that wing category, or even one that’s a pure 2 like Ramey.
We have 8 players right now and every single player we're reaching out to is a guard. I understand you may want Jackson to play the 3 and Hawkins to play the 2 but there is nothing to suggest we're targeting a wing to start at the 4 with them. Yet we keep reaching out to guards who would want to start if they come here
We need three guards to start...Newton, TBD, Hawkins.
I don't understand your question.
Jackson is a guard. Forget for the moment whether you think he can play the 4. His future as a pro is as a point guard. Hurley has said so. That’s what he’s going to want to showcase in what is probably his last season. He is working on the things that will allow that, just as Martin did last summer. I kept saying he’d be our starting SG and nobody believed me. Jackson and Newton will be big versions of Bazz and Boat. Hawkins the wing. The missing starter isn’t going to be a guard. It will be Johnson or good luck keeping him. Hopefully Hurley learned that lesson. Two big passing guards feeding Sanogo and a lob dunk machine like Johnson who can also shoot. Very hard to stop that.
Jackson at shooting guard, okaaaaay.
