2019 Transfers

[quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.
 
[quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote="Logen" post=351683][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Chicago Days" post=351687][quote="Logen" post=351683][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote="NCJohnnie" post=351689]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.[/quote]
Very sensible, grounded post v conspiracy theories. Lol
 
[quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote="Logen" post=351694][quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote="Chicago Days" post=351695][quote="Logen" post=351694][quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”
 
Last edited:
[quote="Logen" post=351696][quote="Chicago Days" post=351695][quote="Logen" post=351694][quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”[/quote]

Me thinks, you're splitting atoms.
But whatever.
Let's go Johnnies.
 
[quote="Chicago Days" post=351697][quote="Logen" post=351696][quote="Chicago Days" post=351695][quote="Logen" post=351694][quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”[/quote]

Me thinks, you're splitting atoms.
But whatever.
Let's go Johnnies.[/quote]

Me thinks, I am wasting my time. Sorry to have wasted yours.
 
[quote="Logen" post=351699][quote="Chicago Days" post=351697][quote="Logen" post=351696][quote="Chicago Days" post=351695][quote="Logen" post=351694][quote="Chicago Days" post=351685][quote="L J S A" post=351682][quote="Logen" post=351681]
Maybe Rutherford didn’t want to be “locked down.”[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”[/quote]

Me thinks, you're splitting atoms.
But whatever.
Let's go Johnnies.[/quote]

Me thinks, I am wasting my time. Sorry to have wasted yours.[/quote]

That makes 2 of us.
G’bye.
 
As articles have noted, Johnson has academic work to complete, thus no offer. Also some players identified as “grad transfers” are sometimes on cusp of such & can’t be offered until they too complete course work. Just something to keep in mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rather than take a point guard for the sake of having 2, I would give Greg Williams a chance. The players currently available are not world beaters. With Coach Anderson's fast paced style of play, I believe that Greg can do an adequate job.
 
I agree with Panther 2 to give Greg Williams a chance as the second PG and hold out for better talent. Shamorie was not a classic pg .
 
[quote="panther2" post=351730]Rather than take a point guard for the sake of having 2, I would give Greg Williams a chance. The players currently available are not world beaters. With Coach Anderson's fast paced style of play, I believe that Greg can do an adequate job.[/quote]

This is not 'conspiracy' theory, honest, but it just might be why the Staff 'seems' to be both pursuing Glover and Johnson, short of being able to snare a 'game changer' like Van Zyl.
Messrs McGriff, Williams as the lead guards, facilitated by Heron, Figueroa, Wright, Glover, Caraher, Champagnie, et al, might be sufficient to run CMA's fast-paced offense.
 
[quote="Fred Solomon" post=351731]I agree with Panther 2 to give Greg Williams a chance as the second PG and hold out for better talent. Shamorie was not a classic pg .[/quote]

Ponds was crafty as heck, and a solid distributor. I agree by not grabbing another PG for the sake of, but Greg Williams ain't the one when it comes to allowing him to run the point. I'm wondering what a few of y'all saw, as I must've missed it.

I think it's mostly blind faith on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top