2021 Target List

#451
#451
cncchris33 said:
Mashack is 6-4 and south of 200, so he certainly wouldn't be a traditional SF. Same with KJ, who might be an inch taller. Both could conceivably slide in there, but we'd be going with quite a small ball lineup in that scenario, I'd think.
Click to expand...
Who’s our 3 this year?
 
#453
#453
cncchris33 said:
JJJ or Gaines, I'd presume.
Click to expand...
So Barnes is fine rolling with those guys this year, or Keon, not sure why that would necessarily change a year from now.

6’5” 200lbs is plenty big enough for the 3, especially if you are playing a smaller lineup...that’s pretty much Josh Richardson territory and he played quite a bit of 3 for Tennessee early on.
 
#454
#454
bleedingTNorange said:
So Barnes is fine rolling with those guys this year, or Keon, not sure why that would necessarily change a year from now.

6’5” 200lbs is plenty big enough for the 3, especially if you are playing a smaller lineup...that’s pretty much Josh Richardson territory and he played quite a bit of 3 for Tennessee early on.
Click to expand...
I think we're all fine with JJJ logging the majority of minutes at the SF position, this year. Pons and even EJA can provide minutes there, as well, if necessary, in addition to Gaines.

My point was that in '21-22, three of those four could be gone. It's certainly no guarantee Keon Johnson is here, either, though I'd probably bet on it, as of now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#455
#455
Think the staff probably read the room with Ingram. He's been focusing on other schools for a while now I thought.
 
#456
#456
gorockytop98 said:
Think the staff probably read the room with Ingram. He's been focusing on other schools for a while now I thought.
Click to expand...
Yeah he’s been high on Stanford and Purdue. I don’t think we even made the initial “ranking the contenders” by Rivals.
 
#458
#458
cncchris33 said:
I think we're all fine with JJJ logging the majority of minutes at the SF position, this year. Pons and even EJA can provide minutes there, as well, if necessary, in addition to Gaines.

My point was that in '21-22, three of those four could be gone. It's certainly no guarantee Keon Johnson is here, either, though I'd probably bet on it, as of now.
Click to expand...

2021-2022

Bailey/Vescovi
Springer/Johnson
James/Gaines
Walker/ORN/Pember
Plavsic

Johnson can play 3, Walker also potentially could, TBD if Pember develops the mobility to. I don’t think the 3 is any more glaring than any other position, especially considering that in Barnes system he himself has said the 2/3 are effectively the same.
 
#460
#460
cncchris33 said:
Quite possible. Perhaps they felt Stanford and Purdue would be too difficult to overtake and chose to focus resources elsewhere.
Click to expand...
It’s hard for me to believe the staff wouldn’t push hard for Ingram, knowing the family ties and him being a top 10 kid . 🤔🤔🤔
 
#461
#461
bleedingTNorange said:
2021-2022

Bailey/Vescovi
Springer/Johnson
James/Gaines
Walker/ORN/Pember
Plavsic

Johnson can play 3, Walker also potentially could, TBD if Pember develops the mobility to. I don’t think the 3 is any more glaring than any other position, especially considering that in Barnes system he himself has said the 2/3 are effectively the same.
Click to expand...
There is quite a bit of assumption within that lineup, and if ideally plays out that way, I agree, it's less of a concern.

And I agree the 2 and 3 are interchangeable. I guess the longer answer involves what we bring in at the 4 and 5. We can get away with less size at the 3 if we have a couple bulldogs at the 4 and 5 and adequate depth, as well.
 
#463
#463
Ingram off the board...

Rivals article today makes it sound like Tennessee could lead for Mashack, also in it as well for Holmes.


#2 Paolo Banchero - (6'9" PF)
#4 Jabari Smith - (6'10" PF)
#5 Brandon Huntley-Hatfield** (6'8" PF)
#9 Caleb Houstan (6’8” SF)
#10 Kennedy Chandler (6'1" PG)
#11 Hunter Sallis (6'3" Combo G)
#22 Charles Bediako (6'11" C)
#30 Daron Holmes ll (6’8” PF)
#48 Jahmai Mashack (6’4” SG)
#50 Micawber Etienne (6'10" C)
#62 Carter Whitt (6'3" PG)
#86 Ryan Mutombo (6'11" C)


**currently in 2022 class but expected to reclassify to 2021
 
#464
#464
The fact that Ingram included Harvard and Buffalo in his Top-6 but not us is wild. Maybe our staff were the ones the back off?
 
#465
#465
TheMookieMonster said:
The fact that Ingram included Harvard and Buffalo in his Top-6 but not us is wild. Maybe our staff were the ones the back off?
Click to expand...
His comments seem to indicate. He said his hardest cut was Tennessee, but that he seemed to want them (Tennessee) more than they wanted him.

Seems hard to believe that would be the case, but who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#466
#466
cncchris33 said:
His comments seem to indicate. He said his hardest cut was Tennessee, but that he seemed to want them (Tennessee) more than they wanted him.

Seems hard to believe that would be the case, but who knows.
Click to expand...
I do wonder if Tennessee felt Purdue/Stanford was going to be tough to overcome and so they just felt their resources were better spent elsewhere (Mashack, Holmes etc.)
 
#467
#467
bleedingTNorange said:
I do wonder if Tennessee felt Purdue/Stanford was going to be tough to overcome and so they just felt their resources were better spent elsewhere (Mashack, Holmes etc.)
Click to expand...
That's the only reasoning I was able to come up with. Caleb Houstan, too, possibly, if they wanted to swing for the fences with one elite SF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#472
#472
It’s weird. I know Maschack has a good offer list and is a good player, but I just struggle to get excited about him possibly committing here. Probably because of all the hype around Banchero, Smith, Chandler, etc. Maschack certainly wouldn’t be a bad pickup. Just don’t have the same excitement.

Gotta love the position we’re in right now where the #48 player would be a “back-up” plan of sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92 and Cosmo Kramer
#473
#473
TheMookieMonster said:
It’s weird. I know Maschack has a good offer list and is a good player, but I just struggle to get excited about him possibly committing here. Probably because of all the hype around Banchero, Smith, Chandler, etc. Maschack certainly wouldn’t be a bad pickup. Just don’t have the same excitement.

Gotta love the position we’re in right now where the #48 player would be a “back-up” plan of sorts.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t turn down a Banchero type player but I have always thought a player ranked around 50 or so is the sweet spot for UT. Someone with talent that will likely be around 3 or 4 years. Continuity with teammates and coaches not having to recruit a new roster every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
#474
#474
TheMookieMonster said:
It’s weird. I know Maschack has a good offer list and is a good player, but I just struggle to get excited about him possibly committing here. Probably because of all the hype around Banchero, Smith, Chandler, etc. Maschack certainly wouldn’t be a bad pickup. Just don’t have the same excitement.

Gotta love the position we’re in right now where the #48 player would be a “back-up” plan of sorts.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he’s a back up plan, the staff has made him a priority.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top