Page 51 of 51 FirstFirst ... 41495051
Results 501 to 504 of 504
  1. #501
    Sophomore sirthought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NKY
    Posts
    2,151
    Man, XU has never had a top 50 candidate, so why throw that out there? At least not in Steele's first year recruiting.

    We need small forwards. Everyone knows it's unlikely that he'd play much as a freshman, but with the way players shake out over the years, getting a kid with good size and decent athleticism to develop over time is important.

    And especially since we have some top 100 players coming, and who knows how long they'll stay, having someone who runs the full course is important.

    It won't make or break the class, but I think with the current makeup of the team, getting this guy on board is better.

  2. #502
    All-Conference XUFan09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    6,980
    Quote Originally Posted by sirthought View Post
    Man, XU has never had a top 50 candidate, so why throw that out there? At least not in Steele's first year recruiting.

    We need small forwards. Everyone knows it's unlikely that he'd play much as a freshman, but with the way players shake out over the years, getting a kid with good size and decent athleticism to develop over time is important.

    And especially since we have some top 100 players coming, and who knows how long they'll stay, having someone who runs the full course is important.

    It won't make or break the class, but I think with the current makeup of the team, getting this guy on board is better.
    X has definitely had top 50 candidates as serious recruits (and commits). Heck, they have had guys on the back end of the top 50 being recruited under Steele (which is a silly limitation anyway when the guy has been in the job for all of 8 months).

    X could use more wings, but they need wings that can shoot more than anything. Gardner is an all-around type of player except shooting. In a vacuum, I really like the guy. In the context of class balance and what X already has, he doesn't really fit the bill too well. Keep in mind that Bishop could play a small-ball 4 and that Freemantle/Ramsey might be able to slide over too from the 5. I'd say he's still good enough to take the commitment if he wants to come to X, but it's not the type of situation where they should push hard.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by XUFan09; 11-08-2018 at 03:01 PM.

  3. #503
    No top 50s? Bluiett and Scruggs were top 50. I think Dez was as well. Christon was on sites that consider prep guys.

    I agree on Gardner except we are not that school that can load up on top talent. We now get 1-2 top guys that will play 3-4 years and surround them with 4 year talent. I don’t know if Gardner is that guy but he seems to fit that bill. When he would be a senior so would Tandy and Bishop. Freemantle is doing really well to boost his ranking.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #504
    Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by sirthought View Post
    Man, XU has never had a top 50 candidate, so why throw that out there? At least not in Steele's first year recruiting.

    We need small forwards. Everyone knows it's unlikely that he'd play much as a freshman, but with the way players shake out over the years, getting a kid with good size and decent athleticism to develop over time is important.

    And especially since we have some top 100 players coming, and who knows how long they'll stay, having someone who runs the full course is important.

    It won't make or break the class, but I think with the current makeup of the team, getting this guy on board is better.

    Paul, Naji, Trevon, Semaj were all top 50 prospects by one system or another. That's 4 in a like 5 year cycle.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •