UNC not in Brandon Randolph's final 4 schools
- Thread starter dadika13
- Start date
He may be a better prospect than any of those fellas but is he or ain't he isn't really the point. The point is we already have the committed players we have and those committments represent a stronger % of 2 guards than we are used to, adding more to that position just defies logic, especially with our need for front court players being so HUGE. WE are not talking Platek or Randolph, that is over, we have Platek, same with every other 2 guard we have. It is simply a head court question limited by numbers of scholarships we can have.
We are not on Randolph's final list, why is easy, he can see the head count to...I don't care who the 2 guard is, don't care how many stars he comes with, even if it is a 5 star 2 guard, even if Gary Trent decided out of the blue he wanted to be a Tar Heel, I do not see how we could take another one from this class or for 2018.
I'm sorry, but that's just insanity. You wouldn't take a top 10 player because we have guys not as good at that position already?
So with that logic...since the Jets have 4 QB's already they shouldn't take Aaron Rodgers if he wanted to go there? See what happens if you apply that to any other scenario.
Roy is not going to cut players that have eligibility unless it is for some off the court issue. The Jets/Browns/most teams in the NFL could and would cut a active roster member to snag Arron Rogers.
That is my point, if we can't (and we never want to) cut them off scholarship then we have to live with the decisions already made. Hey, ya want to tell me you prefer Randolph to Platek hey, I would be right there with ya but the difference is we already have Platek, he is a Tar Heel, we do not have Randolph and never will.
Yes, I 1,000,000,000 stand behind saying 5 star or what, we do NOT need another 2 guard from either the 2017 or 18 classes. To be more clear, even if it were the #1 player in this 2017 class or 2018, if it is a 2 guard I would pass. Really, how much is any 2 guard going to help you if you can neither rebound the ball on either end or stop opposing big men from scoring?
As of right now, going in to season after next we have a grand total of Tony Bradley that stands 6'9: or more and projected for that same team we have anywhere from 4-6 2 guards depending on who plays the point and where leaky plays. You do that math and tell me how we afford yet another shooting guard?
So is everybody still glad we got the Platek commit? 166 in 247 and 219 in the national composite.
No. "Everyone" is never happy with anything, c'mon man, you know that!
I am happy with the Platek commit and the other folks who have committed. Let us not forget, there was never any guarantee Randolph was going to come to UNC anyway.
I think what people are saying is that it's a numbers game. We only have 13 scholarships and a significant number, more than usual for Roy, are already committed to wing players. Randolph had plenty of time to commit to UNC if he had wanted to. He chose not to commit because he didn't want to, his decision to make and he made it.
The fact is that we're in dire need of big men. We need at least two and I'd be much happier if we could sign three out of the '17 class. My choice for those three spots: PJ Washington, Isaish Stokes, and Garrison Brooks.
Me too Soap, me too.No. "Everyone" is never happy with anything, c'mon man, you know that!
I am happy with the Platek commit and the other folks who have committed. Let us not forget, there was never any guarantee Randolph was going to come to UNC anyway.
Yep. he's not keeping anyone from committing, and could become a valuable piece down the line.
If he's able to shoot as well as we've been told, maybe sooner than later.
To say you wouldn't take Knox, Trent, or any of the other top 10 guards though is crazy. I get the numbers game, I get we need big men. But if a top 10 guy wants to come to UNC, he will be welcomed with open arms, no matter what position he plays.
I am glad we got Hubert Davis, recall where Hubert was ranked coming out of high school?
At this point the kid is a Tar Heel, what he is ranked should no longer matter, what matters for the kid from here forward is how will he play when he suits up for us.
And those are the key words. Randolph chose not to commit, not because of Platek, but because he simply liked his other options more. Good for him, that's his prerogative.
I do agree with this. Only way a top 10 player would be "turned away" would be through clear-cut eligibility issues.
College sports are not professional sports. Professional sports are a job. When you aren't good enough, it's very easy to say, "out with the old and in with the new". Because it's a business. Say what you want about what you think college sports have become, but there is no way in hell that Roy is going to just discard a kid because a better one came along. There aren't many college coaches that would do that and certainly not Roy. It doesn't make sense from an ethics standpoint nor does it make sense from a roster standpoint. It's just wasted scholarships to bring in too many players of the same skill set. College students aren't and shouldn't be treated that way. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be competition for positions and playing time. There absolutely should. But we have enough competition right now. Some might argue that as it stands now we already have too much competition for spots. But that's irrelevant. All I was saying is that you cannot treat college student-athletes in the same manner as you would professional free agents.
It's one less scholarship that can go to a big, and/or an elite recruit. If we weren't getting the big or the elite recruit anyways, then no big deal I guess - and happy to have him on board. If we end up one schollie short for a big - then I'd wish we held off.
You're right that rankings don't matter per se, just on the court performance from here on out. However the correlation between rankings and performance is very high. Yes, you can find the one-off 100+ ranked player that stars, or the one-off top 5 player that flops (for example, McAdoo) - but for the most part the rankings have pretty decent predicative power.
We wouldn't need to cut anyone. There are enough spots. Sign two big guys and we're good. 10 players will hold scholarships in 2018 (JJ, Theo, Joel, Kenny, Luke, 7th, Tony, B-Rob, Jalek, Platek). Two bigs puts us at 12 and we'll gladly take a top-10 recruit to fill-out our roster.
Odds are, though, that JJ and/or Berry will leave early. Randolph may not be good enough to justify a scholarship for a spot that is already loaded, I'm okay with that. But if someone like Hamidou Diallo or Romeo Langford wanted to come to UNC, you can bet your sweet dalai lama that we would make every effort to sign them.
Odds are, though, that JJ and/or Berry will leave early. Randolph may not be good enough to justify a scholarship for a spot that is already loaded, I'm okay with that. But if someone like Hamidou Diallo or Romeo Langford wanted to come to UNC, you can bet your sweet dalai lama that we would make every effort to sign them.
Well, 2 facts, first having such a large number of players that are most likely to play a single position means those 5star players at that position never really get serious about your offer.
Second, have one position so over loaded like that can cause nasty chemistry problems, many times ends up in transfers, and headaches. You look at that list of our 2 guards, it isn't a list of walk on caliber players, these are kids that not only want to play but expect to play. A kid may deal with limited PT as a freshman, as was the case with Kenny but they did not come to us to sit on our bench for 4yrs if they were given a full scholly and recruited hard by us. Shey Rush will work hard but does not expect a ton of PT but he is a preferred walk on, doubt Luke really ever expects to start for us, he as well came to us as a walk on. But a kid like Platek did not come to us to be struck at the end of the bench for 4 years and with Roy he will not be.
How dare we think about recruiting over Platek. I mean, which 3-star recruits have made a meaningful impact under Roy's tenure anyway?
So you see the solution to be go ahead and take another 2 guard, have Platek spent 4 seasons at the end of our bench, OK, so what do we do with Kenny, 7th, Brob, White, Jalek, Leaky, and White? Which one of those fellas do you want to play power forward or center for us?
You are looking at 8 guys that are somewhere between PGs and 2 guards, meaning you have only 5 more schollys to spread around to 3 more positions and you are fine with moving that up to 9 and reducing the number available for any of the 3 other positions down to 4?
I mean I guess we can shake up the world and make Leaky our center, maybe Brob our power forward, 7th our wing and picks a pair for the 1 & 2... do that and heck, we can bring in 3 or 4 more combo guards!
You listed White twice. And anyone that can play the two, can play the 3. So that leaves 7 players committed to positions 1-3; 6 scholarships remain. Talk about a numbers crunch!
Edit: And for the record, the two examples I gave were Hamidou Diallo and Romeo Langford. Two guards that would likely only stay one season - and two guards that have good size where they would almost be assured of playing the 3.
Last edited:
ANYONE that plays the 2 can play the wing? Nate Britt, paging Nate Britt...You are going in for Justin, now make sure you stay tight on Jason Tatum, don't let him shoot over you...But uh coach, he is 6'9" and I am only 5ft nutting? Don't worry Nate, anyone that plays the 2 can play the 3...
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Nate obviously doesn't factor into the equation since he won't be playing with most of those guys anyway; I was referring to players that are viewed as prototypical two-guards, like B-Rob, Kenny, and Platek. Maybe I should have said anyone that's naturally a 2 can play the 3. Nateis a point guard, of course, but we like to play with two ball handlers, so someone like him or Marcus has to be relegated to playing off the ball.
And when did I ever say I didn't want Zion or Hamilton? I mentioned Diallo and Romeo Langford as examples, because the discussion was whether or not we could take on another 2-guard, even if they were a top-10 recruit. I say yes, we would and should take them if they were interested. And most likely, they would spend the bulk of their minutes playing the 3 anyway because they're big enough and talented enough. This is hypothetically speaking, mind you, because neither Diallo nor Langford is seriously considering us. Reserving 5 scholarships for guys that play the 4/5 is sufficient.
Nate obviously doesn't factor into the equation since he won't be playing with most of those guys anyway; I was referring to players that are viewed as prototypical two-guards, like B-Rob, Kenny, and Platek. Maybe I should have said anyone that's naturally a 2 can play the 3. Nateis a point guard, of course, but we like to play with two ball handlers, so someone like him or Marcus has to be relegated to playing off the ball.
And when did I ever say I didn't want Zion or Hamilton? I mentioned Diallo and Romeo Langford as examples, because the discussion was whether or not we could take on another 2-guard, even if they were a top-10 recruit. I say yes, we would and should take them if they were interested. And most likely, they would spend the bulk of their minutes playing the 3 anyway because they're big enough and talented enough. This is hypothetically speaking, mind you, because neither Diallo nor Langford is seriously considering us. Reserving 5 scholarships for guys that play the 4/5 is sufficient.
While I agree with the premise, that we shouldn't care about recruiting over Platek in his freshman/sophomore year with a OAD (since Platek will likely take until Jr./Sr. year to play meaningful minutes) - the real issue is things like the Nate Britt situation. Yes, I realize Platek and Britt won't be on the same team - but an elite OAD SG isn't worried about his minutes compared to say, Seventh (because the OAD would know that he can beat out Seventh since they're both freshmen. The issue for them is that even if the OAD and Seventh are both better than Nate, Nate will still be getting the majority of the minutes due to Roy's seniority policy. OADs don't want to come here if they know even if they "win the job" that they still won't get the job.
Well right off the bat, about Nate being a PG, maybe you should tell Roy that, considering that he played Nate pretty much exclusively as a 2 guard last season. When Joel went out Roy moved Marcus over to the point and of course when Joel was in Nate was not the PG, so Roy needs to know that pearl of wisdom more than I.
You keep wanting another 2 guard, does not seem to matter how many we already have or that the ones we already have are a stellar group. What is actually amazingly funny is knowing that it really does not matter what 2 guards we put offers out to, with the head count of 2 guards we have it isn't like we stand a chance at any more until the head count comes way down.
And as far as my comment about Zion or Hamilton, well while you are dishing out 2 guard schollies in mass, where are the schollys for either of those fellas gonna come from? In addition, did you not say that "And anyone that can play the two, can play the 3" so we have 2 guards at the 3 (small forward, wing) position, clearly we would not need any more wings if 2 guards can play the wing just as easy as wings can? Zion and Hamilton are wings, Knox as well...
I am not sure I get this recruiting over Platek deal, the kid was snot brought in as an expected starter, he was brought in as a kid that will have to work his butt off to get PT. Does no tmean he can not start one day just that he is not expected to be a starter. Wes Miller, worked his butt off and became a very important player for us, he was not considered to be a future starter but more a role player. Every team needs leaders but every team needs role players as well and Platek was brought in as a future role player. So the question of recruiting over a role player does not make a lot of sense for me?
Now is not the time for the discussion of who would you prefer Platek or Randolph, the time for that was before Platek was recruited, now the kid is a Tar Heel and maybe should be given a chance to see what level of player he will become before we start asking "are you still happy we got Platek"...
If the report that he is too short to be viewed as a suitable sometimes-SF is correct, that makes me less sorry to see him take our name out of contention.
Still wouldn't mind adding him to our growing stable of SGs, but I'm hoping for 3 bigs, so keeping scholarships available is also important.
Still wouldn't mind adding him to our growing stable of SGs, but I'm hoping for 3 bigs, so keeping scholarships available is also important.
I never said we needed another 2-guard. Much like dadika's train of thought, I said IF a top-10 prospect like Diallo or Langford is interested, you pursue them. This is hypothetically speaking, as we know, because neither of those two has us on their radar. But let me make some likely assumptions about our 2018 and 2019 teams. I say JJ goes pro, and we get at least 2 big from the 2017 class before PJ/Knox make any announcement. Okay, so our 2018 roster would look like this:
2018 committed players:
Guards (1-3): Berry, Pinson, Williams, B-Rob, Woods, Felton, Platek
Bigs (4-5): Bradley, Maye, Huffman (probable), Brooks (maybe)
2 scholarships left:
In this hypothetical situation, you would hope to get either PJ or Knox with one scholarship. If the final scholarship came down to 5-star Hamidou Diallo and a 3-star big-man, well, I think you know how I'd go. Give me talent all day over depth. If PJ signs, we would have 5 big men committed for 2018 and 2019 (don't think he's a OAD). If we got Diallo and Knox, it's probable that they'd both be OAD. Knox could spend some time at the 4 if we needed him.
.
2019 committed players:
Guards: Williams, B-Rob, Woods, Felton, Platek, Black, White
Bigs: Bradley, Maye, Huffman, Brooks
If we got PJ, I think our big-man problem wouldn't be an issue at all, as he would most likely stay more than one year. 5 bigs is definitely sufficient. But let's assume we had Diallo and Knox in 2018 and they both left after one year; we'd have 2 open scholarships again. One of those spots can be reserved for Zion or Jairus Hamilton. If the final scholarship comes between Romeo Langford and a big-man ranked outside the top-50, please, please give me Romeo. The 2018 class is supposed to be unusually weak anyway, so this should be a non-issue.
And FWIW, Zion and Jairus both have NBA small forward-type size as 16 year olds. I think there's a good chance we could see both of them primarily playing the stretch four in college, as there's still 2+ years for them to put on a little more weight and muscle. I think they could both exploit many mismatches at the 4 spot. We survived 2014 with just four guards playing three spots. Pretty sure we'd be okay with 4 bigs, especially when guys like Knox/Zion/Hamilton could easily slide to the 4.
Edit: KM gave a verbal to us in the fall of 2012 when we already had 6 bigs committed for the 2013-2014 season. Having a lot of depth at a position or two wouldn't be unprecedented.
Nice break down, as I said and as you agreed by saying you didn't say we needed another 2 guard, we do not need another 2 guard from this 2017 or 18 class.
