'16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes (Duquense)

Talk about future recruits and scouting efforts in this forum.
Forum rules
If you start a recruit thread and don't set up a profile, make a blank post first so a profile can be added later.

Place whatever you were going to post in the second post.
URIRecruitingInfo
ARD
Posts: 707
Joined: 7 years ago
x 367

'16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes (Duquense)

Unread post by URIRecruitingInfo »

Frankie Hughes - PG
From: Cleveland, OH
School: Missouri
Travel/AAU: OBC

Ht: 6'4"
Wt: 192

RANKINGS:
Rivals: 3 Stars
ESPN: 3 Star, 78 Grade, #56 SG
247 Sports: 3 Star, 88 Grade, #218 in 2016, #41 SG
Future 150: 3 Star



INTEREST:
Rhode Island
Dayton
Duquense
Minnesota
St. Joe's
St. Louis
Wichita State

http://247sports.com/player/frankie-hughes-77024
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/520
http://www.scout.com/college/basketball ... kie-hughes
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/bask ... kie-hughes
https://future150.com/hs/basketball-pro ... nd-oh-2016
http://www.hoopseen.com/players/1028
http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/frankie-hughes
Last edited by URIRecruitingInfo 6 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
User avatar
SmartyBarrett
Sly Williams
Posts: 3796
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Boston
x 2701

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by SmartyBarrett »

"Great, another guard!" coming in 3... 2... 1...
1 x
reckless jake
ARD
Posts: 675
Joined: 10 years ago
x 280

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by reckless jake »

Although we'll enter the season with 4 senior guards on the roster, given our current scholarship situation and our need for a big, it's hard to imagine us tieing up a scholarship carrying a guard transfer
1 x
sf2010
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1767
Joined: 11 years ago
x 563

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by sf2010 »

My guess is that he'd be a consideration if plans A, B, C, and D fell through and the choice was literally Open Scholarship or Hughes. In that case, sure, bring on board another talented guard. Would have to imagine that any and all front court players are ahead of him in the priority list though.
0 x
sf2010
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1767
Joined: 11 years ago
x 563

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by sf2010 »

On another note - woof, look at those shooting numbers. Uggggly

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... kie-hughes
1 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by josephski »

reckless jake wrote:Although we'll enter the season with 4 senior guards on the roster, given our current scholarship situation and our need for a big, it's hard to imagine us tieing up a scholarship carrying a guard transfer
If we can't get a big who can contribute next year then I wouldn't mind seeing us go for a guard who's transferring. I'd rather tie up a scholarship with a guard who will very much be needed after we lose our next class than end up with another Berry situation and tie up a scholarship that way.
0 x
Iggy1979
Sly Williams
Posts: 4504
Joined: 11 years ago
x 2005

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Iggy1979 »

josephski wrote:
reckless jake wrote:Although we'll enter the season with 4 senior guards on the roster, given our current scholarship situation and our need for a big, it's hard to imagine us tieing up a scholarship carrying a guard transfer
If we can't get a big who can contribute next year then I wouldn't mind seeing us go for a guard who's transferring. I'd rather tie up a scholarship with a guard who will very much be needed after we lose our next class than end up with another Berry situation and tie up a scholarship that way.
I agree with this. Having a guard on the bench getting ready to play the following year would not be a bad thing.
His shooting numbers were bad but so were Stan's at Indiana.
0 x
"Every season, college basketball has one or two teams that rise from dormancy to relevancy, squads that make long-awaited charges at the NCAA Tournament and become really fun storylines along the way."
steveystuds06
Sly Williams
Posts: 4585
Joined: 9 years ago
x 5919

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by steveystuds06 »

0 x
ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6497

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

Iggy1979 wrote:
josephski wrote:
reckless jake wrote:Although we'll enter the season with 4 senior guards on the roster, given our current scholarship situation and our need for a big, it's hard to imagine us tieing up a scholarship carrying a guard transfer
If we can't get a big who can contribute next year then I wouldn't mind seeing us go for a guard who's transferring. I'd rather tie up a scholarship with a guard who will very much be needed after we lose our next class than end up with another Berry situation and tie up a scholarship that way.
I agree with this. Having a guard on the bench getting ready to play the following year would not be a bad thing.
His shooting numbers were bad but so were Stan's at Indiana.
Hughes last year at Missouri as a freshman: 19.3 minutes a game, 7.6 points, 2.6 rebounds, 1.2 assists, 29.6% from the field, 26.8% from three, 56.6% from the free throw line.

Robinson his last year at Indiana as a sophomore: 11.4 minutes a game, 3 points, 1.9 rebounds, 1.2 assists, 33% from the field, 0-10 from three, 58.5% from the free throw line.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
reckless jake
ARD
Posts: 675
Joined: 10 years ago
x 280

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by reckless jake »

Would you be willing to play the 2017/18 season with a front line group consisting of Langevine, Akele, Berry, Layssard and Tertsea while a transfer guard sits out the season at the end of the bench?

I'd much rather have one proven, experienced big man addition. Juiston may be out of our reach but Khris Lane would be an excellent front court addition.
1 x
giovanni
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2277
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1254

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by giovanni »

Hughes played in SEC, was initially committed to Louisville and de-committed when Louisville had some issues. So clearly someone at higher levels thing the kid has some talent. Lane was recruited by Drexel and landed at Longwood. Yes, he scored a lot of points in the Big South on a team that won 6 games all year and 3 in conference. How do you think his number's may have been playing in the ACC and SEC? Wanting Lane pretty much means you're giving up on Laysaard, Tertsea and Berry. Along with Langevine and Akele. I think it may be difficult to find at 5 bigs time when typically we barely find enough time for 2. I am totally comfortable with going with what we have now, instead of reaching. Yes, we are guard heavy for the upcoming year, but we also will lose the 4 top guys. Getting Hughes would fulfill a recruiting need they will have next year and brings experience. Plus any transfer, which I believe we have the liberty to take because of our roster, will have a year to learn system and get acclimated to team. I think Hughes, if is actually interested, would be a very good get. I am sure the staff will assess their chances at either guy, Toppin or anyone else they may be involved with, their chances of getting them and how they want to fit their needs. IMHO, if you can get quality transfer that has to sit out, I would rather do that. It would be great to get an 5th year guy who is going to be an impact guy, but I think we are set for next year with what we have.
1 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

giovanni wrote:Hughes played in SEC, was initially committed to Louisville and de-committed when Louisville had some issues. So clearly someone at higher levels thing the kid has some talent. Lane was recruited by Drexel and landed at Longwood. Yes, he scored a lot of points in the Big South on a team that won 6 games all year and 3 in conference. How do you think his number's may have been playing in the ACC and SEC? Wanting Lane pretty much means you're giving up on Laysaard, Tertsea and Berry. Along with Langevine and Akele. I think it may be difficult to find at 5 bigs time when typically we barely find enough time for 2. I am totally comfortable with going with what we have now, instead of reaching. Yes, we are guard heavy for the upcoming year, but we also will lose the 4 top guys. Getting Hughes would fulfill a recruiting need they will have next year and brings experience. Plus any transfer, which I believe we have the liberty to take because of our roster, will have a year to learn system and get acclimated to team. I think Hughes, if is actually interested, would be a very good get. I am sure the staff will assess their chances at either guy, Toppin or anyone else they may be involved with, their chances of getting them and how they want to fit their needs. IMHO, if you can get quality transfer that has to sit out, I would rather do that. It would be great to get an 5th year guy who is going to be an impact guy, but I think we are set for next year with what we have.
I agree with you Giovanni. I think we are set for next year with what we have.
You said Lane's team won only 3 games in conference play and what is interesting they were the first 3 games of conference play. They went 3-0 then lost 15 straight games.
0 x
User avatar
Seawrightspostgame
Sly Williams
Posts: 4139
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1563

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Seawrightspostgame »

Lots of time left so I am hopeful but I hope it isn't so hard for us to get a tall guy. Or a guy that is good. Talking about Juco/Grad Transfers.

But I'm keeping the faith. I also like our team the way it is. Hope nobody leaves and everyone gets better.

I just want that one slot to be at the least a rotational big player.
0 x
I want to change my name to BlockIslandFerry
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

I like keeping the spot open for a potential home run guy. Once the spot is filled you are done, no longer in the marketplace. No need to settle. Team is fine as is. Also not great for morale if you bring in a player who is only marginally better than what you have. An Iverson level player? Absolutely.
2 x
Rhody83
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7437
Joined: 9 years ago
x 3942

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Rhody83 »

How can you judge the team for next year when two players that will get significant time in the front court haven't played real minutes in a college game. Even if you assume Akele starts in KI's spot, Cyril is very foul prone. We are going to need 4 front court players getting 15+ minutes in Top 100 and A10 games.
1 x
“We will be good when we are good.”
Rhody83
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7437
Joined: 9 years ago
x 3942

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Rhody83 »

ramster wrote:Also not great for morale if you bring in a player who is only marginally better than what you have. An Iverson level player? Absolutely.
Not sure how you can say that. How do you know? How about bringing in Stan over Thompson? Didn't seem to impact morale.
If you can improve the team you do it. That simple.
0 x
“We will be good when we are good.”
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

Akele is not a banger. He also isn't Iverson, and won't put up KI's numbers against better teams....he had good games last season but they were against teams without really good players at his position....

We absolutely need another GOOD big.....not a marginal role player.....even if ML and MT make good strides and are able to contribute, they are still sophomores who have played hardly any minutes [MT none] against opponents who count.

Like ramster said, make the one 'ship we have a good one. If we end up with 2, then we can get someone who will have to sit out a year.

We might be good enough to win the A10 as presently constituted.....but if we want to advance in the NCAAT, we need immediate experienced frontcourt help.

And I can almost guarantee that Dan knows this too, whether he says it or not.
Last edited by rambone 78 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
3 x
Rhody83
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7437
Joined: 9 years ago
x 3942

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Rhody83 »

Why is Hughes listed as a PG? From the video he looks like a SG or 3. A lot of threes from the corner. Didn't see him running the point in any of the video.
0 x
“We will be good when we are good.”
steveystuds06
Sly Williams
Posts: 4585
Joined: 9 years ago
x 5919

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by steveystuds06 »

If Layssard was that far away last year I don't know how we can rely on him to contribute the way we would need. MT has good size, but it's going to take time for him to get accustomed to this level. Those two may be solid bench players by A10 play, but we need top 50 wins in the nonconference.

Cyril is awesome... I don't want him to have a Hass situation and get forced to play as many minutes as possible and be worn down by the end of the year.... I'd feel a lot better with a veteran big like Lane.

I actually would like landing Hughes but we have bigger needs.
1 x
ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

Hughes should be listed as a construction worker. He's laid enough bricks to build a subdivision......worse shooter than Stan before he came here...

pass. If we're interested in this one, we're scraping the barrel folks.
1 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

Rhody83 wrote:
ramster wrote:Also not great for morale if you bring in a player who is only marginally better than what you have. An Iverson level player? Absolutely.
Not sure how you can say that. How do you know? How about bringing in Stan over Thompson? Didn't seem to impact morale.
If you can improve the team you do it. That simple.
My biggest point is this, once you take a guy the open slot is gone, the door is closed.

I don't want a guy who,is a little bit better and then the slot is filled. You get a guy like PC just got because you have a scholarship position open. I want Karan Iverson, Stanford Robinson, or Langford level players for that last Sholarship,spot, otherwise I have not problem leaving the door open. Some of these guys being mentioned are not the level of Iverson, Robinson or Langford, some not any better than what we have.
Last edited by ramster 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

ramster and I are going on the recruiting trail....when do we leave?

Supposedly we have gained a lot of good press from our NCAAT appearance...now some of that needs to result in a good big man who can help right away.....I suppose if we could get Toppin I would be OK with that, a 4 year big with very good potential.

We don't need a 28% shooter who will sit a year.....ridiculous imo.....

I would also take Lane although not sure how good he will be at this level......he's not that tall but he's a 4, and can shoot from deep...

Right now Dan should be exclusively recruiting guys who have 4 and 5 next to their names....get one or 2, and then focus on 2018's and 19's over the summer.
0 x
Iggy1979
Sly Williams
Posts: 4504
Joined: 11 years ago
x 2005

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Iggy1979 »

ramster wrote:
Rhody83 wrote:
ramster wrote:Also not great for morale if you bring in a player who is only marginally better than what you have. An Iverson level player? Absolutely.
Not sure how you can say that. How do you know? How about bringing in Stan over Thompson? Didn't seem to impact morale.
If you can improve the team you do it. That simple.
My biggest point is this, once you take a guy the open slot is gone, the door is closed.

I don't want a guy who,is a little bit better and then the slot is filled. You get a guy like PC just got because you have a scholarship position open. I want Karan Iverson, Stanford Robinson, or Langford level players for that last Sholarship,spot, otherwise I have not problem leaving the door open. Some of these guys being mentioned are not the level of Iverson, Robinson or Langford, some not any better than what we have.
What if Hughes is Stan?
0 x
"Every season, college basketball has one or two teams that rise from dormancy to relevancy, squads that make long-awaited charges at the NCAA Tournament and become really fun storylines along the way."
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

Iggy1979 wrote:
ramster wrote:
Rhody83 wrote:
Not sure how you can say that. How do you know? How about bringing in Stan over Thompson? Didn't seem to impact morale.
If you can improve the team you do it. That simple.
My biggest point is this, once you take a guy the open slot is gone, the door is closed.

I don't want a guy who,is a little bit better and then the slot is filled. You get a guy like PC just got because you have a scholarship position open. I want Karan Iverson, Stanford Robinson, or Langford level players for that last Sholarship,spot, otherwise I have not problem leaving the door open. Some of these guys being mentioned are not the level of Iverson, Robinson or Langford, some not any better than what we have.
What if Hughes is Stan?
If Hughes is Stan I take him. But Stan was a Top 100 HS Player. Do you think Hughes has Stan Potential?
0 x
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

Wouldn't it be nice if someday Dan or whoever is here could regularly recruit 4 star recruits to URI, instead of often having to settle for ones who are projects or who have "potential"?

Of course that's not an easy thing to do here....but if we want to be the Gonzaga of the East, then it needs to happen more often than not.

Dan sees Cooley getting more top 100's than our entire league....that has to make him wonder.

Just stating facts.
Last edited by rambone 78 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
reckless jake
ARD
Posts: 675
Joined: 10 years ago
x 280

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by reckless jake »

Besides URI, the coaches at Pitt, Wake, WVU and VCU believe Lane can play at this level.
1 x
Rhody83
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7437
Joined: 9 years ago
x 3942

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Rhody83 »

My dream is we get two players who are eligible right away at the 4 or 5. I would be good with Lane and a bigger (6-9) Juco.
It appears our two Fr bigs from this year are projects based on Dan's comments at the event tonight. With two new players like this we would have the 4 man rotation upfront (with Cyril and Akele). Berry could be the wildcard that could be a bonus.

I realize if we get two players someone on the existing roster would have to go. It could be Thompson or one of the bigs on the bench.
0 x
“We will be good when we are good.”
reef
Frank Keaney
Posts: 14773
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5145

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by reef »

I am hoping we get Lane I think he will be the best fit to contribute right away
0 x
rhodylaw
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 2026
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1363

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rhodylaw »

I'll take the 6'4" guard who was good enough to play at An SEC school. Give him a year to work on his game and you may have something. Minimally you have another guard with college experience in 18' which will be important given the roster turnover.

I don't get the worry over the front court on this team next year. At least one of the current guys (other than Cyril) will likely step up to be a big contributor and maybe another one or two can be serviceable. I really do not see the need to add to that unless the player is a home run. Kanter or juiston would fit that mold to me. If lane is that player, fine. He looks slow to me though and not able to keep up in the A10
0 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

RhodyLaw,
I agree Juiston and Kanter would be the guys for me. If not those guys then wait for a high level guy. Don't want to settle.
0 x
Billyboy78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16278
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8571

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by Billyboy78 »

ramster wrote:RhodyLaw,
I agree Juiston and Kanter would be the guys for me. If not those guys then wait for a high level guy. Don't want to settle.
Kanter is no longer available.
0 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

Billyboy78 wrote:
ramster wrote:RhodyLaw,
I agree Juiston and Kanter would be the guys for me. If not those guys then wait for a high level guy. Don't want to settle.
Kanter is no longer available.
I was only using his name as an example, maybe I wasn't clear. Those two guys are examples of the size and talent level who I would keep the only remaining scholarship open for, Not some of these other guys being mentioned. Once the last Scholarship is filled then only spots available to fill will be for 2018, all flexibility is then lost, unless you do something like Xavier just did where they grabbed a guy and jettisoned a roster player.
0 x
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

ramster, that's what I think we would do also.....recruiting over guys is a fact of life in college BB nowadays....if you have a chance to get better, you take it.
0 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23804
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8856

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by ramster »

rambone 78 wrote:ramster, that's what I think we would do also.....recruiting over guys is a fact of life in college BB nowadays....if you have a chance to get better, you take it.
If you think that is what we would do then go ahead and try to sign all these guys being mentioned if you think they are better than what we have. I personally do not think we would do that, at least not very often. I could be wrong, there have been some guys moving on, but not many since a few years ago when Minnis, Jarrell, etc moved on. I would still be very selective with my last scholarship, very selective.
0 x
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

I agree with that ramster, we should be selective, but also keep our options open.....like Dan says, recruiting never stops.
0 x
giovanni
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2277
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1254

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by giovanni »

"If Hughes is Stan I take him. But Stan was a Top 100 HS Player. Do you think Hughes has Stan Potential?"

Hughes maybe wasn't a top 100 guy, but he was at least a 3 star and originally committed to Louisville. The reason he backed out of Louisville is because of trouble the school had and didn't want to be part of any issues. Ended up at Missouri because his hs teammate and very good friend was there, who has since transferred. Just the fact he was going to Louisville displays that Pitino thinks he could be a player and he has a pretty good track record in recruiting high level players. It's also said he comes from great family, excellent kid and tireless worker. All of which fit into a Hurley type player mold. Playing in the SEC is very high level Playing against the likes of KY, Fla, SC, Vandy a little better than the likes of Gardner Webb, Liberty and Radford. Kid is from Cleveland, not a typical recruiting area, so I would guess Dan or someone on staff likes the kid. We have been mentioned to have interest , I have not seen anything to indicate the interest is mutual. I still say, if you have a shot at a quality type talent, it doesn't have to be a top 50 or 100, get him, even if he has to sit. Sit the Michael's and Berry again next year? Berry will be gone after this year and the same thing will happen next year, recruit some new big guys. If that is the case force out 1 or 2 of them now. I think the staff is aware of what they have in the big guys and will make decision accordingly. I think we will be ok with what we have, but again, the staff knows better obviously. I still like Toppin as a potential target also. And if we were to get Lane, another guy gone next year and cupboard will be very bare.A couple complaining about Hughes being a poor shooter, you can put together a positive tape like any other guy does too. Who is to say Lane is a very good player because he averaged 17 pts in the Big South on a team the lost its last 18 games? And his averages seem to be much lower vs anyone of note outside of conference and any of the better teams in the Big South. Again, a decision for the staff .

And as far as rankings, Stan being top 100, I have read here where Fatts is a superior recruit to Ashton Langford, easily a top 50 guy, so what difference do rankings make?
Last edited by giovanni 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 16332
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5185

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rambone 78 »

gio, true about getting Lane...he's a one year fix, and no guarantee of that either.....

It's not easy building a roster that's balanced, the staff has gotten themselves into a quandary with needing so many recruits for 2018.....

4 year players of course are the best option, followed by transfers and jucos......
1 x
reckless jake
ARD
Posts: 675
Joined: 10 years ago
x 280

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by reckless jake »

Giovanni, one word: Paragraph.

Please and thank you.
0 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by josephski »

ramster wrote:RhodyLaw,
I agree Juiston and Kanter would be the guys for me. If not those guys then wait for a high level guy. Don't want to settle.
We might be waiting until the next recruiting cycle if we aren't willing to settle...

Right now Lane looks like our best, most realistic option. Juiston is most likely not coming here and it doesn't seem like there are too many high level guys remaining. If Lane commits elsewhere then who's our next best option in your opinion?
Last edited by josephski 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6497

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

giovanni wrote:"If Hughes is Stan I take him. But Stan was a Top 100 HS Player. Do you think Hughes has Stan Potential?"

Hughes maybe wasn't a top 100 guy, but he was at least a 3 star and originally committed to Louisville. The reason he backed out of Louisville is because of trouble the school had and didn't want to be part of any issues. Ended up at Missouri because his hs teammate and very good friend was there, who has since transferred. Just the fact he was going to Louisville displays that Pitino thinks he could be a player and he has a pretty good track record in recruiting high level players. It's also said he comes from great family, excellent kid and tireless worker. All of which fit into a Hurley type player mold. Playing in the SEC is very high level Playing against the likes of KY, Fla, SC, Vandy a little better than the likes of Gardner Webb, Liberty and Radford. Kid is from Cleveland, not a typical recruiting area, so I would guess Dan or someone on staff likes the kid. We have been mentioned to have interest , I have not seen anything to indicate the interest is mutual. I still say, if you have a shot at a quality type talent, it doesn't have to be a top 50 or 100, get him, even if he has to sit. Sit the Michael's and Berry again next year? Berry will be gone after this year and the same thing will happen next year, recruit some new big guys. If that is the case force out 1 or 2 of them now. I think the staff is aware of what they have in the big guys and will make decision accordingly. I think we will be ok with what we have, but again, the staff knows better obviously. I still like Toppin as a potential target also. And if we were to get Lane, another guy gone next year and cupboard will be very bare.A couple complaining about Hughes being a poor shooter, you can put together a positive tape like any other guy does too. Who is to say Lane is a very good player because he averaged 17 pts in the Big South on a team the lost its last 18 games? And his averages seem to be much lower vs anyone of note outside of conference and any of the better teams in the Big South. Again, a decision for the staff .

And as far as rankings, Stan being top 100, I have read here where Fatts is a superior recruit to Ashton Langford, easily a top 50 guy, so what difference do rankings make?
Some people making an over the top statement doesn't mean everyone should just keep going. Stan was a better recruit out of high school then Hughes. Stan was also a better shooter than Hughes in college before he transferred, and we heard Stan was going to be a lockdown defender while we've heard nothing about Hughes' defense. Rankings aren't the be all and end all, but they do matter, especially when you can add stats and anecdotal evidence. Doesn't mean that Hughes can't help, but it's reasonable to believe that he would be a lesser player than Stan if he were to come here.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6497

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

josephski wrote:
ramster wrote:RhodyLaw,
I agree Juiston and Kanter would be the guys for me. If not those guys then wait for a high level guy. Don't want to settle.
We might be waiting until the next recruiting cycle if we aren't willing to settle...

Right now Lane looks like our best, most realistic option. Juiston is most likely not coming here and it doesn't seem like there are too many high level guys remaining. If Lane commits elsewhere then who's our next best option in your opinion?
We can wait and try and get a transfer after first semester, the same time we picked up Iverson. If we use our scholarship now, we don't have that possibility unless one of our guys quits or transfers at midseason. The risk of that approach of course is if we don't get anyone worth while midseason then a huge class becomes even bigger potentially.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6497

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

rambone 78 wrote:gio, true about getting Lane...he's a one year fix, and no guarantee of that either.....

It's not easy building a roster that's balanced, the staff has gotten themselves into a quandary with needing so many recruits for 2018.....

4 year players of course are the best option, followed by transfers and jucos......
I don't blame the staff for getting us into this 2018 situation. They needed to restock the roster because it was barren (Baron?) when they got here and EC's injury pushed him back a year.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
rodfromcranston
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13068
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1517

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rodfromcranston »

Stan's shooting numbers at Indiana were abysmal.
He made 3 3 pointers in two seasons.
As for blaming CFL for this recruiting cycle,
Minnis, Reichel,Oneykaba, and Butler, all under performed
the hype they came here with.
All are gone, along with Aaman.
That's five scholarships, that were given,due to desperation,
poor talent evaluation, lack of the players
developing, or a combination of all three.
The first time I heard Dan speak in person he said,
"Scholarships are gold."
Just signing someone because there's an open scholarship,
makes no sense.
I agree with Ramster, about holding it open for a mid semester transfer,
unless staff can come up with someone who can immediately help.
As for ratings, Bob Knight said, "These guys who rate players, never
even saw most of them play."
There's truth in that.
Last edited by rodfromcranston 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
< Arthur is my spirit animal.
giovanni
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2277
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1254

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by giovanni »

" it's reasonable to believe that he would be a lesser player than Stan if he were to come here."

Why is this? Based on what? Before you get all bent out of shape and begin twisting things as negative, I really like Stan and believe he showed flashes of becoming a very good player with the ability to have a great senior season and be one of our better players. I am not knocking Stan in any way. He offers great defense , energy and many positives. But in reality , he also had some very bad games and only averaged 6 ppg, not an all league performer at this point. Hughes was going to just as good if not a better program, in a better conference and landed in a very similar conference setting and averaged 7 ppg. BTW, he is also known as a very good defensive player. I am only saying, what prevents him from not having as good or greater potential. What is that theory based on? Again if Dan is interested, he obviously thinks Hughes can be an asset.
1 x
giovanni
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2277
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1254

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by giovanni »

I am not saying this guy would be or will be a great player wherever he ends up, but, unlike many here, I don't think this program can simply dismiss opportunities at ACC or SEC recruited level players.
0 x
giovanni
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2277
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1254

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by giovanni »

"As for ratings, Bob Knight said, "These guys who rate players, never
even saw most of them play.""

There is some truth in this, but this is a different time. These guys have not seen everyone, but with the way AAU, prep and tourneys they have now, they have seen most of these guys and many several times. It is a much different world in that sense now than it was 30 years ago. Rankings are certainly no guarantee , but it is a measuring stick worth noting. I am sure Dan or any coach would typically take 3 top 100 kids than 3 top 300 kids.
0 x
sf2010
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1767
Joined: 11 years ago
x 563

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by sf2010 »

Every single team, coach, and fan base hypes up their recruits. What's Hurley supposed to say about a guy like Biggie or Reischel when he brings them in? "Possible role player after two years?"

Just because those 5 players you mentioned (over the course of five years) didn't pan out doesn't mean that we would have gotten markedly better use out of those scholarships.

Might be some truth to that Knight quote, but definitely far less truth in that quote now than there was 20-30 years ago whenever Knight said it.
0 x
User avatar
rodfromcranston
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13068
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1517

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by rodfromcranston »

Knight made the statement only a few years ago as an ESPN commentator.
AAU tournaments have been around since the 90's
at least.
Some rating service in California, surely hasn't seen
many of the not top 50-75 players in the East or South.
Same with East coast service not seeing Western or
Southwest players.
Dan said Reischel was the best all around player
on the team.
Biggie was a "lockdown defender".
Oneykaba was the "second best available big in the East".
He later admitted,'he over-hyped those players as well as Biruta
to "excite the fanbase".
Last edited by rodfromcranston 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
< Arthur is my spirit animal.
sf2010
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1767
Joined: 11 years ago
x 563

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by sf2010 »

Knight made that statement based on his experience over the past 20-30 years, I would say his perspective was solidly rooted in the relatively distant past, regardless of when he actually uttered the words. You can find full games for nearly every AAU team and most good high school programs in the country on youtube. Not saying there aren't hits and misses, of course there are, but the margins have become smaller.

I recall what Dan said about all those players - but again, what exactly is he supposed to say? Of course he says those things publicly to boost their confidence as well as excite the fan base. Every program, every coach does the same thing. I recall Reischel having a good skill set but not being able to put it together mentally until he left here (whose fault that is, got me, possibly Hurley had something to do with that. Biggie had good potential as a defender. As I recall we got Onyekaba in August or something like that, so I definitely don't doubt he was the second best available big in the East.

Just because some recruits don't work out the way that we, they, and the coaching staff hoped they would doesn't mean we would have been better off keeping open scholarships all year.
0 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6497

Re: '16 Transfer PG - Frankie Hughes

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

rodfromcranston wrote:Stan's shooting numbers at Indiana were abysmal.
He made 3 3 pointers in two seasons.
As for blaming CFL for this recruiting cycle,
Minnis, Reichel,Oneykaba, and Butler, all under performed
the hype they came here with.
All are gone, along with Aaman.
That's five scholarships, that were given,due to desperation,
poor talent evaluation, lack of the players
developing, or a combination of all three.
The first time I heard Dan speak in person he said,
"Scholarships are gold."
Just signing someone because there's an open scholarship,
makes no sense.
They were poor at Indiana, yet still better than Hughes, both from two and from the free throw line.

As for blaming CFL, why were we desperate and why did we lack players? Because Baron left us with a solid roster or a barren roster?

It's not just signing players because we had an open scholarship, we had to sign players to field a team.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
Post Reply