Roddy Peters (South Florida Transfer)

DC_Rams · Unread post by **DC_Rams** » 10 years ago

I'd like to think we got a shot with him.

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

We are certainly acting as if we think we will have one open scholarship.

Iggy1979 · Unread post by **Iggy1979** » 10 years ago

Hurley did say taking one transfer was likely.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

By all accounts had a rough freshman year at MD, what was the word on him coming out of HS?

Rhody74 · Unread post by **Rhody74** » 10 years ago

Top 100 recruit with offers from G-town, Xavier, UConn, Rutgers, Kansas and others. He played for current Rutgers coach Eddie Jordan in AAU. See http://247sports.com/Player/Roddy-Peters-16710?pi=27634

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

sf2010 wrote:By all accounts had a rough freshman year at MD, what was the word on him coming out of HS?

4 star PG, ranked #48 in 2013 by Rivals. I seriously doubt we take another guard unless there's issues we don't know about.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball ... ers-129878

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

I don't see this happening.

CT Rhody · Unread post by **CT Rhody** » 10 years ago

He would be TJ's replacement after he graduates and we can focus on big guys for next years class

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 10 years ago

Rutgers was in his final 2. Played for the AAU organization that Coach Cox had worked for. I know he had a shoulder injury his senior year of HS, don't know if that affected him or not. If we do bring him aboard, we are absolutely loaded in the backcourt. Fortunately we wouldn't have any Ty Sullivan sized guards, Terrell, EC and Roddy (and even Biggie) are all 6'3+ so you would hope all could cover 1-3's. Even Jarvis seems to have some muscle and is stronger then you average PG.

Matunuck · Unread post by **Matunuck** » 10 years ago

@insidemdsports reporting that Peters will visit URI.

STC · Unread post by **STC** » 10 years ago

CT Rhody wrote:He would be TJ's replacement after he graduates and we can focus on big guys for next years class

I like this line of thinking.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

TJ is a kamakaze energy guy.
Peters is a point guard. Not the same roles at all.
Plus, EC and JT have both said they want to play some
point guard in the future.
So, what's the attraction here, either way.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 10 years ago

Can he shoot the three?????

McRam · Unread post by **McRam** » 10 years ago

here are his stats from last season at Md

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... -terrapins

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 10 years ago

theblueram wrote:Can he shoot the three?????

No. His strength is getting by his guy and to the rim.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

My newest good buddy, GBG, says he saw him
play a few times, and wasn't impressed.

DC_Rams · Unread post by **DC_Rams** » 10 years ago

Roddy would be a huge get for us. He is really good, with a great upside.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 10 years ago

i dont care how many guards we have, at URI we do not turn down former 4* IMO.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 10 years ago

Bos8 wrote:
theblueram wrote:Can he shoot the three?????
No. His strength is getting by his guy and to the rim.

So he would sit three behind EC an JT?

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

If we have a choice between a good guard and a good big right now, I want the good big.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 10 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:If we have a choice between a good guard and a good big right now, I want the good big.

It's amazing how fast things changed around here

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 10 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:If we have a choice between a good guard and a good big right now, I want the good big.

If we have a chance at a good player, we take the good player. There are plenty of minutes to divide at 3 positions between EC, Jarvis, Roddy and Jared. 30 minutes per game for the 4 of them?

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

Bos8 wrote:
Billyboy78 wrote:If we have a choice between a good guard and a good big right now, I want the good big.

If we have a chance at a good player, we take the good player. There are plenty of minutes to divide at 3 positions between EC, Jarvis, Roddy and Jared. 30 minutes per game for the 4 of them?

I agree. I just said IF we had a choice, and could get either, I want the big right now...nothing against taking another good guard, just replacing Gil after this year would be my #1 priority.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Wait. 30 minutes for 4 guards?
So is Dan benching Hassan and whoever else is over 6'5"?
Of course number ONE priority now, is replacing Gil, not
creating a logjam at guard.

STC · Unread post by **STC** » 10 years ago

When you think of it as Peters replacing TJ Buchanan it's a no brainer.

Matthews, Terrell, Garrett can all play on the ball or off it. If Hurley wants to run a 3 guard set that would be a nice 4 man rotation with Peters. Minutes will always sort themselves out. Yes, I also want a big man to replace Gil but if you can get Peters and fill the Buchanan void then why not? Very highly rated out of high school and he wouldn't have to be the man with EC and Terrell running the show.

Who is Peters considering? Did he really visit today?

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 10 years ago

STC wrote:
Who is Peters considering? Did he really visit today?

Charles Cooke was the one that Alex Kline tweeted was coming- and then deleted.

The Cox connection seems to be what started the talk.

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Wait. 30 minutes for 4 guards?
So is Dan benching Hassan and whoever else is over 6'5"?
Of course number ONE priority now, is replacing Gil, not
creating a logjam at guard.

Benching hassan? What are you taling about? There is plenty of time for him at the forward spot. In a 4 put system, 3 and 4 are interchangable. I agree that replacing gil is a guge priority, but we are in no position to turn down a player of roddys caliber. All of the recruiting experts on here hopefully do realize he was rated higher then jared or anyone else we have? Roddy excels in the open floor, just like ec, just like hasan and hare and jared and the rest of our team. As uconn showed us, if you have a servicable big, you can win with stud guards.

DC_Rams · Unread post by **DC_Rams** » 10 years ago

...we are slowly becoming more and more of a destination for higher ranked kids. I'm loving it.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Wait. 30 minutes for 4 guards?
So is Dan benching Hassan and whoever else is over 6'5"?
Of course number ONE priority now, is replacing Gil, not
creating a logjam at guard.

What are you talking about? If we want to play 3 guards, then that is 120 minutes per game. Divided by 4 guys (EC, Jarvis, Jared and [Stud X]), you get 30 minutes per guy. You don't have to cut into Hassan's minutes or anybody else if you buy that we want to play 3 guards.

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 10 years ago

I would hazard a guess that the three guard offense won't be run exclusively, but even if it's only run 70% of the time that still gives 4 guards 27 minutes per game, assuming everyone is healthy and eligible all the time, which of course would be a risky assumption. I'm okay with recruiting 4 star players at any position until we move on to 5 star players that is.

EGram · Unread post by **EGram** » 10 years ago

Why would anyone not want this?

Not every guy we recruit will fulfill his potential. Adding another guy who was a too 100 recruit a year ago would be a no brainer. If Terrell and Garrett excel it's a good problem to have too many good guards.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

So, none of you critics think replacing the leading front court scorer is
a priority?
What is this, Canisius next year, playing four guards?
It's called hard to guard. You need interior offense. Besides
Martin, who's left that might score?
Plus, EC and Terrell have said they want to play point guard
at some point.
Also, as of today, there's no room for anyone else.
Don't let that stop you from wanting another guard.
Whatever.

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 10 years ago

We have Tj and Gil leaving, allowing us more then one scholarship. I thought a front court scorer is a priority for one of those scholarships, because as of right now we only have Watson, Hare and Iffy in the post going forward. That's why we are involved with guys like Falzone and Maye. We are allowed to bring in more then 1 player at a time.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 10 years ago

If Powell indeed has his scholarship for this season, we'll have 3 openings next season.

Getting a "ready to play" top quality big man won't be easy, but it's necessary.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Obviously we need to add at least one big in the next cycle. I don't think that means that we can't also look at adding a guard at some point, especially if it's an elite player. As Rambone said, we either have one scholarship now and two next cycle or three next cycle. Probably not coming up with three bigs for those spots no matter what.

DC_Rams · Unread post by **DC_Rams** » 10 years ago

again, if Roddy wants to come here, we dont turn him down.

Rhody Guy · Unread post by **Rhody Guy** » 10 years ago

Sorry for speaking for you Rod, but the concern is that Roddy would take up a scholarship this year while he sits out, and we do not have one to give him unless Powell pays his way.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Everyone on this board is suddenly rankings drunk.
Peters shot .11% from 3! 40% FG and 64% FT. 2.1 assists to 1.8 turnovers.
Not everyone lives up to the rankings, and not everyone is a fit
for every team.
A guy like Charles Cooke, who is versitile and a proven all
around player, is someone who I'd rather see, ranking aside.
Swing players are important, and as of now, we don't have one.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

If we end up getting Peters or Cooke, the assumption is that Powell will be paying his own way. That, or the staff knows about someone leaving that this board is unaware of.

In any case, the people who know this situation best are proceeding as if we have a scholarship to offer this year.

Agree with Rod that replacing Gilvydas is a huge priority. However, that does not mean that we stop pursuing all other targets. IF we have a scholarship available which it seems that we do based on the actions of the coaching staff, I am totally on board with taking a highly-rated transfer (Peters) or a high-performing at a lower-level transfer (Cooke) that needs to sit out this upcoming year and be eligible to replace TJ. Seems like a good plan to me.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

I don't really think we have to worry about the scholarship situation. If we did add one, then we obviously had one to use. If we don't have one to use, we won't add anyone.

As far as Peters, I don't have any idea about him as a player. My assumption is that if the staff pursued him they would have seen him and concluded that he could help them (and also assuming they would have a scholarship to offer him). They aren't going to offer a guy based on rankings. I don't care if it is Cooke or Peters, if they want to bring in another guy I'm not going to question it. I'd trust they have a reason for doing so.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

Silly TP, don't you know that trusting the better judgment of experts makes you a sheep who isn't thinking big and is ok with mediocrity?

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Cut the crap sf2010. No matter which point to view I take,
you seem hell bent on taking the opposite track.
It's been that way for some time, now.
This is a frigging discussion board. That's what we do.
As for trusting experts, that's fine, but nobody is infallible.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

Nothing personal, just speaking up when I think you say something wrong (which I admit, does seem to be a lot lately. We appear to have very different ways of thinking). It's a discussion board, as you said. And I agree with your last sentence

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 10 years ago

I think Cooke is a better option than Peters. Those shooting numbers scare me.

I also think we're closer to landing Cooke than Peters. Which is a good thing, imo.

BFC · Unread post by **BFC** » 10 years ago

Our future backcourt is a point guard and two combo guards who eventually want to be point guards. I can see this working based on how Hurley plays his guards (X handled the ball more than our "point guards" last year). I don't see however how another point guard gets added now, especially a top 50 guy who's leaving the ACC for playing time and would be in the same class as Garrett and Terrell after sitting out a year. I understand the staff doing their due diligence but the further this goes the more I would be worried about someone else not qualifying.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

BFC wrote:Our future backcourt is a point guard and two combo guards who eventually want to be point guards. I can see this working based on how Hurley plays his guards (X handled the ball more than our "point guards" last year). I don't see however how another point guard gets added now, especially a top 50 guy who's leaving the ACC for playing time and would be in the same class as Garrett and Terrell after sitting out a year. I understand the staff doing their due diligence but the further this goes the more I would be worried about someone else not qualifying.

Legit concerns, BFC, but I sincerely hope you're wrong about that last point.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

The possiblity of a non qualifier rumor, has been out there for a while.
I hope it's not a situation of having to wait out the NCAA clearing house.
The last time I can recall was Zach Marbury, and the NCAA didn't
decide until January, and it was a negative decision, too.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

I can recall a point guard from South America (I think), who originally signed with Miami (I think), who definitely never ended up playing a game for us after waiting on the NCAA to determine his amateur status.

Didn't Delroy have to wait on the clearing house for a while as well?

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Yes, you want to avoid the NCAA Clearing House, if possible.

Login • Register