Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on Today at 06:53:04 PMI could be wrong but I recall Wade having 2 back-to-back 30 or 40 point games during a Christmas tourney his senior year.

I just looked up Henry's HS stats and he scored 714 points in 26 games his Senior year. Almost averaged 30 so really hard to compare with the eras and competition being totally different. Man I would've loved to see Wade live in high school.

Quote from: jesmu84 on Today at 06:07:14 PMYou didn't ask the question to me. But...

I'm fine if shaka wants #13-15 on the roster to be projects that don't produce until year 4/5 in the program. As long as those years are big east starter production numbers.

In this particular situation, CH is never going to be good enough for that production, or he's being forced onto the court too early.

Either way, it's a coaching issue this season.

Thanks for answering.
Five years ago, I think, I'd probably have agreed with you. There's no major harm/downside to carrying a project as the 13th-15th player on the roster back then.
But in the NIL era, especially with the way it's been reported that MU does NIL, I think there is a downside. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that payments from the collective are generally fixed, and players are going to get what they get regardless of their standing in the lineup.
Assuming that's correct, I think spending limited funding on end-of-the-bench players is kind of wasteful. Aren't we getting more bang for our buck spending the NIL pool on 11-12 players who are having or are expected to soon have a positive impact, as opposed to diluting it among 15 players, 3-5 of whom aren't really contributors and may never be contributors?
I just don't think it's an effective use of resources to invest 4-5 years money for 1-2 years of production.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on Today at 06:53:04 PMI could be wrong but I recall Wade having 2 back-to-back 30 or 40 point games during a Christmas tourney his senior year.

You aren't wrong.....it was in a Xmas tournament I believe.

Quote from: JTJ3 on Today at 06:49:57 PMI'm just glad Shaka finally got a guy who seems to be a natural scorer.

The upperclassmen on the roster, from Shakas first few classes, too many athletes who needed to develop offensively and just dont have that natural abilituly to go get a bucket when its needed.

I agree.......he recruited too many athletes who weren't skilled basketball players.

Quote from: GoldenEagles03 on Today at 06:41:56 PMI thought similar but relating to Ellenson rather than Wade.

Henry had some very crooked numbers in his Senior season.

I could be wrong but I recall Wade having 2 back-to-back 30 or 40 point games during a Christmas tourney his senior year.

I'm just glad Shaka finally got a guy who seems to be a natural scorer.

The upperclassmen on the roster, from Shakas first few classes, too many athletes who needed to develop offensively and just dont have that natural ability to go get a bucket when its needed.

Thankfully a few of the current freshman seem to be a little more natural offensively too.

Thats what made Kolek, Kam and even Jop special, they could go create and make a tough shot when the offense got stuck.

Quote from: Johnny B on December 18, 2025, 04:43:20 PMSomething's off. The idea MU has a 1 in 4 shot at winning @CU is absurd.

Seeing about 20% in sinning apps and 7.5 dogs. I guess Vegas trusts MU more than Scoop

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on Today at 06:38:58 PMObviously not making this comparison but this reminds me of Wade his senior year. Had some absolutely massive performances like this.

I thought similar but relating to Ellenson rather than Wade.

Henry had some very crooked numbers in his Senior season.

Quote from: MuMark on Today at 06:32:14 PMhttps://x.com/steve_hewitt/status/2002166600946884709?s=61

Obviously not making this comparison but this reminds me of Wade his senior year. Had some absolutely massive performances like this.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on Today at 03:38:45 PMWell if he were your stock advisor and your portfolio was through the roof over the last 4 years, but now in 2 months it is in the dumpster would you feel the same?

Considering the stock market is a long-term play where you expect some significant fluctuations, the answer is yes.

I don't think that's a great comparison, though.

It all comes down to what Shaka does to fix this. I'd hope, after some introspection, he'd pivot to the Painter/Purdue model.

RGV can still be a keystone of the program but he needs to leave himself some flexibility because, ultimately, the "V" is the most important part.

Will he make that adjustment? I honestly don't know.