Safe to say withrawing Glover offer a mistake?

DuffMan

DuffMan

Well-Known Member
It seems like a no brainer in hindsight. However even if Hubbard had stayed wouldn't it still be a mistake to not bring in a quality guy for 3 years? Gatens is this year, as is Bryce. Even if we bring in a 4 year PG as a freshman next year that would still leave us with 3 guys capable of playing the point. Hell we could have even red shirted the incomming guy if both Hubbard and Glover would have worked out.

I just look at this roster, and even with hubbard there was certainly room for another PG.
 
Last edited:
If the Washpun thing went down like it is rumored to have, that was the mistake. I'm not sure Glover is any more of a PG than Marble.
 
It's too easy to say that now. The staff clearly felt that taking both was not what they wanted to do.
 
JonDMiller said:
It's too easy to say that now. The staff clearly felt that taking both was not what they wanted to do.
Click to expand...

I realize it's easy to say that now, my point is I don't think it was too tough to say that at the time. We had 4 scholarship guards on the roster, two of which were in there senior year. It's not like signing Glover and Hubbard would have hamstrung the future in terms of schollies or created a log jam on the depth chart.
 
DuffMan said:
I realize it's easy to say that now, my point is I don't think it was too tough to say that at the time. We had 4 scholarship guards on the roster, two of which were in there senior year. It's not like signing Glover and Hubbard would have hamstrung the future in terms of schollies or created a log jam on the depth chart.
Click to expand...

The staff felt taking both wasn't an option they wanted to explore. They had their reasons. So they didn't.

Sure, it would be great to have another body now but it doesn't change their reasons for not doing it at the time based on their plans for rides and player evals, etc.
 
DuffMan said:
It seems like a no brainer in hindsight. However even if Hubbard had stayed wouldn't it still be a mistake to not bring in a quality guy for 3 years? Gatens is this year, as is Bryce. Even if we bring in a 4 year PG as a freshman next year that would still leave us with 3 guys capable of playing the point. Hell we could have even red shirted the incomming guy if both Hubbard and Glover would have worked out.

I just look at this roster, and even with hubbard there was certainly room for another PG.
Click to expand...
NO. FM got his guard like the staff had planned. Why sign Hubbard if you think he's going to leave and you'll need Glover?
Too many people think they know to much.
 
BALDIES7980 said:
NO. FM got his guard like the staff had planned. Why sign Hubbard if you think he's going to leave and you'll need Glover?
Too many people think they know to much.
Click to expand...

I don't know a damn thing. I'm asking if it makes sense to sign another guard comming into this season. I think it does.
 
Easy to say now but I was saying it all along. Taking Hubbard was totally stupid unless he is a jordan/james type player which he is not. We will never here his name again unless it is in the police blotter. Passing on a good kid and taking a marginal felon. We messed up and I say we because I am all for Fran
 
JonDMiller said:
It's too easy to say that now. The staff clearly felt that taking both was not what they wanted to do.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is the hardest part to take. McCaffrey willingly gambled with this season by going all in with Hubbard and he lost. Aside from the obvious fallout from Hubbard leaving, McCaffrey now has some fans )me) questioning his judgment. He will never be able to lobby the administration to get a questionable kid in after this and rightly so. I shudder to think at the time, resources, money, energy that went into the recruitment of Hubbard for 0 gain.

I said (as did others) back when Hubbard was signed that it was insanity not to get some insurance at the PG due to the critical nature of our need at that spot.
 
this isn't great for the basketball team but its not a black eye for.the university. let's not get too carried away here.
 
coonhawk said:
Easy to say now but I was saying it all along. Taking Hubbard was totally stupid unless he is a jordan/james type player which he is not. We will never here his name again unless it is in the police blotter. Passing on a good kid and taking a marginal felon. We messed up and I say we because I am all for Fran
Click to expand...

Can't argue with this.
 
DuffMan said:
I don't know a damn thing. I'm asking if it makes sense to sign another guard comming into this season. I think it does.
Click to expand...
Well if it made sense to them they would have done it, right?
IMO Glover wan't anything more than Hubbard. If they were to bring on another guard in this class(3rd G) it would have made sense to be a PG not an athlete with some handles. From all appearances FM had Guerrero in his plans for this year followed by Gesell at least. But he missed out and didn't find someone he really wanted at PG so he took someone for 2 yrs that could help his team and keep his options open for HS players.
 
hawkIhoops said:
Unfortunately this is the hardest part to take. McCaffrey willingly gambled with this season by going all in with Hubbard and he lost. Aside from the obvious fallout from Hubbard leaving, McCaffrey now has some fans )me) questioning his judgment. He will never be able to lobby the administration to get a questionable kid in after this and rightly so. I shudder to think at the time, resources, money, energy that went into the recruitment of Hubbard for 0 gain.

I said (as did others) back when Hubbard was signed that it was insanity not to get some insurance at the PG due to the critical nature of our need at that spot.
Click to expand...

But you do not have the slightest idea of why he made the decision to just take Hubbard and not Glover in this instance.

Perhaps they thought there was another late PG possibility that fit them better..let's be frank, Glover was not a lights out guy, he was going to be a backup. Fran said multiple times in the spring they had not closed the door on another point guard, but it would have to be the right fit. That means they didn't feel Glover was the right fit, or added enough in addition to Hubbard, to take him...

And I think you have to factor in the scholarship situation as well...they likely felt they could do better than Glover with a high school prospect that would be around four years than applying the ride to Glover.

This particular sort of second guessing is next to impossible to pin down, because there are so many factors involved, nearly all of them unknown to us, and some of them require Fran to be a seer and predict the future.
 
The advantages of hindsight.....

20061106predictions.jpg
 
Last edited:
"Fran to be a seer and predict the future."


It isn't as if people are criticizing Fran for taking one high school kid over another; Fran told a serviceable reserve point to take a hike, so he could bring in a felon.

You put his chips in the felon's basket, one doesn't need to be a seer to know what was going to happen.
 
"one doesn't need to be a seer to know what was going to happen"

Totally wrong. One absolutely would have to be a seer to predict this or anything else.
It's so easy to judge when you are talking after the fact.(sigh)
 
If Glover were on the team now he'd still be a backup point guard. He was not an impact player. Hubbard was. To accelerate the rebuild Hubbard was the choice. It didnt work out so there likely won't be exponential acceleration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top