Jump to content

Romeo Langford


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I think it is reasonable to pick Michigan State ahead of IU when they have Ward, McQuaid, their vet PG who reminds me of the rapist point guard Appling but I cannot recall his name, et al.  We do have a question mark at PG.  We can be optimistic that things will fall in place, but logically, based on what we know, MSU is a logical pick.

Agree. I know they lost Bridges, but their 2016 class is like IU's 2018 class after Romeo eventually leaves, though MSU's are even higher rated guys. They still have Langford, Ward, and Winston from that class as incoming juniors. If we have Hunter, Phinisee, Anderson and Forrester as in-coming juniors with lots of time under their belts we'll expect to be Big Ten contenders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Agree. I know they lost Bridges, but their 2016 class is like IU's 2018 class after Romeo eventually leaves, though MSU's are even higher rated guys. They still have Langford, Ward, and Winston from that class as incoming juniors. If we have Hunter, Phinisee, Anderson and Forrester as in-coming juniors with lots of time under their belts we'll expect to be Big Ten contenders.  

Having the best PG in the conference will always have your team in the conversation. Good guard play wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Yeah.  He is my front runner for poy.  

30 minutes and no response from Boiler. Maybe the internet did break for him, as he hasn't been around for awhile 

:coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, btownqb said:

Having the best PG in the conference will always have your team in the conversation. Good guard play wins. 

Which is why Penn State was in the conversation this past year and probably won't be this coming year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Not always.  We were pretty awful Yogis sophomore and junior years.

We weren't awful his JR year.. we made the tourney. As a SO he wasn't the best PG in the conference. Appling was better, so was Aaron Craft, Traveon Jackson was awfully good as well and could be argued was better than Yogi... don't talk to me about ppg either, Yogi didn't need to be avg that as a SO. It was he and Vonleh vs the whole other team. 

As a JR we were 20-14 and made the tourney... so you're kind of proving my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

I guess I just disagree that going 20-14 and 9-9 is being in the conversation.  But that's fine.

But without his stellar guard play where would we have been? Not even making the NIT. I was kind of assuming, when I made that comment, that the rest of the team was adequate. Yogis JR year Hartman was our C.. I wouldn't call that team adequately equipped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, btownqb said:

But without his stellar guard play where would we have been? Not even making the NIT. I was kind of assuming, when I made that comment, that the rest of the team was adequate. Yogis JR year Hartman was our C.. I wouldn't call that team adequately equipped. 

That year Collin played the stretch 5 was the only year where I thought he added decent value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

30 minutes and no response from Boiler. Maybe the internet did break for him, as he hasn't been around for awhile 

:coffee:

Am I remembering correctly that he mentioned he was getting married? Not sure which thread that was on..  and after doing a quick search, yes, he mentioned his upcoming wedding a couple weeks back.  If so, happy nuptials to StBoiler :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

As a number of you guys have posted above, this is no longer a recruit thread, with Romeo now a Hoosier, but the thread has continued with good discussion, so I'm moving it to the basketball board.

Thank God!!!!!!!!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, btownqb said:

He was fantastic the next season, in his role.

We’ll just have to disagree. I thought he added nice value playing the 4/5 when he got open looks and shot almost 50% on three.

PER agrees with me. I thought he was just an average player at the three slotting in at 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

We’ll just have to disagree. I thought he added nice value playing the 4/5 when he got open looks and shot almost 50% on three.

PER agrees with me. I thought he was just an average player at the three slotting in at 4.

Per has nothing to do with it though. His role, when we won the Big Ten that year, was a glue guy.. basically a really good McRoberts. He played 22 mins on avg on the big ten champions team. He added tremendous value that year. We were a balanced team. Most of his value wasn't going to show up in any sort of measurable stat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Per has nothing to do with it though. His role, when we won the Big Ten that year, was a glue guy.. basically a really good McRoberts. He played 22 mins on avg on the big ten champions team. He added tremendous value that year. We were a balanced team. Most of his value wasn't going to show up in any sort of measurable stat. 

Right. He was always a glue guy. His shortcomings on defence at the 4/5 caused enough matchup problems and floor spacing for the offense that I thought it added a net gain. You can say that PER has nothing to do with anything when you’re a glue guy but I say thats selling offense short and takes away 20% of production. We were balanced that year and I’m not knocking Hartman I just want maximum value and I didn’t see it when he was at the 3. Especially in a crean offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

Right. He was always a glue guy. His shortcomings on defence at the 4/5 caused enough matchup problems and floor spacing for the offense that I thought it added a net gain. You can say that PER has nothing to do with anything when you’re a glue guy but I say thats selling offense short and takes away 20% of production. We were balanced that year and I’m not knocking Hartman I just want maximum value and I didn’t see it when he was at the 3. Especially in a crean offense.

I would have considered him the 4 and Troy the 3. Hartman guarded the better player whether they were or 3 or a 4 that year, I'm some what confused of your point here. But at the beginning of this year there was a stat that was eye popping.. we were at or a little below .500 before this year when Collin was healthy,  we were something like 57-22 when he wasn't healthy, something along those lines... that's no coincidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I would have considered him the 4 and Troy the 3. Hartman guarded the better player whether they were or 3 or a 4 that year, I'm some what confused of your point here. But at the beginning of this year there was a stat that was eye popping.. we were at or a little below .500 before this year when Collin was healthy,  we were something like 57-22 when he wasn't healthy, something along those lines... that's no coincidence. 

You brought up the point about Yogi not being adequately equipped with Hartman at the 5. The point I was trying to make was that was the only time I rated Hartman as a valueble player. To be honest I never thought he was good enough to play significant minutes and we can debate ‘glue guys’ in a different thread but to me when I hear ‘glue guy’ I think ‘justification of someone who isn’t particular good’. It doesn’t surprise me that our record was much better without him than with him. He always frustrated me but I loved him at the 5. He added something unique. A lights out shooter at 5. That’s terrifying to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ADegenerate said:

You brought up the point about Yogi not being adequately equipped with Hartman at the 5. The point I was trying to make was that was the only time I rated Hartman as a valueble player. To be honest I never thought he was good enough to play significant minutes and we can debate ‘glue guys’ in a different thread but to me when I hear ‘glue guy’ I think ‘justification of someone who isn’t particular good’. It doesn’t surprise me that our record was much better without him than with him. He always frustrated me but I loved him at the 5. He added something unique. A lights out shooter at 5. That’s terrifying to defend.

 No.. it was significantly better with him, than without him. I would take 2 Hartmans on every IU team for the rest of time and we'd win a lot of games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, btownqb said:

 No.. it was significantly better with him, than without him. I would take 2 Hartmans on every IU team for the rest of time and we'd win a lot of games

Do they all have to be named 'Hartman'?  That could be considered nepotism.  :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...