2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)

[Jaysker12]

Wizard brings up a good point, though. If we were to land a commit from Travis, that'd put us 3 deep at the "pure point" position with Austin, Andre (who they're pushing to become a true PG), and Travis, and the next year Nick Norton as well.

[Jet915]

Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but how do we offer immediate playing time? Isn't this the "Doug scholarship," which puts us up to 14 on the roster next year? So we're ready to say this guy pushes ahead of Isiah and Andre, neither of whom are getting substantial minutes this year? Is he going to push ahead of Austin, who is playing great and will be even better with a year of experience? I know recruiting is fun to follow and dream about getting top guys, but do we really want 14 guys on the roster? We're blessed with good team chemistry now, what happens when you have guys unhappy about their playing time? Or are we going to push somebody out, like Weber apparently is? I'd buy a 14th player if it's a some super-duper 5-star wing stud, but otherwise I love where we are.

I do agree it's a short drive and we offer a quality education!

I agree that Travis doesn't really fill a need like an athletic wing would. With that saying, Jorgenson looks like a top flight prospect which we haven't landed too many in awhile (Kendall Harris was the last and he wasn't even realistically an option IMO). If he's interested, I say we go after him. If we are lucky enough to get him, we can move Yates to his more natural position at the 2.

[AttyAlum]

Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but how do we offer immediate playing time? Isn't this the "Doug scholarship," which puts us up to 14 on the roster next year? So we're ready to say this guy pushes ahead of Isiah and Andre, neither of whom are getting substantial minutes this year? Is he going to push ahead of Austin, who is playing great and will be even better with a year of experience? I know recruiting is fun to follow and dream about getting top guys, but do we really want 14 guys on the roster? We're blessed with good team chemistry now, what happens when you have guys unhappy about their playing time? Or are we going to push somebody out, like Weber apparently is? I'd buy a 14th player if it's a some super-duper 5-star wing stud, but otherwise I love where we are.

I do agree it's a short drive and we offer a quality education!

Right now we have one true PG. Yates may become one, but he seems more like a combo guard to me, if not a true SG.

[mredle]

Two things are beautiful about this latest turn in the discussion. 1) It's fun for you guys to arguem about, and 2) the University pays coaches to figure these things out. But while I've opened my mouth and recognizing what I think AttyAlum was up to - I don't know that K-State has given up on Orris. He didn't play last nite. So what. Andre hasn't played in some games either, it doesn't mean our staff has given up on him.

[hilltopalum]

I think both Yates and Z will eventually fill into the 2 spot. Jorgenson would be back up point from day 1 imo.

[Rickalexander]

Couple things I found out at the game today, Devry has been recruiting Travis since his freshmen yr, actually missing his 1st game in 15 yrs to watch Travis play 2 weeks ago. Coach Mac is going out to watch Travis tomorrow. Im sure they know Jorgenson and they must feel like hes a good fit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYCNrkQiwsM

[Wizard of Westroads]

Sorry, didn't mean to stir things up. I was only countering the point that we can offer immediate playing time.

I trust that the coaches can evaluate talent and have a plan for next year. But immediate playing time isn't really something they can offer with the roster we have, especially with our starting point guard returning. I leave in peace and certainly didn't mean disrespect to Travis, but felt Austin, Andre and Isiah shouldn't be forgotten.

[LJay]

Since we are only developing 5 players besides the seniors and DMD, there will be many minutes up for grabs next year.

[Chicagojayfan]

I think both Yates and Z will eventually fill into the 2 spot. Jorgenson would be back up point from day 1 imo.

That is kind of how I see it as well. With Gibbs on the roster this year we don't need a backup PG who distributes as much as we will when he is gone. Chatman is looking great, but I think we will want a more natural PG to back him up immediately next year and will look for Yates and Zierdan to be more combo guards and 2 guards than true points.

This also gives McDermott a lot of flexibility about going big and small in his rotations. With Dingman, NJohnson, and Harris coming on board, and then with Chatman, Manigat, Jorgenson (hopefully), Yates, Zierdan and Norton (in a couple of years) we could match up with just about anyone on the perimeter.

One rule of thumb when you are a mid-major in the Valley and are looking to be a high mid major for the foreseeable future is to NEVER be without a solid, experienced PG. Not only do you need that solid play in tournament time, but the valley coaches are good and will hammer a team that doesn't have a good PG. Injuries and illnesses happen and you have to have 2 on the roster. I have no problem with having Chatman (SR), Jorgenson (SO), Norton (FR and/or RS) in a couple of years with Yates/Zierdan as the 2's and combo guards. Think of it this way. We RS Norton and we have 2 years between each of the PG's and we potentially have 3 guys who will distribute, control the tempo and run the O the way that Mac wants

[hilltopalum]

http://whiteandbluereview.com/?p=21400