Luke Goode in the portal
- Thread starter Tegray1
- Start date
If he is ok only playing like 10-15 minutes a game he will pick IU. If he wants to start he will not.
He’s a really good role player. Plays hard off the bench. Perfect fit.
Sounds like Galloway’s role on the team now? Of course, Goode can shoot.
So if he comes, our bench looks like Trey, Gabe, Goode, Newton, Tucker, and Leal with potentially still 2 spots to fill? 1 needs to be a big, but that team would be really deep
Always believed he should have been adorned in C & C since HS. He sure fills some holes and covers some bases. My only bitch is he's a little light in the shorts. But he's already absorbed the B1G pounding for 3 years. So he is tough enough.
Last edited:
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I enjoyed Luke when he was at Homestead because I follow high school sports in the Fort. He and Loyer played together for a year and they were a fun team to watch.
Hard for me to believe any game Loyer ever played was fun to watch. Whiney little flopper with a Grady Dick--type punchable face.
Sleepers guys saying he's known since the weekend that he was likely heading to IU and is not a surprise to folks within both programs. I think it's a great add.
Goode would be a very good pickup, at this point. Assuming he's excited about being a 10-15 minute a game guy off the bench.
He's not small, he can guard multiple positions, he was an upper 30's percentage guy on decent volume this past year... He's kinda streaky, but I would think he'd be a solid perimeter threat, that doesn't have a huge trade off in terms of being a bad defender or a guy that can't moderately handle the ball.
Like I said in a different post...each of these additions should raise our "floor" a little bit. Adding an established shooter, with some size, like Goode, should fill in some depth cracks...and his shooting can, for sure, win us an extra game or two.
He's not small, he can guard multiple positions, he was an upper 30's percentage guy on decent volume this past year... He's kinda streaky, but I would think he'd be a solid perimeter threat, that doesn't have a huge trade off in terms of being a bad defender or a guy that can't moderately handle the ball.
Like I said in a different post...each of these additions should raise our "floor" a little bit. Adding an established shooter, with some size, like Goode, should fill in some depth cracks...and his shooting can, for sure, win us an extra game or two.
Goode is very comparable to Kopp imo but with a better nose for rebounding.
Plus graduating in 3 years, shouldn't that project for him to focus more energy toward basketball in a senior season?
A bit injury prone, and not the greatest 1 on 1 defender I would characterize as his non strengths.
Plus graduating in 3 years, shouldn't that project for him to focus more energy toward basketball in a senior season?
A bit injury prone, and not the greatest 1 on 1 defender I would characterize as his non strengths.
If you run Goode on torvik added to the roster it takes us from 20 to 17. That’s without Tucker. So Bart likes IU so far.
Not sure about your second point. Coming to Bloomington as a grad transfer might open his time commitments up a bit too much.
And I think he's a better athlete than Kopp. Whatever the case though, I hope we get him.Not sure about your second point. Coming to Bloomington as a grad transfer might open his time commitments up a bit too much.
I remember Kopp getting that one dunk that surprised everyone.
Can we get a career dunk count for both Goode and Kopp to properly evaluate their athleticism?
Too many teams with empty rosters for that to mean anything currently.
For those that study this more closely...would Torvik take in to account the potential/probable playing time impacts these additions would have on teams?
Reason I ask... anyone that we add, at this point, that will be a main rotation guy, will change how the playing time minutes are divided up. If we get Goode, and he's projected to play 15mpg...1)that's less than he played this past year at Illinois 2) that's 15 minutes that need to be taken from the players that are currently providing them data.
I have no idea how he does his projections... but assume he just inputs efficiency * projected minutes. How he projects minutes is beyond me. It doesn't account for glue guys like Cupps, or growth from experience... but, I'm guessing, yes?
If you add Cupps to any lineup the rating will drop .. but is it the reality?
from a roster construction standpoint I appreciate a lot seeing us go after some solid role players.
Spent some fun time in b-ton over the weekend:
Enjoyed watching an old grainy video with some old grads, and we were talking about Eyl and Hillman. Now, of course, Knight knew more than a thing about basketball, but the point is that in constructing a roster it’s about much more than just talent.
Spent some fun time in b-ton over the weekend:
Enjoyed watching an old grainy video with some old grads, and we were talking about Eyl and Hillman. Now, of course, Knight knew more than a thing about basketball, but the point is that in constructing a roster it’s about much more than just talent.
I guess if last years lineup with someone like Anthony in the game instead of Gabe was more efficient, that's a decent answer. Or even Xavier instead of Gabe. I know the starting lineup he was a part of was really efficient in the minutes they played together...what about a couple of the lineups with the other 4 starters and someone instead of Gabe?
I would have to pay to get that info ... so .. not going to pay.
IIRC the lineup with Xavier wasn't that bad nor was the one with Walker replacing Malik or Mack... it was our three recent transfers that killed our efficiency.
He can't really guard any position, but Anderson isn't exactly Scottie Pippin either. He is much higher volume shooter than Anderson though. He is big ten battle tested.
Similar threads
