Hard pass dude is slower than Tucker
I took a little look at Vaaks and Fiegen highlights and stats....here are a few comments.
Neither is very athletic. Fiegen is 6 4, Vaaks 6 7.
To me, jmo, Vaaks looks like a less physical Tucker. Not quick. Not a jumper. Pure shooter. Loves long 3 point attempts. He's not a guy who takes the ball to the basket much. Does have some shooting and passing skills.
His per 40M #s this year were: 3.7/10.7 on 3s (35%); 2.5-4.9 on 2s (51%); 3.9-4.6 on FTs (83.9%); 3.2 rebs; 4.1 assists; 1.1 steals; .3 BLs; 2.4 TOs; 2.2 fouls; 20.1 pts.
2 #s are alarming to me: 3.5 rebounds per every 40M (for a 6 7 guy); 2.2 fouls committed every 40M. 51% on 2 pointers isn't great either. Not a guy who sticks his head into the action.
He'll only be a Soph, which will increase his price, but is not something particularly valuable to us, I would think, as we've got 2 more athletic (but thin) freshmen sharp shooters coming this year, and a third pure shooter next year.
Fiegen played in the Ivy v. Vaaks in the BE, so keep that in mind as far as stats go......This was his 3rd year, which works for us, I think.
His per 40M #s this year were:3.5/8.5 on 3s (41.4%); 5.9/8.7 on 2s (67.6%); 2.5/3.3 on FTs (77.2%); 7.8 rebs; 3.3 assists; 1.4 steals; .6 BSs; 1.8 TOs; 3.5 fouls; 26.2 pts.
I think I like Fiegen more, for the $ (I assume he'll be $1M less). I like the rebounding, and the 50-50 split on 3s/2s. He's not quite the pure shooter Vaaks is (78% career FTer v. 84% for Vaaks last year). Discounting his scoring and rebounding for the league he played in, he still looks like as good a scorer and a better rebounder. Biggest stat concern is only 3.3 assists per every 40M.
I wouldn't lose sleep over either recruitment. I'm much more interested in getting a stud 5 and PG.
If we want a stud 5 and a point guard we are going to have to pay big big bucks. We really have nothing else to offer right now 6 big ten teams made the sweet sixeteen and can use that as selling point. All we got is money.
@iureactionary I wouldn't love Burton in DeVries offense. VERY ball dominant. He'd make Conerway look like John Stockton. And he's not a great lead defender.
Haralson is an interesting one. Many people in the Indy area view him as not the best teammate. Fishers exploded AFTER he left. This ND team was talented, but awful. Lots of smoke around the chatter about him not being a great teammate.
I basically want to see what DeVries can do with a bunch of athletes that want to defend, rebound, get out and attack in transition, and that are coachable enough to run his offense consistently.
Agree on Haralson as well. A risk for all the $$ that we'd have to put out for him.
Hard pass dude is slower than Tucker
I took a little look at Vaaks and Fiegen highlights and stats....here are a few comments.
Neither is very athletic. Fiegen is 6 4, Vaaks 6 7.
To me, jmo, Vaaks looks like a less physical Tucker. Not quick. Not a jumper. Pure shooter. Loves long 3 point attempts. He's not a guy who takes the ball to the basket much. Does have some shooting and passing skills.
His per 40M #s this year were: 3.7/10.7 on 3s (35%); 2.5-4.9 on 2s (51%); 3.9-4.6 on FTs (83.9%); 3.2 rebs; 4.1 assists; 1.1 steals; .3 BLs; 2.4 TOs; 2.2 fouls; 20.1 pts.
2 #s are alarming to me: 3.5 rebounds per every 40M (for a 6 7 guy); 2.2 fouls committed every 40M. 51% on 2 pointers isn't great either. Not a guy who sticks his head into the action.
He'll only be a Soph, which will increase his price, but is not something particularly valuable to us, I would think, as we've got 2 more athletic (but thin) freshmen sharp shooters coming this year, and a third pure shooter next year.
Fiegen played in the Ivy v. Vaaks in the BE, so keep that in mind as far as stats go......This was his 3rd year, which works for us, I think.
His per 40M #s this year were:3.5/8.5 on 3s (41.4%); 5.9/8.7 on 2s (67.6%); 2.5/3.3 on FTs (77.2%); 7.8 rebs; 3.3 assists; 1.4 steals; .6 BSs; 1.8 TOs; 3.5 fouls; 26.2 pts.
I think I like Fiegen more, for the $ (I assume he'll be $1M less). I like the rebounding, and the 50-50 split on 3s/2s. He's not quite the pure shooter Vaaks is (78% career FTer v. 84% for Vaaks last year). Discounting his scoring and rebounding for the league he played in, he still looks like as good a scorer and a better rebounder. Biggest stat concern is only 3.3 assists per every 40M.
I wouldn't lose sleep over either recruitment. I'm much more interested in getting a stud 5 and PG.
If we want a stud 5 and a point guard we are going to have to pay big big bucks. We really have nothing else to offer right now 6 big ten teams made the sweet sixeteen and can use that as selling point. All we got is money.
Here is a random internet rumor fyi only.....a poster on BTBs is saying he's 'hearing things' about Bidunga......
Just like people were hearing things about Brad Stevens.
Hard pass dude is slower than Tucker
I took a little look at Vaaks and Fiegen highlights and stats....here are a few comments.
Neither is very athletic. Fiegen is 6 4, Vaaks 6 7.
To me, jmo, Vaaks looks like a less physical Tucker. Not quick. Not a jumper. Pure shooter. Loves long 3 point attempts. He's not a guy who takes the ball to the basket much. Does have some shooting and passing skills.
His per 40M #s this year were: 3.7/10.7 on 3s (35%); 2.5-4.9 on 2s (51%); 3.9-4.6 on FTs (83.9%); 3.2 rebs; 4.1 assists; 1.1 steals; .3 BLs; 2.4 TOs; 2.2 fouls; 20.1 pts.
2 #s are alarming to me: 3.5 rebounds per every 40M (for a 6 7 guy); 2.2 fouls committed every 40M. 51% on 2 pointers isn't great either. Not a guy who sticks his head into the action.
He'll only be a Soph, which will increase his price, but is not something particularly valuable to us, I would think, as we've got 2 more athletic (but thin) freshmen sharp shooters coming this year, and a third pure shooter next year.
Fiegen played in the Ivy v. Vaaks in the BE, so keep that in mind as far as stats go......This was his 3rd year, which works for us, I think.
His per 40M #s this year were:3.5/8.5 on 3s (41.4%); 5.9/8.7 on 2s (67.6%); 2.5/3.3 on FTs (77.2%); 7.8 rebs; 3.3 assists; 1.4 steals; .6 BSs; 1.8 TOs; 3.5 fouls; 26.2 pts.
I think I like Fiegen more, for the $ (I assume he'll be $1M less). I like the rebounding, and the 50-50 split on 3s/2s. He's not quite the pure shooter Vaaks is (78% career FTer v. 84% for Vaaks last year). Discounting his scoring and rebounding for the league he played in, he still looks like as good a scorer and a better rebounder. Biggest stat concern is only 3.3 assists per every 40M.
I wouldn't lose sleep over either recruitment. I'm much more interested in getting a stud 5 and PG.
If we want a stud 5 and a point guard we are going to have to pay big big bucks. We really have nothing else to offer right now 6 big ten teams made the sweet sixeteen and can use that as selling point. All we got is money.
That's why I say we need 2 "real mercenaries".....two studs that will go to the highest bidder. The other guys can be motivated by playing for dear old IU.
Hard pass dude is slower than Tucker
I took a little look at Vaaks and Fiegen highlights and stats....here are a few comments.
Neither is very athletic. Fiegen is 6 4, Vaaks 6 7.
To me, jmo, Vaaks looks like a less physical Tucker. Not quick. Not a jumper. Pure shooter. Loves long 3 point attempts. He's not a guy who takes the ball to the basket much. Does have some shooting and passing skills.
His per 40M #s this year were: 3.7/10.7 on 3s (35%); 2.5-4.9 on 2s (51%); 3.9-4.6 on FTs (83.9%); 3.2 rebs; 4.1 assists; 1.1 steals; .3 BLs; 2.4 TOs; 2.2 fouls; 20.1 pts.
2 #s are alarming to me: 3.5 rebounds per every 40M (for a 6 7 guy); 2.2 fouls committed every 40M. 51% on 2 pointers isn't great either. Not a guy who sticks his head into the action.
He'll only be a Soph, which will increase his price, but is not something particularly valuable to us, I would think, as we've got 2 more athletic (but thin) freshmen sharp shooters coming this year, and a third pure shooter next year.
Fiegen played in the Ivy v. Vaaks in the BE, so keep that in mind as far as stats go......This was his 3rd year, which works for us, I think.
His per 40M #s this year were:3.5/8.5 on 3s (41.4%); 5.9/8.7 on 2s (67.6%); 2.5/3.3 on FTs (77.2%); 7.8 rebs; 3.3 assists; 1.4 steals; .6 BSs; 1.8 TOs; 3.5 fouls; 26.2 pts.
I think I like Fiegen more, for the $ (I assume he'll be $1M less). I like the rebounding, and the 50-50 split on 3s/2s. He's not quite the pure shooter Vaaks is (78% career FTer v. 84% for Vaaks last year). Discounting his scoring and rebounding for the league he played in, he still looks like as good a scorer and a better rebounder. Biggest stat concern is only 3.3 assists per every 40M.
I wouldn't lose sleep over either recruitment. I'm much more interested in getting a stud 5 and PG.
If we want a stud 5 and a point guard we are going to have to pay big big bucks. We really have nothing else to offer right now 6 big ten teams made the sweet sixeteen and can use that as selling point. All we got is money.
Here is a random internet rumor fyi only.....a poster on BTBs is saying he's 'hearing things' about Bidunga......
A segment on Sirius XM College Sports radio this morning spent a good amount of time discussing whether Self might be done.
@mushroomgod Yeah...for context on this (and I appreciate you sharing, rumors are all we really have!), Flory Bidunga's "team" have been shopping him around since he was in high school. It happens every single offseason. Now, do I think it's possible that say, Bill Self retires and IU offers Bidunga something well over what Kansas or others present him with and Bidunga makes the leap to Bloomington? It's possible. But there have been rumors about him for five or six years now. Him and Braylon Mullins are "believe it when I see it" cases ha.
@iureactionary I wouldn't love Burton in DeVries offense. VERY ball dominant. He'd make Conerway look like John Stockton. And he's not a great lead defender.
Haralson is an interesting one. Many people in the Indy area view him as not the best teammate. Fishers exploded AFTER he left. This ND team was talented, but awful. Lots of smoke around the chatter about him not being a great teammate.
I basically want to see what DeVries can do with a bunch of athletes that want to defend, rebound, get out and attack in transition, and that are coachable enough to run his offense consistently.
Agree on Haralson as well. A risk for all the $$ that we'd have to put out for him.
In addition to what you said.....Harrelson needs the ball on O, shot 3s infrequently and made 20% (27% on the travel circuit), has less than a 1 to 1 A/TO ratio, is a mediocre (67%) FT shooter, and nothing special as a rebounder (6 for every 40M played). Per Cig......production over potential.
@mushroomgod Yeah...for context on this (and I appreciate you sharing, rumors are all we really have!), Flory Bidunga's "team" have been shopping him around since he was in high school. It happens every single offseason. Now, do I think it's possible that say, Bill Self retires and IU offers Bidunga something well over what Kansas or others present him with and Bidunga makes the leap to Bloomington? It's possible. But there have been rumors about him for five or six years now. Him and Braylon Mullins are "believe it when I see it" cases ha.
Well.....we gotta catch a break one of these years, right? I don't know all that much about the guy, but his #s look pretty darn good.....looks like he competes....Is he considered to be a good teammate?
Self himself said something to the effect that his future at Kansas is tbd......maybe this guy is 1/2 true mercenaries I'm looking for? He sure looks like the rim runner that Durwood is looking for.
@tjinman1987 Hard one to define... I could list all the players I think are "dawgs", but its easier to just list the teams I did. All of those coaches have had their own levels of ups and downs. I guess LLoyd has only been around for a couple years, but and has been mostly "up", but he's winning bigger this year because he has paired his program with guys like Bradley, Peat, their monster big man, Burries... versatile talent, guys that will dig in and get stops and rebounds, guys that make big shots, will their way to making plays. Illinois... they look different, they have foreign guys, but they're not soft or one dimensional. They all get after it defensively, they all attack the glass, they all make winning plays.
So... athletic enough to make winning plays on both ends of the floor, and not completely rely on style, scheme, others... And a good blend of team mentality, with personal pride in winning their own matchups, especially coming down the stretch.
All of the teams I mention are different stylistically. I think DeVries style is solid enough that he doesn't NEED to go after Tucker DeVries type players. Iowa State plays a very open, passing and cutting based style. They don't have a dominant interior anchor big. They do have a bunch of dawgs though. That run Otz's stuff well, are strong and athletic enough to impact and impose their will on other teams, and in the end, they compete like fricking crazy.
Bidunga would be an incredible "start", if there's anything there. I'm sure as you eluded to, the rumors that are out there are probably his team leveraging. But just saying if he is actually available, he's the type of anchor big man "dawg" IU should find a bunch of money to make happen.
And most of those teams probably are too lofty of examples... but Illinois and Arizona have quite a lot of new pieces this year. And with Illinois, the makeup is pretty different from past Underwood teams. Why again can't DeVries, and Carr, and Indiana, make adjustments and bring Indiana well forward and close that gap dramatically? I guess I'm most concerned that DeVries fills a roster similarly this year, versus last year, and just spends more money on it, and gets a couple more high major guys as a result.
yeah, i get he's more of a scorer than a true pg, i just don't know how many elite pg's will even be available so if a kid like burton is, i think i'd like him, especially if you have guys around him that can also pass.
A guy I hope IU is involved with: DeSean Goode, 6'8" sophomore 4 at Robert Morris. He played his freshman season at IU Indy and made a big jump as the Horizon League Player of the Year. Goode is a decent defender, a very efficient offensive player (58.1% from three on 62 attempts) and a dynamite rebounder.
A defined strength of Vaaks is his 3 point shooting and at 35% he ranked 101st in the NCAA. As a freshman this is fairly decent shooting. He should do better next year as virtually most players improve shooting percentages from their initial year. He played most of his games in the Big East which competitively is below the Big 10, Big 12, SEC and one can argue under the ACC.
What is the definition of elite 3 point shooting? For the season the Hoosiers shot 34.66% as a team which got them ranked 149th out of 361 teams. As a team this is average performance. Grade C+. My expectation is for a team to rank somewhere in the top 50 nationally in order to earn the title of good or elite 3 point shooting team. For 2025/26 University of Maryland BC ranked 50th in 3 point shooting with a 36.27%.
With the appropriate pieces surrounding him I'd except Vaaks to help the Hoosiers improve upon their 3 point shooting. I see him as a 3 guard on a very good team and coming off the bench. Ultimately it will be up to the Indiana staff to construct a winning roster and assemble the talent needed to get the Hoosiers moving in a more positive direction. The last 2 portal recruitment classes haven't been kind ones for IU.
@bigmike I understand that you believe or see Vaaks coming off the bench on a very good team but the reality is that Stefan Vaaks won't be coming off the bench to the team he commits to and IU won't have five guys better than Stefan Vaaks from the transfer portal that would result in him coming off the bench if he commits to IU. That level of quality will not be in the transfer portal this season and that many players better than a sophomore version of Vaaks won't be attainable for IU.
@tjinman1987 Now you're talkin... Bidunga, Goode, Haralson, Vaaks, Dorn, Sisley... go find an alpha, bull dog point guard in the Lipsey mold of ISU. Get a couple actual impactful foreign players. Maybe one of the incoming freshman breaks through. And that's a S16 caliber team, with some "dawgs" in it.