All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

V
vtox1 OP
Apr 17, 2026 at 11:59 PM ET
Gurdak to Rutgers only makes VT look poor on NIL if he is going to be 6th
Or 7th man not sure that is the case? We prioritized Hansberry, if Gurdak is likely Rutgers starter at the 5 then he is worth more to them than VT and we have the better starter at the 5.

28 Replies

Snape Snape
3mo
Amusing to me that guys were desperate to keep Gurdak.
But now that he hit the portal and we lost him to Rutgers (got outbid for him), "Meh. He would never have started here."
A
ancient alien 2018
3mo
"Guys"? Certain folks, yes. A couple have a more nuanced take on players
than you and me, and have expressed an opinion of his, now moot ability, to take a starting 5 spot. Until the portal players are known, and seen this summer and fall, only the staff has a real idea, and they are never 100% correct about any player brought in. Would he have been a starter at VT? I have no clue, but still wish he were in the mix. Now it's move on time.
G
GCHokie34
3mo
To be clear...im in the camp that Gurdak was the 2nd priority on my list
And finding someone to replace what his projection will be is going to be extremely difficult. They will likely have to piecemeal replacing him each year to replicate his value
NC Hoke NC Hoke
3mo
He wasn’t second on my list but I agree with your sentiment.
He was a high priority and will be difficult if not improbable to replace in our rotation at the 5 position. My view is we probably should have ponied up to keep him here but it looks to me like we have taken a gamble. There were literally four proven players already on our team we should have re-recruited ahead of anybody from the portal. He was one of them.
O
OrlandoHokie
3mo
Gurdak will probably be on 4 different teams in 4 years
G
GCHokie34
3mo
I genuinely do not see him as that type...
I dont think he stays at Rutgers the rest of his career so 3 is likely, but it'll be because the funds in year 2 at Rutgers cannot possibly remain the same for his trajectory if theyre keeping the University together with duct tape, thoughts and prayers
A
ancient alien 2018
3mo
And then ask for a 5th!!
K
KCHokie2
3mo
^^I tried that at the Golden Corral steak station.
It's possible I'm to blame for the spike in beef prices. ** Edited by KCHokie2 at 4/19/2026, 6:18:29 AM
NC Hoke NC Hoke
3mo
I think idealistically we would have been recruiting a starting 5
from the portal, hopefully able to attract a 5 who can also step out and shoot; also, then being unable to meet Gurdak’s price in that backup role, (especially after having to increase money paid out to our top 3 priorities - Hammond, Hansberry, and Johnson).
M
marcbvtgm
3mo
Gurdak was clearly a distant #4 return priority - if that.
I just don't understand the handwringing over the loss of a back-up 5 with a few strengths, but also some glaring inherent weaknesses.
NC Hoke NC Hoke
3mo
For next season, the loss of depth at the 5 position where replacements
are not that easy to find. We needed both a starter and a back up at 5. Now we must find both. Also, I think he would develop into a starter by his junior season, jmo.
David Cunningham David Cunningham
3mo
He's probably going to be a starter there. Wouldn't have been that here.
AnotherTechW AnotherTechW
3mo
So we are going to get a big that’s better than gurdak
I just find that hard to believe based on what we have to spend
G
GCHokie34
3mo
Probably depends on how you define "better"
I dont know who the leading targets are, but its very conceivable that VT cpuld land someone who is better in terms of talent in 2026-2027. What they wont find is someone better than Gurdak who also has 3 years of eligibility left or someone with as high of a ceiling as Gurdak. The likely outcome is that the 4 and 5 positions next year are a downgrade from a production standpoint for this season. But there is opportunity for that not to be the case, they'll just be operating in a space where the numbers of years left are 1 or two at most. All that to say I dont think VT adds someone who winds up having a better career than Gurdak, but could certainly have a better year than him
H
HokieBrazil
3mo
So we are getting someone better than him at the 5 or Hansberry playing the
5 and we are getting a solid 4. I was under the impression with Lawal graduating Hansberry would move full time to the 4 with Gurdak at 5 with a full off season of conditioning
E
EDGEMAN
3mo
Hansberry isn't going to be our 5.
He's definitely our starting 4.
H
HokieBrazil
3mo
Huh?Gurdak would have been a starter with Hansberry moving to the 4
J
jrc3rd
3mo
Only if he gains an outside shot and 4 or 5 inches in his vertical.
M
marcbvtgm
3mo
And can suddenly move faster than a glacier outside the charge arc
W
Windows NT
3mo
4 or 5. That would be 4.5 or 5.5 vertical inches. too low
H
HokieBrazil
3mo
So just like Poteat then
AnotherTechW AnotherTechW
3mo
He’s way better than poteat. Like ALOT better and at younger age
H
HokieBrazil
3mo
Agree,was making a point that Poteat was a starter and didn't have an
outside shot nor much of a vertical, plus bad knees. So I think Gurdak wasn't going to be a role player
J
jrc3rd
3mo
I certainly wanted him to stay and he obviously was well coached in high
school, but on a good team I don't think he is a starter. Just a fan's opinion.
G
George Baylor
3mo
Agree, G at the 5, Hans at the 4. GURDAK is a BIG Loss and big + for Rut!
A
ancient alien 2018
3mo
Maybe Maybe not. May want to wait until 26-27 to see if that happens
A
ancient alien 2018
3mo
What??????????? Huh????????????????? good grief
V
Vippie1
3mo
I think he might be saying
Keeping Gurdak in the fold for 3 more years exceeds the value of TH for one . But of course that aint the way ncaa hoops works today. Im guessing we would have loved to have kept Gurdak but his mind was set on moving on.