Needs-style Recruiting Table

[SFHoya99]

Position	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
PG	Wright	Starks	Starks	Starks
PG	Starks	Sanford	Sanford
SG	Clark	Clark	Trawick	Trawick	Trawick
G	Sanford	Trawick
/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /
SF	Freeman	Thompson	Thompson	Bowen
SF	Thompson	Bowen	Bowen
/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /
BIG	Vaughn	Sims	Lubick	Lubick	Adams
BIG	Sims	Lubick	Ayegba	Ayegba	Hopkins
BIG	Lubick	Ayegba	Adams	Adams	Bolden
BIG	Ayegba	Adams	Hopkins	Hopkins
/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /
UT	Benimon	Benimon	Benimon	Bolden
UT	Bowen	Hopkins	Bolden
UT
/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /
NEEDS	None	None	G (PG), SF	PG, G, SF	PG (2), G, SF (2), BIG
/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /	/ / / / /
OPEN	1	1	2	5	9

[SFHoya99]

What is this? This is my attempt to create a positional scholarship chart. It's not meant to replace the other, which is clearer on how many we have, etc.

What it is meant to do is highlight places of positional need. I tried to place people in positions I felt comfortable being certain of -- for example, I'm confident Vee can play backup PG (and starting SG) but I'm not sure about Bowen being a 2 yet, though he may get there. Please feel free to differ.

Also, I didn't spend a ton of time on who was in the "starting" spots. You may think Hopkins should be a Top 4 big; it's rather immaterial to the exercise, which isn't to highlight individuals but rather "do we have enough bigs/guards/wings."

As you can see, we're pretty loaded on bigs, just one offseason after fretting about them. There are always transfers, people leaving early, etc., and you always take an elite big if they want to come, but there's not a huge need for one for years if you are confident in your recruits.

There also seems to be a good mix of C (Sims, Adams, Ayegba) and face up F (Lubick, Hopkins, Bolden).

SF is a different story. Hollis is a stud, but after that it's Bowen (untested) and Benimon (not a true 3 and his shot limits him right now). Add in that Hollis is probably the player most likely to jump to the NBA early on the team / graduate early AND that our guard depth disappears quickly right now, and wing is a surprising priority over the next couple of years.

So is G, and more specifically, PG. We're fine for next year, but after that, we're down to three guards and just two PGs. We need someone to play guard within '11 and '12, even if it is Aaron Bowen moving outside. Ideally, we'd have someone coming to play backup PG as well.

We have only two scholarships between '11 and '12. That's part of what makes Kyle Anderson so ideal. He solves some of the PG problems, the SF problem and is an elite player. By killing two birds with one stone, he may also free up that second scholarship for someone like Ochefu, who as a big is a luxury, but if he's that good, you take him.

But of those two, you'd really like one to have PG abilities, or your backup PG in '13 is a frosh at best.

I think Otto Porter could also fit in '11, simply because we'd slot him at the three. This table makes more sense if Bowen ends up at the two, and that could accelerate that move. (He seems to have the game for it).

This table also illustrates why we're on so many '13s already. We free up three schollies that year and four the next (the Hollis/Jerelle/Vee class then the current frosh class).

[idhoya]

Your chart illustrates the glaring need for a SF ASAP.

[Ranch Dressing]

SF - nice work. I've been talking on the board for some time about how we need to target Kyle Anderson because of his position versatility and his ability to fill several roles on the team. I think he should be our top priority, above everyone else.

If we are able to nab Kyle, then I think we can take best player available, regardless of position (Ochefu at this point).

I we miss on Kyle, then I think we need to take a guard with one of the remaining two scholarships.

If we take Porter in 2011, then I think we have to take Kyle or next best guard and move off Ochefu (unless a scholarship opens up).

[SirSaxa]

SF -- your chart is very useful. Well done.

DAN -- CAN YOU ADD IT TO THE RECRUITING THREAD AND ENABLE SF TO UPDATE IT FROM TIME TO TIME?

To me, the chart says "we are playing with house money".
That is, we have all 5 positions covered with quality kids and can afford to wait and take the Studly, 5 Star recruits who can really put a program over the top.

Secondly, I agree ID, but behind Hollis -- who I also think will be great -- we have potentially, Trawick, Bowen, Bolden and Hopkins.

Also, SF, I like the way you separated the BIGs, rather than the traditional 4 or 5 breakdown.

Good addition to the discussion. Nice work!

[prhoya]

Very nice work, SF. Count me on the Anderson bandwagon...

[idhoya]

Saxa,

Trawick and Bowen project as SG to me. I think Hopkins will eventually be the hybrid, but for now he is a face up four. Bolden will be a face up four. Can't see him playin any three. Defensively, Bolden and Hopkins aren't quick enough to guard threes. Trawick and Bowen could do it on a rotating basis. i just think as much as Hollis is a proto three, Hoyas need another one. 6'7-6'8 mismatch.

[lucky]

With the most pressing need seeming to be SF, do you take the 6'9 Porter in the 2011 class if he wants to come and reduce the scholarship for the loaded 2012 class by one?

[idhoya]

I don't think you take a 2011 Porter over a 2012 Anderson. The greater need is for it is in 2012. Hoyas could get by in 2011 with Hollis and one of the guards. However, they'll be a need for another PG and SF; as SF mentioned, Anderson kills two birds with one stone.

[chep3]

I'm ALL for getting Anderson and having a legit 3 teed up right after Hollis, who does sound like he can help out with some minutes at the point guard role (not the pg position). But I do think we're parsing a little too finely what can constitute a 3 in our offense when we talk about Bowen and Trawick and whether they can play the 3. JTIII has shown no hesitation in going to 3 guard lineups, and I don't think we've seen the end of those. A guy like Aaron, with his athleticism, should be able to spell some minutes at the 3 in a pinch. Next year, I'm sure we'll see some Markel-Vee-Jason lineups when Hollis is on the bench. I guess that's why I agree with id that I'm not sure you take a Porter if that precludes you from getting an Anderson.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 22, 2010 10:16:04 GMT -5 idhoya said:

I don't think you take a 2011 Porter over a 2012 Anderson. The greater need is for it is in 2012. Hoyas could get by in 2011 with Hollis and one of the guards. However, they'll be a need for another PG and SF; as SF mentioned, Anderson kills two birds with one stone.

Of course, it likely won't be Porter v Anderson. If that situation came up, it would likely be a guarantee of Porter (i.e. he wants to commit) versus a chance at Anderson.

In which case, I take Porter. Dude seems like a beast. And I still have a scholarship for Anderson, though he and Porter may end up at the same position. Of course, maybe they won't. Maybe Porter ends up as more of a face up 4 or Anderson really can play guard at the college level.

So the question becomes:

Are people more comfortable now -- with players committed and few holes but not as many schollies/chances to take elite players versus less commits and more opportunity but less certainty?

I'm asking because there was a lot of panic over the summer as we lost out on elite guys -- now there seems to be a bit of apprehension that we'll have to turn away elite guys or lose them because we're set at their positions.

[jerseyhoya34]

Agree with Saxa. We're playing with house money right now. Given that there are 5 positions on the floor and 13 scholarships, you will always have a position or two where there is some lag - or you appear a year behind.

The key is that we not burn scholarships needlessly to cover those natural gaps in the roster. Then you set yourself back because you still need to cover in the next recruiting year.

I'd rather stand pat with Bowen this year. Of course he's untested - he probably could never have expected to play SF ahead of Clark/Thompson or to get minutes in what is a jammed backcourt. He has the athleticism/size to mature over the course of a year and make some solid contributions next year - more so than we would get from a rushed recruit.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 22, 2010 11:20:41 GMT -5 chep3 said:

I'm ALL for getting Anderson and having a legit 3 teed up right after Hollis, who does sound like he can help out with some minutes at the point guard role (not the pg position). But I do think we're parsing a little too finely what can constitute a 3 in our offense when we talk about Bowen and Trawick and whether they can play the 3. JTIII has shown no hesitation in going to 3 guard lineups, and I don't think we've seen the end of those. A guy like Aaron, with his athleticism, should be able to spell some minutes at the 3 in a pinch. Next year, I'm sure we'll see some Markel-Vee-Jason lineups when Hollis is on the bench. I guess that's why I agree with id that I'm not sure you take a Porter if that precludes you from getting an Anderson.

I'm sure Bowen and Trawick can play the three positionally. Are we confident they are going to be starting BE caliber 3s?

More importantly, we're so light on guards after this year that Trawick is only our third guard when Anderson would be a freshman. He can't play SF that much if he's backing up Starks and Sanford?

If Hollis stays four years, we have Starks, Sanford, Hollis starting and Trawick, Bowen and Benimon backing up. Sanford is the backup PG, so that means Trawick/Bowen needs to play most of their minutes backing up the guards, not backing up the SF. But it's manageable, right?

But Hollis is a prime candidate to jump. He's a semester ahead academically and a good student. He's the underclassman the most NBA-desired combination of size and appropriate skill set we've got on the team right now.

If he were to jump, you have two guards I like starting - Jr Starks and Sr Sanford.

But Bowen, Trawick and Benimon are your SFs. That's a pretty big risk, no? Especially when Bowen and Trawick are your backup guards as well.

[hoyalove4ever]

Thanks for the chart- that is interesting. I still say that we should take the best player(s) available, regardless of position, but I agree that our perceived and anticipated needs should influence the players we go after in the first place.

[RBHoya]

This is one of those threads where we get way ahead of ourselves. But it's ok.

I actually think the reason they brought Bowen in is because they see him as a similar player to Austin, sort of a poor man's Freeman at this point. A guy who can do it all, good athlete, can go to the basket, can make some outside shots. Haven't seen a ton from Bowen yet, but he'll grow and improve. But I think positionally they'll use him the same way they used Freeman and DJ Owens before him, in that "swing" role, a SF/3G. I know the board has a bit of an obsession with "big lineups" and so wants SF's who are 6'8 or bigger, but III seems less concerned with that and I think next year Bowen will get the bulk of his minutes backing up Hollis while Jason, Markel and Vee do most of the backcourt work (with Bowen or Trawick occasionally at 2).

On Kyle Anderson, he is clearly becoming the apple of Hoyatalk's eye, like Christmas, Roscoe, Trawick, Hairston and many others before him. While I certainly understand the love for him, and I know he came to our MM, at the end of the day the kid has a very long list of suitors from some of the top programs in the country, and he really hasn't tipped his hand much as far as leaders. There are a lot of fanbases out there right now who think they have a great shot at landing him, including us, and most of them will end up disappointed. Just something to remember when trying to plan that far in advance. Statistically I'd say that the odds are against us landing him, so you have to factor that into decision making.

As far as Hollis leaving early, personally I'm not ready for that talk yet. I thought he was a bit underwhelming last year for most of Big East play, with a couple good games here and there. He has been solid this year overall, but not great in most of our big games. Sure next year he is most likely our second option offensively and so he could really make a leap. But aside from being a 6'7 small forward, which isn't THAT rare, I really haven't seen anything to make me think he's an early entry type. Think that's still the high school rankings talking. You never know, but based on the body of work thus far it's hard to think it's likely.

[prhoya]

RB, I agree re: Hollis. He would have to have a tremendous junior year to make the jump. I expect the scoring next year to be very balanced with JC leading the way, Hollis as the second scorer, and senior Sims, juniors Vee and JB, sophs Markel, Nate and Moses scoring a lot.

I see that transfers are a thing of the past.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 22, 2010 12:45:07 GMT -5 hoyalove4ever said:

Thanks for the chart- that is interesting. I still say that we should take the best player(s) available, regardless of position, but I agree that our perceived and anticipated needs should influence the players we go after in the first place.

And that's how we get into situations where we have underwhelming years because we don't a have real PF, or maybe next time, we have no backup PG.

It's a balance. We're guard heavy now, and it hurts us in ways. We could be big-heavy in the future, and it could hurt us as well.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 22, 2010 13:06:47 GMT -5 RBHoya said:

This is one of those threads where we get way ahead of ourselves. But it's ok.

Yes, and yes.

I actually think the reason they brought Bowen in is because they see him as a similar player to Austin, sort of a poor man's Freeman at this point. A guy who can do it all, good athlete, can go to the basket, can make some outside shots. Haven't seen a ton from Bowen yet, but he'll grow and improve. But I think positionally they'll use him the same way they used Freeman and DJ Owens before him, in that "swing" role, a SF/3G. I know the board has a bit of an obsession with "big lineups" and so wants SF's who are 6'8 or bigger, but III seems less concerned with that and I think next year Bowen will get the bulk of his minutes backing up Hollis while Jason, Markel and Vee do most of the backcourt work (with Bowen or Trawick occasionally at 2).

No disagreement there. He actually has better guard skills than I expected, but as you say, we play small and he's taller than Freeman, so that's the big reason why I have him slotted at the three. In a pinch, I suppose he could play the two, but it's not very Georgetown, is it? DJ Owens did at times, though.

Bowen is simply an unknown. He seems to have nice skills, but none of us can really evaluate him.

On Kyle Anderson, he is clearly becoming the apple of Hoyatalk's eye, like Christmas, Roscoe, Trawick, Hairston and many others before him. While I certainly understand the love for him, and I know he came to our MM, at the end of the day the kid has a very long list of suitors from some of the top programs in the country, and he really hasn't tipped his hand much as far as leaders. There are a lot of fanbases out there right now who think they have a great shot at landing him, including us, and most of them will end up disappointed. Just something to remember when trying to plan that far in advance. Statistically I'd say that the odds are against us landing him, so you have to factor that into decision making.

Trawick was an apple? Anyway, of course Anderson isn't an over 50% shot for us (which is why I'd take Porter over the chance of Anderson any day). I don't even know if our shot is over 20%.

That doesn't change that he's a great fit. I think I may be agreeing with you here.

As far as Hollis leaving early, personally I'm not ready for that talk yet. I thought he was a bit underwhelming last year for most of Big East play, with a couple good games here and there. He has been solid this year overall, but not great in most of our big games. Sure next year he is most likely our second option offensively and so he could really make a leap. But aside from being a 6'7 small forward, which isn't THAT rare, I really haven't seen anything to make me think he's an early entry type. Think that's still the high school rankings talking. You never know, but based on the body of work thus far it's hard to think it's likely.

I think Hollis stays four. That's the most likely case in my mind. But if anyone is jumping for the NBA early over the next 2-3 years, it's almost certainly Hollis or Jason Clark. Since planning for the future needs to focus more on risk mitigation than planning for the most likely case, I think it's valid to bring up here.

So are transfers, but that is somewhat against the rules. What I would say is that I would be shocked to see no transfers, and looking at the chart, I'd say the bigs -- especially if we add an Ochefu or other big in '11 or '12 is one likely spot.

But so could be guards and wings making bad PT decisions after limited PT this year (pulling a Macklin so to speak - leaving right before opportunity).

And there's always homesickness, personality conflicts and grades.

[RBHoya]

Yea I meant "Kendrick" but put Trawick for some reason. Other than that I agree.

[harlemhoya]

I don't think you have to worry about Hollis Thompson leaving early. What games are people watching when they think Hollis Thompson will play in the NBA. Small forwards with suspect ball handling skills are not nba material.

I really love the chart.