lucky
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 575
|
Post by lucky on Dec 18, 2014 14:57:20 GMT -5
Didn't they get Biggie MacLean?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 18, 2014 15:33:42 GMT -5
Cronin's quote is a lot of talk tough. "Don't recruit .. get." Umm, okay. I mean, the only way to ensure that is to recruit low major players who would never pick another school over you. Or pay them.
Seems like someone's on the hot seat.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2014 16:04:53 GMT -5
I don't think I really even know what Cronin means here. In the years we've cast a narrow net, we've ended up holding the bag and having to scramble to pick up unknown recruits at the end. The strong classes we've had these past two years is a function of us spending more time on the road. Plus, how do you decided if a prospect is someone you can "realistically get"? At the start of the recruiting process for Otto, no one thought he'd come to Georgetown; everyone expected a kid who'd never left Missouri to stay close to home. For every PJ Dozier, there's an LJ Peak that decides to sign up. It means he's not going to waste any energy chasing kids he knows are long shots to commit, he's going to get after kids he thinks he has a shot at getting.. Cronin knows he's not getting top 50 or 75 or 100 kids on the regular so he goes after much lower ranked/valued kids for his program.. Otto isn't a good example to use Chep, there were too many factors that had to fall right for him to end up at G'town.. Start with the fact Kirby's in was knowing his HS coach and father.. It wasn't beating the bushes that put the staff on to Otto.. Otto not playing aau which allowed him to stay under the radar was another big factor and finally Anderson leaving Missouri helped a lot.. At the end of it all though Otto would have been a "realistic" recruit that year.. Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrist or Rodney Hood or Johnny O'bryant ect.. from that year not so much.. LJ Peak was another kid who was a realistic target for the staff but Okafor or Oubre or Looney, Rashad Vaughn ect.. not realistic imo.. The staff did a great job last year with recruiting because each kid got better and rose in stature throughout their senior seasons and they started off great with Derrickson for 2015 but lost their way imho.. After getting Govan & Dickerson to verbal they should have went away from recruiting Rabb and they should have never made any inquiries to Tyler Dorsey after he de-committed from Arizona.. We don't know for sure but it could be argued that Dickerson opted out because of the pub Rabb was getting from the staff.. Kids like Kenny Williams, Crawford or Cheatham may have looked at the sudden interest in Dorsey as a sign the staff wasn't that interested in them.. it's recruiting so I have no idea how much different things may have turned out but I do wish they would have concentrated their efforts in other kids after July.. Does anyone have an idea on the staff's recruiting philosophy? What's their blueprint?
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 18, 2014 17:50:19 GMT -5
I don't think I really even know what Cronin means here. In the years we've cast a narrow net, we've ended up holding the bag and having to scramble to pick up unknown recruits at the end. The strong classes we've had these past two years is a function of us spending more time on the road. Plus, how do you decided if a prospect is someone you can "realistically get"? At the start of the recruiting process for Otto, no one thought he'd come to Georgetown; everyone expected a kid who'd never left Missouri to stay close to home. For every PJ Dozier, there's an LJ Peak that decides to sign up. It means he's not going to waste any energy chasing kids he knows are long shots to commit, he's going to get after kids he thinks he has a shot at getting.. Cronin knows he's not getting top 50 or 75 or 100 kids on the regular so he goes after much lower ranked/valued kids for his program.. Otto isn't a good example to use Chep, there were too many factors that had to fall right for him to end up at G'town.. Start with the fact Kirby's in was knowing his HS coach and father.. It wasn't beating the bushes that put the staff on to Otto.. Otto not playing aau which allowed him to stay under the radar was another big factor and finally Anderson leaving Missouri helped a lot.. At the end of it all though Otto would have been a "realistic" recruit that year.. Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrist or Rodney Hood or Johnny O'bryant ect.. from that year not so much.. LJ Peak was another kid who was a realistic target for the staff but Okafor or Oubre or Looney, Rashad Vaughn ect.. not realistic imo.. The staff did a great job last year with recruiting because each kid got better and rose in stature throughout their senior seasons and they started off great with Derrickson for 2015 but lost their way imho.. After getting Govan & Dickerson to verbal they should have went away from recruiting Rabb and they should have never made any inquiries to Tyler Dorsey after he de-committed from Arizona.. We don't know for sure but it could be argued that Dickerson opted out because of the pub Rabb was getting from the staff.. Kids like Kenny Williams, Crawford or Cheatham may have looked at the sudden interest in Dorsey as a sign the staff wasn't that interested in them.. it's recruiting so I have no idea how much different things may have turned out but I do wish they would have concentrated their efforts in other kids after July.. Does anyone have an idea on the staff's recruiting philosophy? What's their blueprint? Couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the staff's niche has been to identify kids in the 50-150 range who fit the program and may be a bit undervalued...and then get them to commit before their senior season and before they blow up and the big boys start sniffing around. That's how we landed Peak, Copeland, White, Derrickson, and Govan. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but in retrospect we really did waste a lot of time/resources on guys like Rabb, Skal, Dorsey, etc. I agree with you that maybe it would have been better to focus on guys in the Williams/Cheatham/Reaves/Spencer range. But it's recruiting, so who knows if that philosophy would have worked any better. We still have time to improve the 2015 class, but the pickings are getting slim...
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,182
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 18, 2014 20:53:19 GMT -5
I don't think I really even know what Cronin means here. In the years we've cast a narrow net, we've ended up holding the bag and having to scramble to pick up unknown recruits at the end. The strong classes we've had these past two years is a function of us spending more time on the road. Plus, how do you decided if a prospect is someone you can "realistically get"? At the start of the recruiting process for Otto, no one thought he'd come to Georgetown; everyone expected a kid who'd never left Missouri to stay close to home. For every PJ Dozier, there's an LJ Peak that decides to sign up. ...and they've really landed some great recruiting classes at Cincinnati, haven't they? They stole the immortal Biggie McClain from us.
|
|
|
Post by daymondmyles on Dec 18, 2014 21:41:19 GMT -5
Yes, we should stop recruting 5 stars because we'll never get them. We are just second tier and should know our place. And look how our recruiting has suffered as a result.
This thread is so absurd. If anybody really has a problem with our recruting right now, I dont even know what to say.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2014 22:11:15 GMT -5
Yes, we should stop recruting 5 stars because we'll never get them. We are just second tier and should know our place. And look how our recruiting has suffered as a result. This thread is so absurd. If anybody really has a problem with our recruting right now, I dont even know what to say. Why jump with the hyperbole Day? Show me where anyone called G'town second tier? The staff's recruiting has been very good but let's not pretend it doesn't have holes in it..
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 18, 2014 22:52:34 GMT -5
It means he's not going to waste any energy chasing kids he knows are long shots to commit, he's going to get after kids he thinks he has a shot at getting.. Cronin knows he's not getting top 50 or 75 or 100 kids on the regular so he goes after much lower ranked/valued kids for his program.. Otto isn't a good example to use Chep, there were too many factors that had to fall right for him to end up at G'town.. Start with the fact Kirby's in was knowing his HS coach and father.. It wasn't beating the bushes that put the staff on to Otto.. Otto not playing aau which allowed him to stay under the radar was another big factor and finally Anderson leaving Missouri helped a lot.. At the end of it all though Otto would have been a "realistic" recruit that year.. Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrist or Rodney Hood or Johnny O'bryant ect.. from that year not so much.. LJ Peak was another kid who was a realistic target for the staff but Okafor or Oubre or Looney, Rashad Vaughn ect.. not realistic imo.. The staff did a great job last year with recruiting because each kid got better and rose in stature throughout their senior seasons and they started off great with Derrickson for 2015 but lost their way imho.. After getting Govan & Dickerson to verbal they should have went away from recruiting Rabb and they should have never made any inquiries to Tyler Dorsey after he de-committed from Arizona.. We don't know for sure but it could be argued that Dickerson opted out because of the pub Rabb was getting from the staff.. Kids like Kenny Williams, Crawford or Cheatham may have looked at the sudden interest in Dorsey as a sign the staff wasn't that interested in them.. it's recruiting so I have no idea how much different things may have turned out but I do wish they would have concentrated their efforts in other kids after July.. Does anyone have an idea on the staff's recruiting philosophy? What's their blueprint? Couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the staff's niche has been to identify kids in the 50-150 range who fit the program and may be a bit undervalued...and then get them to commit before their senior season and before they blow up and the big boys start sniffing around. That's how we landed Peak, Copeland, White, Derrickson, and Govan. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but in retrospect we really did waste a lot of time/resources on guys like Rabb, Skal, Dorsey, etc. I agree with you that maybe it would have been better to focus on guys in the Williams/Cheatham/Reaves/Spencer range. But it's recruiting, so who knows if that philosophy would have worked any better. We still have time to improve the 2015 class, but the pickings are getting slim... I see your points but, with regard to Rabb, it seemed like we were in it and had a shot. That's a shot you take regardless of Dickerson. Talking highly of Rabb isn't the same as talking smack about Dickerson. He knows where he's ranked in comparison to other guys. He knew Georgetown was recruiting Rabb. If he didn't want to be a Hoya, good luck to him. I guess what I'm trying to get is that you always look to improve if you have the indication that you're still in the running. As far as I can tell (not that I know much of anything), Rabb was still looking at us and we were still in it. If, however, we knew that we weren't making his final list, I agree with you. I never got that impression. If we weren't a legitimate option for Rabb, what was Dickerson worried about?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 18, 2014 22:57:50 GMT -5
As for identifying undervalued kids, that sounds easy. Anyone know an investment adviser that can do this reliably? I'd like to give him or her a call. Our staff has been good with that but you'll also end up with guys that go the other direction. I don't think we need to name names for us all to know who those guys have been. You get a mix of both and people will be asking why we're not shooting higher in terms of recruits that are ranked more highly. It's a double-edged sword. Swing for the fences when you think you can hit one over. Find the diamonds in the rough when you fall short. I'm not saying focus all of the attention on top level guys. But there needs to be a mix. And, luckily, with a lot of what we run, we can get guys with different skill sets than that of the top 20 kids that fit really well and succeed as Hoyas.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2014 23:48:10 GMT -5
As for identifying undervalued kids, that sounds easy. Anyone know an investment adviser that can do this reliably? I'd like to give him or her a call. Our staff has been good with that but you'll also end up with guys that go the other direction. I don't think we need to name names for us all to know who those guys have been. You get a mix of both and people will be asking why we're not shooting higher in terms of recruits that are ranked more highly. It's a double-edged sword. Swing for the fences when you think you can hit one over. Find the diamonds in the rough when you fall short. I'm not saying focus all of the attention on top level guys. But there needs to be a mix. And, luckily, with a lot of what we run, we can get guys with different skill sets than that of the top 20 kids that fit really well and succeed as Hoyas. Not a good comparison Tas because said adviser won't have the chance to groom the investment, he/she can get all the info they want but ultimately they have no control over how that company will perform.. However a coaching staff will have the chance to work with a kid for a number of years to help him reach his potential.. What's wrong with the mix of the current roster? Why do folks think it's surrendering to go after 3+ to 4 star kids?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 19, 2014 0:35:21 GMT -5
As for identifying undervalued kids, that sounds easy. Anyone know an investment adviser that can do this reliably? I'd like to give him or her a call. Our staff has been good with that but you'll also end up with guys that go the other direction. I don't think we need to name names for us all to know who those guys have been. You get a mix of both and people will be asking why we're not shooting higher in terms of recruits that are ranked more highly. It's a double-edged sword. Swing for the fences when you think you can hit one over. Find the diamonds in the rough when you fall short. I'm not saying focus all of the attention on top level guys. But there needs to be a mix. And, luckily, with a lot of what we run, we can get guys with different skill sets than that of the top 20 kids that fit really well and succeed as Hoyas. Not a good comparison Tas because said adviser won't have the chance to groom the investment, he/she can get all the info they want but ultimately they have no control over how that company will perform.. However a coaching staff will have the chance to work with a kid for a number of years to help him reach his potential.. What's wrong with the mix of the current roster? Why do folks think it's surrendering to go after 3+ to 4 star kids? It's surrendering because there is no going after 5 star kids. We have gotten, and can get, 5 star kids. I grant you that that's a small niche of guys. But we still can. And it's not a poor analogy because the original point was that we were getting kids that committed and then blew up before they got to college, i.e., before the staff got to work with them. Our staff has been very good, in many cases, in signing kids that were a bit under the radar prior to showing up on campus. Otto, for instance, was much better from day one than he was ever given credit for. That wasn't the staff. That was Otto. Obviously, he developed hugely after getting to campus and that, in part, is attributable to the coaches. And, to your point, the staff should play that up as much as they can. I do believe that they do a very good job with many guys in developing them. But we've also been badly burned by similarly rated guys. Ratings are largely subjective anyway outside of the top 10-20 kids in each HS graduating class. The top 5-10 are much less so and some of those guys can really make a splash for a program. 2007 is a long time ago now. We need a splash. We can't afford to not pursue top guys that we have a shot (or a perceived shot) at both for our program and for our conference. I agree with your overarching point that we need to focus more on the guys that we have a better chance with but I do also disagree that we should ever stop trying for a potentially hugely impactful player that, apparently, is interested in our program because we have a commitment already in the bag from a guy that is, by all accounts, much further down the rankings. Unless there's scholastic/attitude/sketchiness issue with a top tier kid that we, seemingly, have a legitimate shot at, we have to take that shot.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 19, 2014 0:39:32 GMT -5
I should have also added that one can blow out of a poor investment at any point after having taken a shot on an "undervalued" company. One can't do that with a scholarship player in, say, December. A scholarship is a large commitment because it's a very limited resource.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Dec 19, 2014 10:14:20 GMT -5
It means he's not going to waste any energy chasing kids he knows are long shots to commit, he's going to get after kids he thinks he has a shot at getting.. Cronin knows he's not getting top 50 or 75 or 100 kids on the regular so he goes after much lower ranked/valued kids for his program.. Otto isn't a good example to use Chep, there were too many factors that had to fall right for him to end up at G'town.. Start with the fact Kirby's in was knowing his HS coach and father.. It wasn't beating the bushes that put the staff on to Otto.. Otto not playing aau which allowed him to stay under the radar was another big factor and finally Anderson leaving Missouri helped a lot.. At the end of it all though Otto would have been a "realistic" recruit that year.. Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrist or Rodney Hood or Johnny O'bryant ect.. from that year not so much.. LJ Peak was another kid who was a realistic target for the staff but Okafor or Oubre or Looney, Rashad Vaughn ect.. not realistic imo.. The staff did a great job last year with recruiting because each kid got better and rose in stature throughout their senior seasons and they started off great with Derrickson for 2015 but lost their way imho.. After getting Govan & Dickerson to verbal they should have went away from recruiting Rabb and they should have never made any inquiries to Tyler Dorsey after he de-committed from Arizona.. We don't know for sure but it could be argued that Dickerson opted out because of the pub Rabb was getting from the staff.. Kids like Kenny Williams, Crawford or Cheatham may have looked at the sudden interest in Dorsey as a sign the staff wasn't that interested in them.. it's recruiting so I have no idea how much different things may have turned out but I do wish they would have concentrated their efforts in other kids after July.. Does anyone have an idea on the staff's recruiting philosophy? What's their blueprint? This is a fair point, but I think it rests on a bit of hindsight bias. We have gotten a handful of five-star recruits, but point taken that it's unlikely an Anthony Davis or Okafor is coming here, unless maybe they're local. But why not a Rodney Hood or Johnny O'Bryant, or a Devonta Pollard or Kevon Looney? MSU, LSU, and Bama aren't exactly world beaters (and UCLA isn't Kentucky), and if a guy like that or a guy like PJ Dozier is telling you they're at least open to leaving the state, why would you stop recruiting them? Now if one of them was giving clear signs they weren't going to (or were favoring some other school), then yeah, it'd be foolish for us to have expended more resources. Why doesn't Copeland fit a similar bill? Top 20 player from out-of-state. I'd bet the space between what a Rodney Hood or a Pollard was saying to the staff about their interest in the school and what Copeland or White was saying is probably not that big. And to be frank, I agree that we've had years where I do agree that we've overly focused on the top players. But the problem, in my opinion, that many of us had with that tactic was that it was paired with a narrow net and a choice to slow play other players (see Semaj Christon and Kyle Anderson). While the staff still focuses on top players that we might ultimately get, they're casting a much wider net, so that we can chase an Ivan Rabb and still be on top of Jessie Govan's recruitment.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 19, 2014 11:04:33 GMT -5
I can believe anyone thinks JTIII and staff should be taking recruiting advice from Mick Cronin.
Really?
This is the usual emotional reaction to the fact that people get butthurt when they lose out on a recruit. They'd rather have a higher percentage but get worse players.
The staff is doing great recruiting. Instead of reacting to small pieces with imperfect information (we slow-played Kyle Anderson?) howabout we look big picture and understand that our strategy, while I assume not perfect, is working pretty well the last two years.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Dec 19, 2014 11:51:11 GMT -5
I can believe anyone thinks JTIII and staff should be taking recruiting advice from Mick Cronin. Really? This is the usual emotional reaction to the fact that people get butthurt when they lose out on a recruit. They'd rather have a higher percentage but get worse players. The staff is doing great recruiting. Instead of reacting to small pieces with imperfect information (we slow-played Kyle Anderson?) howabout we look big picture and understand that our strategy, while I assume not perfect, is working pretty well the last two years. Based on your parenthetical, I'm not sure if you're grouping me in your criticism--which would be odd since I took much the same position as you did--but I meant we arguably slow played Semaj Christon on account of Kyle Anderson. Not that we slow played Kyle Anderson.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 19, 2014 21:37:43 GMT -5
Gotcha on that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 6:32:54 GMT -5
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,240
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 20, 2014 8:58:12 GMT -5
I'm getting some player doing a 360 dunk. Is that Bowen?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 20, 2014 11:48:27 GMT -5
Not a good comparison Tas because said adviser won't have the chance to groom the investment, he/she can get all the info they want but ultimately they have no control over how that company will perform.. However a coaching staff will have the chance to work with a kid for a number of years to help him reach his potential.. What's wrong with the mix of the current roster? Why do folks think it's surrendering to go after 3+ to 4 star kids? It's surrendering because there is no going after 5 star kids. We have gotten, and can get, 5 star kids. I grant you that that's a small niche of guys. But we still can. And it's not a poor analogy because the original point was that we were getting kids that committed and then blew up before they got to college, i.e., before the staff got to work with them. Our staff has been very good, in many cases, in signing kids that were a bit under the radar prior to showing up on campus. Otto, for instance, was much better from day one than he was ever given credit for. That wasn't the staff. That was Otto. Obviously, he developed hugely after getting to campus and that, in part, is attributable to the coaches. And, to your point, the staff should play that up as much as they can. I do believe that they do a very good job with many guys in developing them. But we've also been badly burned by similarly rated guys. Ratings are largely subjective anyway outside of the top 10-20 kids in each HS graduating class. The top 5-10 are much less so and some of those guys can really make a splash for a program. 2007 is a long time ago now. We need a splash. We can't afford to not pursue top guys that we have a shot (or a perceived shot) at both for our program and for our conference. I agree with your overarching point that we need to focus more on the guys that we have a better chance with but I do also disagree that we should ever stop trying for a potentially hugely impactful player that, apparently, is interested in our program because we have a commitment already in the bag from a guy that is, by all accounts, much further down the rankings. Unless there's scholastic/attitude/sketchiness issue with a top tier kid that we, seemingly, have a legitimate shot at, we have to take that shot. The fact that folks overwhelmingly love what the staff did with the 2014 class and has done so far with the 2015 class but don't like the idea that this should be the model for recruiting going forward is strange to me.. You talk about "making a splash" with recruiting.. A consensus top 10 class isn't a big enough splash? You speak of impact players but White, Peak & Copeland are impact players for the program and I'd bet a nice chunk of change Govan & Derrickson will be too.. I've seen enough from Campbell to feel very confident he'll be a solid contributor in the coming seasons.. There were many discussions after last season about the lack of talent in the program, thankfully the staff has upgraded the roster in that area however it can drop off pretty quickly if they don't consistently put together solid recruiting classes.. The best way to get consistency imo is to have a plan or strategy.. The staff has done a great job over the last 2 seasons but can anyone say for sure what their recruiting philosophy is besides "get the best players you can"?
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 20, 2014 16:11:15 GMT -5
The staff has done a great job over the last 2 seasons but can anyone say for sure what their recruiting philosophy is besides "get the best players you can"?
I am not in a position to say what their "recruiting philosophy" is. But in the absence of that, I'm pretty happy with "get the best players you can"!
|
|