|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Sept 12, 2016 12:08:15 GMT -5
How about Jabril and Bowen???
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Sept 12, 2016 12:21:50 GMT -5
How about Jabril and Bowen??? Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back...
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 12, 2016 12:37:12 GMT -5
How about Jabril and Bowen??? Jabril improved tremendously during his time on the Hilltop (as did many others), whether he ultimately makes the league or not.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,441
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Sept 12, 2016 12:49:26 GMT -5
How about Jabril and Bowen??? When did they play in the NBA? They came into college as marginal top 100 players in their class and pretty much ended up the same way.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,441
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Sept 12, 2016 12:50:48 GMT -5
How about Jabril and Bowen??? Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back... Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,667
|
Post by seaweed on Sept 12, 2016 12:55:11 GMT -5
Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back... Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100-ish recruits. Sims was a top 50 player coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. So one "Prospect to Stock Broker" marks a real player development problem whereas a handful of "Non-Prospects to Fringe Prospects" show nothing? Please just take the hate somewhere else.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 12, 2016 13:00:54 GMT -5
Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back... Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. As a freshman, Starks was a deer in the headlights who showed promise, someone with whom the coaches could work. His improvement to senior year was remarkable, a credit to the player and the coaches, IMO.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Sept 12, 2016 14:11:36 GMT -5
Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. As a freshman, Starks was a deer in the headlights who showed promise, someone with whom the coaches could work. His improvement to senior year was remarkable, a credit to the player and the coaches, IMO. Agreed, Campbell had a better freshman year than Starks. Sorry, but the #94 RSCI recruit isn't an NBA player 9 times out of 10 (probably worse odds). The fact he even got invited to Portsmouth shows how much he developed. Sorry he stacks up as another failure in your book.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Sept 12, 2016 16:35:23 GMT -5
Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back... Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. Did you actually watch freshman/sophomore Sims vs. Senior Sims? If you classify that as "marginal improvement" your evaluation system is myopic.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Sept 12, 2016 17:26:07 GMT -5
Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. As a freshman, Starks was a deer in the headlights who showed promise, someone with whom the coaches could work. His improvement to senior year was remarkable, a credit to the player and the coaches, IMO. Yup, and this goes double with Sims.
|
|
jester
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,006
|
Post by jester on Sept 12, 2016 17:59:26 GMT -5
I mean look at the 50-100 prospects here for example , at this point it's more like 1/10 sniff the league. Top 30, much better track record. I think the better metric is all big east or players contributing as starter, where we have had good success - generally where we have had a hole someone would fill it. What has hurt us in the past is, in my opinion, having players who were deficient in some areas and took too long to become proficient/team suffered. most recently, defense. n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2011
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 12, 2016 22:31:18 GMT -5
Or Starks or Sims or Clark or Hayes. I never felt like player development was even in the 10 ten things holding this program back... Starks and Clark are not NBA players. Neither have come close to a sniff in the league, despite being top 100 recruits. Starks was RSCI #94 in his class and Clark was RSCI #62. Sims was a top 50-ish player (RSCI #51) coming out of high school and took until his senior year to become a marginal NBA prospect. Doesn't seem like much improvement from when he came into college. Hayes is an incomplete, but seems like a stretch to suggest he might be an NBA prospect. It sounds to me like you're more disappointed in our recruiting than our player development. A top 50-100 guy isn't expected to make the NBA. Several do but it's not remotely a given. Granted, rankings are often wildly misleading outside of the top 10-15 especially. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes it goes the other way. But to have expected more of our guys to have made the NBA, while desirable, seems a bit unrealistic. Some of our higher rated recruits were expected to be good to very good college players but a stretch to make it to the NBA. Austin and Chris didn't have the measurables. Add MS and diabetes and the shot gets more remote and, yet, Chris worked himself to a place where he got a cup of coffee. That's a HUGE accomplishment. Henry and Hollis are in the NBA. Did Henry look like an NBA prospect at any point before his senior year at, ya know, Georgetown? You can say he flipped the switch himself and had it in him all along. Does he flip that switch at other schools when they give up on or recruit over players? Maybe. I doubt it. Hollis, for me, is a different case. I feel like he could have benefited from another year in school but, to his credit, he got a lot of it done on his own. I don't think he developed as much as many others while in college. I feel like DaJuan developed but he had so much more potential. Maybe that's on Georgetown. I never felt it was by the way DaJuan played but I could be wrong. He often seemed like he wanted to be a spot-up shooter and wasn't interested in rebounding but he was also good enough at the things he liked doing to not be nailed to the bench. I'm sure some of that is on the coaching staff but he's one of the rare cases when I felt like we got less out of a player than we could have in terms of ability. He's more the exception than the rule in my mind. I'd be interested in hearing who you think didn't develop enough or that didn't improve or that really was a wasted talent. Please don't say Lubick because he didn't have a single NBA level skill. He was a solid college player and that's all he was going to be. I'm fairly certain he figured that out pretty early on. ON EDIT: Literally no one thought B Hayes was an NBA level talent coming out of high school. The fact that you mention him in talking about the NBA sort of torpedoes your initial argument.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by EtomicB on Sept 13, 2016 19:51:52 GMT -5
Solid get by Marquette..
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,441
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Sept 14, 2016 9:16:09 GMT -5
Rivals article on potential breakout sophomores highlights Jesse Govan within the Big East, some great research obviously done by the writer... As a recruit: Ranked No. 40, four-star in 2015 Rivals150 As a freshman: 6.8 points, 4.1 rebounds, 17.8 minutes per game Sophomore expectation: It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect Govan to go for 27 points and seven rebounds like he did against Seton Hall in February of his freshman year on a regular basis. However, with over 21 minutes a game opening up on the interior with the departure of Bradley Hayes, Govan figures to play a much bigger role. His skill, ability to eat space in the lane and shooting (50 percent on three-point attempts as a freshman) all add up to a guy ready to emerge as one of the Big East’s top big men. basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/bossi-s-best-sophomores-primed-for-big-leap-this-season
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,335
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 14, 2016 9:45:34 GMT -5
Rivals article on potential breakout sophomores highlights Jesse Govan within the Big East, some great research obviously done by the writer... As a recruit: Ranked No. 40, four-star in 2015 Rivals150 As a freshman: 6.8 points, 4.1 rebounds, 17.8 minutes per game Sophomore expectation: It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect Govan to go for 27 points and seven rebounds like he did against Seton Hall in February of his freshman year on a regular basis. However, with over 21 minutes a game opening up on the interior with the departure of Bradley Hayes, Govan figures to play a much bigger role. His skill, ability to eat space in the lane and shooting (50 percent on three-point attempts as a freshman) all add up to a guy ready to emerge as one of the Big East’s top big men. basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/bossi-s-best-sophomores-primed-for-big-leap-this-season The author probably looked at last year's roster and figured the "Sr." next to Bradley meant his last season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 11:48:50 GMT -5
www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/butler/2016/09/13/insider-big-east-deems-butler-not-ready-primetime/89971046/Eight takeaways from the Butler basketball schedule, which was released Tuesday: >> Network executives have decided which Big East teams deserve the widest exposure. Their verdict? Not the Bulldogs. Out of 20 total appearances on major networks — Fox and CBS — Butler has one: a Jan. 7 game at Georgetown. Defending NCAA champion Villanova has six, Xavier and Georgetown four each and Creighton two. Butler has the same as Marquette, Providence and Seton Hall. DePaul and St. John’s have none.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by EtomicB on Sept 17, 2016 18:47:34 GMT -5
Nice get for Marquette, their 3rd one this year..
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by EtomicB on Sept 19, 2016 19:05:04 GMT -5
You don't replace Isaiah, but all these guys are a year older," Willard told me Monday afternoon while recruiting at prep power Hudson Catholic. "They've all had great summers and great falls, they're all going to be a little bit more mature. They're all going to be a little bit better just from that standpoint, so everybody's ready to take a step and replace what he gave us
|
|
hoyas315
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,100
|
Post by hoyas315 on Sept 21, 2016 15:01:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Sept 21, 2016 15:04:52 GMT -5
Great news...too bad the program is irrelevant .
|
|