Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 24, 2017 18:31:16 GMT -5
It seems the only thing you're doing to define talent is waiting for the players results..
did you really think Bentil would lead the league in scoring after his freshman year?
An even better question is did you think Bentil was more talented than Copeland after their first year in college?
It's really the main thing that matters: production in college, which reflects whether you ACTUALLY have talent, not whether ESPN.com or Scout or Rivals think you have talent. I mean, are saying that you can produce in college, yet not be talented? I mean, is someone who flies under the radar in high school and then blows up not talented? Of course they are.
Recruiting is largely a measure of potential talent - that is to say, what a player COULD become, but is not right now. Copeland wasn't rated as a top 30 recruit necessarily because he was the 30th best high school player, but rather because scouts though he could turn into that. Every team recruits guys who don't pan out - once you get outside the top 10-20 recruits (and even within that range, sometimes) - it can be hit or miss. And simply because a top 30 recruit doesn't develop doesn't mean they didn't try or that the coach stunk. Some people just don't develop.
As far as Copeland versus Bentil, I saw a ton of Copeland and not much of Bentil, so I can't intelligently comment on that. But, I can say that statistically, their offensive efficiency was similar freshman year, plus Bentil was a great offensive rebounder.
I actually think your example of Bentil supports my point; high school rankings and amorphous statements about "talent" don't really matter if they don't eventually lead to production. Regardless of who had the better high school ranking, it turned out Bentil was the better player.