hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 19:31:39 GMT -5
Just a quick observation but I'm looking at this and I see a lot of lower ranked players who outplayed higher ranked players. The best three players for 2018 are the three lowest listed. Top 2 guys really haven't done much. The best player for 2017 is the lowest ranked player listed. Best prospect from that class (Paul Reed) unranked. Gillespie 2nd team all Big East unranked. MAL, and Samuels not really killing it. Scruggs ok. 4 starters on the team that tied for 1st not listed. 4-5 of their top players/scorers not listed. The defensive player of the year (Gil) not listed. Half of BE first team ranked 100+ coming in. All of the second team are 100+ players or unranked. Within reason development and fit seem more important to me once you get passed the top 25 range. I guess you missed the post in the other thread discussing recruiting talent vs coaching up lesser players. This post was made to show that talent wins out over coaching pretty much every day of the week. You either have to recruit guys in this range or get transfers if you want to compete at the top of the conference year in and year out. This is the range you have to be in unless you are going to rely on transfers. I assume the team you are referring to with 4/5 starters is Seton Hall but it was really only 3/5 and two of three were transfers. As for Gil you know that JUCO guys don't get ranked coming out so it's pointless to bring up. The difference between the player rankings of guys on this list is not nearly as indicative as players that aren't on this list. These are the last few years of players on this list making conference 1st and 2nd team 1st 2nd 2020 5/6 3/5 2019 5/6 3/5 2018 5/6 3/5 I would say of the players in the conference this year that were original HS recruits about 25 of the top 30 came from this list. That list would be subjective but if you look at who the best players were this past year they are probably on there. Even if you look at our team the best 5 players of the Ewing days have all come from this range. The only other 2 that he has had have been Jamorko and Qudus. If you take a look just at this list this is the order based on how many of these players they had this past season. I am not going through and doing all the transfers but feel free to if you want. Nova Providence Creighton Xavier Marquette Seton Hall Georgetown Butler Depaul SJ As for Paul Reed. He falls into the category that majority of guys that are badly missed fall into. Those players that have a big growth spurt late in HS or after. That is one flaw in rankings. They can't predict growth plates. I guess we should get a growth plate specialist as an assistant to replace whatever we have now. Wouldn't be the worst idea. Gilispie would be an afterthought if he wasn't on a team surrounded by a bunch of NBA guys much less 2nd team all conference. Can you imagine what he would be on the Hoyas? Put Allen or Akinjo and Gilispie on Georgetown and we aren't having this discussion.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 19:35:54 GMT -5
Just a quick observation but I'm looking at this and I see a lot of lower ranked players who outplayed higher ranked players. The best three players for 2018 are the three lowest listed. Top 2 guys really haven't done much. The best player for 2017 is the lowest ranked player listed. Best prospect from that class (Paul Reed) unranked. Gillespie 2nd team all Big East unranked. MAL, and Samuels not really killing it. Scruggs ok. 4 starters on the team that tied for 1st not listed. 4-5 of their top players/scorers not listed. The defensive player of the year (Gil) not listed. Half of BE first team ranked 100+ coming in. All of the second team are 100+ players or unranked. Within reason development and fit seem more important to me once you get passed the top 25 range. ^^^ This Every year I go back and look at the Top 100 guys and the common theme is usually the Top 10-15 were can’t miss and now in the NBA. After that, guys ranked 35 and 125 were just as likely to pan out. I think part of that is it’s impossible to rank these guys objectively once you get past the surefire recruits. On the flip side, unranked guys often do not wind up being productive players more time than not. I think the rating sites are good at identifying Top talent and then distinguishing the cutoff to guys who can contribute at a high major (say rankings up to 200), but the actual rankings between 20-200 are really subjective and often proven to be wrong. That’s why I favor us targeting guys in the 75-125 range, as many have advocated for. But the caveat is we must also develop these guys once they get here. Similarly, I am ok if we want to round out a class on one flier of the unranked ilk (Igohefe, Harris, etc) but I don’t think we should be handing out more than one scholarship a year to these players. Unfortunately the trend here is increasing as we miss out on other priority candidates. Yep as I have said the 4 star range is where we need to be. It shouldn't be that unreasonable to hang out in the bottom of that range. If we can't then we have to move on and try again. You cant keep landing these "diamonds in the rough" that majority of our last 2 classes have been and expect to compete year in and year out unless you are bringing in good transfers every year. I am not against that strategy but even our transfers have started to go downhill it seems.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 20:24:49 GMT -5
^^^ This Every year I go back and look at the Top 100 guys and the common theme is usually the Top 10-15 were can’t miss and now in the NBA. After that, guys ranked 35 and 125 were just as likely to pan out. I think part of that is it’s impossible to rank these guys objectively once you get past the surefire recruits. On the flip side, unranked guys often do not wind up being productive players more time than not. I think the rating sites are good at identifying Top talent and then distinguishing the cutoff to guys who can contribute at a high major (say rankings up to 200), but the actual rankings between 20-200 are really subjective and often proven to be wrong. That’s why I favor us targeting guys in the 75-125 range, as many have advocated for. But the caveat is we must also develop these guys once they get here. Similarly, I am ok if we want to round out a class on one flier of the unranked ilk (Igohefe, Harris, etc) but I don’t think we should be handing out more than one scholarship a year to these players. Unfortunately the trend here is increasing as we miss out on other priority candidates. Yep as I have said the 4 star range is where we need to be. It shouldn't be that unreasonable to hang out in the bottom of that range. If we can't then we have to move on and try again. You cant keep landing these "diamonds in the rough" that majority of our last 2 classes have been and expect to compete year in and year out unless you are bringing in good transfers every year. I am not against that strategy but even our transfers have started to go downhill it seems. Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court?
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,352
|
Post by daveg023 on May 22, 2020 20:31:49 GMT -5
Yep as I have said the 4 star range is where we need to be. It shouldn't be that unreasonable to hang out in the bottom of that range. If we can't then we have to move on and try again. You cant keep landing these "diamonds in the rough" that majority of our last 2 classes have been and expect to compete year in and year out unless you are bringing in good transfers every year. I am not against that strategy but even our transfers have started to go downhill it seems. Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court? Cooley seemed to do this at Providence before they had results. Willard at Seton Hall. Even Lavin/Mullin were recruiting at this level at St Johns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 20:42:54 GMT -5
Just a quick observation but I'm looking at this and I see a lot of lower ranked players who outplayed higher ranked players. The best three players for 2018 are the three lowest listed. Top 2 guys really haven't done much. The best player for 2017 is the lowest ranked player listed. Best prospect from that class (Paul Reed) unranked. Gillespie 2nd team all Big East unranked. MAL, and Samuels not really killing it. Scruggs ok. 4 starters on the team that tied for 1st not listed. 4-5 of their top players/scorers not listed. The defensive player of the year (Gil) not listed. Half of BE first team ranked 100+ coming in. All of the second team are 100+ players or unranked. Within reason development and fit seem more important to me once you get passed the top 25 range. I guess you missed the post in the other thread discussing recruiting talent vs coaching up lesser players. This post was made to show that talent wins out over coaching pretty much every day of the week. You either have to recruit guys in this range or get transfers if you want to compete at the top of the conference year in and year out. This is the range you have to be in unless you are going to rely on transfers. I assume the team you are referring to with 4/5 starters is Seton Hall but it was really only 3/5 and two of three were transfers. As for Gil you know that JUCO guys don't get ranked coming out so it's pointless to bring up. The difference between the player rankings of guys on this list is not nearly as indicative as players that aren't on this list. These are the last few years of players on this list making conference 1st and 2nd team 1st 2nd 2020 5/6 3/5 2019 5/6 3/5 2018 5/6 3/5 I would say of the players in the conference this year that were original HS recruits about 25 of the top 30 came from this list. That list would be subjective but if you look at who the best players were this past year they are probably on there. Even if you look at our team the best 5 players of the Ewing days have all come from this range. The only other 2 that he has had have been Jamorko and Qudus. If you take a look just at this list this is the order based on how many of these players they had this past season. I am not going through and doing all the transfers but feel free to if you want. Nova Providence Creighton Xavier Marquette Seton Hall Georgetown Butler Depaul SJ As for Paul Reed. He falls into the category that majority of guys that are badly missed fall into. Those players that have a big growth spurt late in HS or after. That is one flaw in rankings. They can't predict growth plates. I guess we should get a growth plate specialist as an assistant to replace whatever we have now. Wouldn't be the worst idea. Gilispie would be an afterthought if he wasn't on a team surrounded by a bunch of NBA guys much less 2nd team all conference. Can you imagine what he would be on the Hoyas? Put Allen or Akinjo and Gilispie on Georgetown and we aren't having this discussion. Woah dude, calm down. I wasn't attacking your post, I was just commenting on the information inside of it. Gil was a 2 star coming out of Highschool. Mcknight was 341 in the nation. Why does the fact they were transfers matter? Gillespie was the second best player on that team. Reed was close to 300. You can't tell me the only reason why he was so low is because he was 6'6 instead of 6'8. All these players found great places to develop and their hard work paid off. They've outperformed a lot of higher ranked kids. In addition to that a lot of kids in the 100-150 range have outperformed those in 25-100 range. Idk why that made you upset, but that's all I was saying. On the theme of this thread, if the argument is kids in the top 150 usually outperform kids in the next 150 I don't think that's some genius observation. I also don't think that's the point people try and make when they say rankings don't matter. The point is you should evaluate the kid not the ranking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 20:56:55 GMT -5
Yep as I have said the 4 star range is where we need to be. It shouldn't be that unreasonable to hang out in the bottom of that range. If we can't then we have to move on and try again. You cant keep landing these "diamonds in the rough" that majority of our last 2 classes have been and expect to compete year in and year out unless you are bringing in good transfers every year. I am not against that strategy but even our transfers have started to go downhill it seems. Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court? Texas, USC, Alabama, Washington, and UCLA recently. Us in the last few years of 3's tenure unfortunately. Usually you get fired if you don't get quality results though. That's why most of those schools have changed course.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 21:06:59 GMT -5
Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court? Cooley seemed to do this at Providence before they had results. Willard at Seton Hall. Even Lavin/Mullin were recruiting at this level at St Johns. Cooley got lucky with Kris Dunn who may have gone to Fairfield to play for him but he still wasn't consistently landing high-level players until he won with players like Bryce Cotton & LaDontae Henton. Those guys helped to get him Bentil & Lindsey... Plus Cooley has been killing it with Mass Rivals kids, Ashton-Langford, Reeves & Duke all played for the same AAU program Willard got his 1st great class after hiring Whitehead's HS coach to help secure him, Delagado was a great get though but Willard still isn't consistently getting 4*/top 140 kids, he's only gotten Powell & Cale lately... Steve Lavin was a proven coach/recruiter who went to the tourney his 1st year @ St. John's... Mullin did get Ponds & Lovett right off the bat(similar to PE getting Pickett & Akinjo) but what top 140 HS kids did he get after that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 21:16:43 GMT -5
Cooley seemed to do this at Providence before they had results. Willard at Seton Hall. Even Lavin/Mullin were recruiting at this level at St Johns. Cooley got lucky with Kris Dunn who may have gone to Fairfield to play for Cooley but he still wasn't consistently landing high-level players until he won with players like Bryce Cotton & LaDontae Henton. Those guys helped to get him Bentil & Lindsey... Plus Cooley has been killing it with Mass Rivals kids, Ashton-Langford, Reeves & Duke all played for the same AAU program Willard got his 1st great class after hiring Whitehead's HS coach to help secure him, Delagado was a great get though but Willard still isn't consistently getting 4*/top 140 kids, he's only gotten Powell & Cale lately... Steve Lavin was a proven coach/recruiter who went to the tourney his 1st year @ St. John's... Mullin did get Ponds & Lovett right off the bat(similar to PE getting Pickett & Akinjo) but what top 140 HS kids did he get after that? By transfer Mustapha, and was Justin Simon a Mulin recruit? On a side note it's kind of crazy that Mustapha was a consensus 5 star coming out of high school.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 21:16:52 GMT -5
Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court? Texas, USC, Alabama, Washington, and UCLA recently. Us in the last few years of 3's tenure unfortunately. Usually you get fired if you don't get quality results though. That's why most of those schools have changed course. You're definitely right about those P5 schools but they're big schools with a lot to sell(not implying cheating at all) I was really referring to schools similar to Gtown(basketball only programs)... I made the point in the program thread that JT3 did well after he established himself with his early teams... My point is I'd rather have a good coach over "talent" to me talent will always be attracted to good coaching...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 21:22:32 GMT -5
Texas, USC, Alabama, Washington, and UCLA recently. Us in the last few years of 3's tenure unfortunately. Usually you get fired if you don't get quality results though. That's why most of those schools have changed course. You're definitely right about those P5 schools but they're big schools with a lot to sell(not implying cheating at all) I was really referring to schools similar to Gtown(basketball only programs)... I made the point in the program thread that JT3 did well after he established himself with his early teams... My point is I'd rather have a good coach over "talent" to me talent will always be attracted to good coaching... Gotcha. I agree with that. Coaches like Huggins, Cronin, Bo Ryan, Bennett, and Chris Beard haven't always had the best teams on paper, but they find kids that fit their style and develop the heck out of them. As they've become more successful their recruiting has trended up.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 21:25:19 GMT -5
I guess you missed the post in the other thread discussing recruiting talent vs coaching up lesser players. This post was made to show that talent wins out over coaching pretty much every day of the week. You either have to recruit guys in this range or get transfers if you want to compete at the top of the conference year in and year out. This is the range you have to be in unless you are going to rely on transfers. I assume the team you are referring to with 4/5 starters is Seton Hall but it was really only 3/5 and two of three were transfers. As for Gil you know that JUCO guys don't get ranked coming out so it's pointless to bring up. The difference between the player rankings of guys on this list is not nearly as indicative as players that aren't on this list. These are the last few years of players on this list making conference 1st and 2nd team 1st 2nd 2020 5/6 3/5 2019 5/6 3/5 2018 5/6 3/5 I would say of the players in the conference this year that were original HS recruits about 25 of the top 30 came from this list. That list would be subjective but if you look at who the best players were this past year they are probably on there. Even if you look at our team the best 5 players of the Ewing days have all come from this range. The only other 2 that he has had have been Jamorko and Qudus. If you take a look just at this list this is the order based on how many of these players they had this past season. I am not going through and doing all the transfers but feel free to if you want. Nova Providence Creighton Xavier Marquette Seton Hall Georgetown Butler Depaul SJ As for Paul Reed. He falls into the category that majority of guys that are badly missed fall into. Those players that have a big growth spurt late in HS or after. That is one flaw in rankings. They can't predict growth plates. I guess we should get a growth plate specialist as an assistant to replace whatever we have now. Wouldn't be the worst idea. Gilispie would be an afterthought if he wasn't on a team surrounded by a bunch of NBA guys much less 2nd team all conference. Can you imagine what he would be on the Hoyas? Put Allen or Akinjo and Gilispie on Georgetown and we aren't having this discussion. Woah dude, calm down. I wasn't attacking your post, I was just commenting on the information inside of it. Gil was a 2 star coming out of Highschool. Mcknight was 341 in the nation. Why does the fact they were transfers matter? Gillespie was the second best player on that team. Reed was close to 300. You can't tell me the only reason why he was so low is because he was 6'6 instead of 6'8. All these players found great places to develop and their hard work paid off. They've outperformed a lot of higher ranked kids. In addition to that a lot of kids in the 100-150 range have outperformed those in 25-100 range. Idk why that made you upset, but that's all I was saying. On the theme of this thread, if the argument is kids in the top 150 usually outperform kids in the next 150 I don't think that's some genius observation. I also don't think that's the point people try and make when they say rankings don't matter. The point is you should evaluate the kid not the ranking. Not sure where the woah came from. I didn’t attack you I simply broke down all your points as I will do again. Reed went from 6’5 to 6’9. Yes 4 inches hell even 3 inches makes all the difference in the world. Gilispie shot 39/33 in conference play and only averaged just over 4 assists. If you think he was the 2nd best player on that team then you must also think Akinjo (before he went iso) or Allen would’ve been the 2nd best player on that team. At least those 2 could knock down 3’s at a higher rate which is a great quality on Nova. Gil wasn’t even a 2 star coming out he was a no star. He played one year of HS in Jamaica. it would be like if Tim becomes a star. That’s not a recruiting ranking miss. That’s an unknown project lottery ticket although with Gil they took him from Juco so they knew more what they were getting. I mention transfers because they are usually 22-24 years old by the time they pan out so them having a senior year when they are considerably older than everyone does not mean the rankings missed. It means they outlived the rankings. I’ve often said on this board old guys win in college basketball. The body development between and 22 and a 19 year old is huge. The entire development finding right place is way overblown. There is a reason very few guys from off this range make a big impact. Of course there are going to be some because there are so many more. Every year these guys make up 25-30% of players so if the other 70% produce a few winners that’s not surprising. It’s like the same ridiculous argument that comes out of every NFL draft where they say how many more 3 stars get picked than 5 stars. As it pertains to the Hoyas at least half of our HS recruits should be 4’s. If not it’s time to find someone who can achieve that. There are probably a few coaches that could thrive just scouring the 3’s but Ewing isn’t one of them.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 21:43:56 GMT -5
Which coach at a program that isn't considered to be on the blue blood level consistently gets 4*/top 140 recruits without good results on the court? Texas, USC, Alabama, Washington, and UCLA recently. Us in the last few years of 3's tenure unfortunately. Usually you get fired if you don't get quality results though. That's why most of those schools have changed course. Even Ewing’s first 2 classes were at a good level. These past 2 is where it’s fallen off.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 21:48:20 GMT -5
Woah dude, calm down. I wasn't attacking your post, I was just commenting on the information inside of it. Gil was a 2 star coming out of Highschool. Mcknight was 341 in the nation. Why does the fact they were transfers matter? Gillespie was the second best player on that team. Reed was close to 300. You can't tell me the only reason why he was so low is because he was 6'6 instead of 6'8. All these players found great places to develop and their hard work paid off. They've outperformed a lot of higher ranked kids. In addition to that a lot of kids in the 100-150 range have outperformed those in 25-100 range. Idk why that made you upset, but that's all I was saying. On the theme of this thread, if the argument is kids in the top 150 usually outperform kids in the next 150 I don't think that's some genius observation. I also don't think that's the point people try and make when they say rankings don't matter. The point is you should evaluate the kid not the ranking. Not sure where the woah came from. I didn’t attack you I simply broke down all your points as I will do again. Reed went from 6’5 to 6’9. Yes 4 inches hell even 3 inches makes all the difference in the world. Gilispie shot 39/33 in conference play and only averaged just over 4 assists. If you think he was the 2nd best player on that team then you must also think Akinjo (before he went iso) or Allen would’ve been the 2nd best player on that team. At least those 2 could knock down 3’s at a higher rate which is a great quality on Nova. Gil wasn’t even a 2 star coming out he was a no star. He played one year of HS in Jamaica. it would be like if Tim becomes a star. That’s not a recruiting ranking miss. That’s an unknown project lottery ticket although with Gil they took him from Juco so they knew more what they were getting. I mention transfers because they are usually 22-24 years old by the time they pan out so them having a senior year when they are considerably older than everyone does not mean the rankings missed. It means they outlived the rankings. I’ve often said on this board old guys win in college basketball. The body development between and 22 and a 19 year old is huge. The entire development finding right place is way overblown. There is a reason very few guys from off this range make a big impact. Of course there are going to be some because there are so many more. Every year these guys make up 25-30% of players so if the other 70% produce a few winners that’s not surprising. It’s like the same ridiculous argument that comes out of every NFL draft where they say how many more 3 stars get picked than 5 stars. As it pertains to the Hoyas at least half of our HS recruits should be 4’s. If not it’s time to find someone who can achieve that. There are probably a few coaches that could thrive just scouring the 3’s but Ewing isn’t one of them. Nova doesn't run a system that relies on one person to get players involved, they had 5 players with 34 or more assists in conference play(Brunson only avg 4.6 his last season). Gtown had 3 players over 34 assists in conference play... Either way, Gillespie is a good college player who's gotten better from great coaching in my view...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 21:53:33 GMT -5
Texas, USC, Alabama, Washington, and UCLA recently. Us in the last few years of 3's tenure unfortunately. Usually you get fired if you don't get quality results though. That's why most of those schools have changed course. You're definitely right about those P5 schools but they're big schools with a lot to sell(not implying cheating at all) I was really referring to schools similar to Gtown(basketball only programs)... I made the point in the program thread that JT3 did well after he established himself with his early teams... My point is I'd rather have a good coach over "talent" to me talent will always be attracted to good coaching... By taking out P5 schools you are eliminating a lot but I’ll give you 2. UConn and Memphis. You could say Harvard has had a few better classes during Ewing’s time than his last 2 although they’ve had some duds mixed in but the fact that is even a discussion just shows where we are at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 22:00:29 GMT -5
Woah dude, calm down. I wasn't attacking your post, I was just commenting on the information inside of it. Gil was a 2 star coming out of Highschool. Mcknight was 341 in the nation. Why does the fact they were transfers matter? Gillespie was the second best player on that team. Reed was close to 300. You can't tell me the only reason why he was so low is because he was 6'6 instead of 6'8. All these players found great places to develop and their hard work paid off. They've outperformed a lot of higher ranked kids. In addition to that a lot of kids in the 100-150 range have outperformed those in 25-100 range. Idk why that made you upset, but that's all I was saying. On the theme of this thread, if the argument is kids in the top 150 usually outperform kids in the next 150 I don't think that's some genius observation. I also don't think that's the point people try and make when they say rankings don't matter. The point is you should evaluate the kid not the ranking. Not sure where the woah came from. I didn’t attack you I simply broke down all your points as I will do again. Reed went from 6’5 to 6’9. Yes 4 inches hell even 3 inches makes all the difference in the world. Gilispie shot 39/33 in conference play and only averaged just over 4 assists. If you think he was the 2nd best player on that team then you must also think Akinjo (before he went iso) or Allen would’ve been the 2nd best player on that team. At least those 2 could knock down 3’s at a higher rate which is a great quality on Nova. Gil wasn’t even a 2 star coming out he was a no star. He played one year of HS in Jamaica. it would be like if Tim becomes a star. That’s not a recruiting ranking miss. That’s an unknown project lottery ticket although with Gil they took him from Juco so they knew more what they were getting. I mention transfers because they are usually 22-24 years old by the time they pan out so them having a senior year when they are considerably older than everyone does not mean the rankings missed. It means they outlived the rankings. I’ve often said on this board old guys win in college basketball. The body development between and 22 and a 19 year old is huge. The entire development finding right place is way overblown. There is a reason very few guys from off this range make a big impact. Of course there are going to be some because there are so many more. Every year these guys make up 25-30% of players so if the other 70% produce a few winners that’s not surprising. It’s like the same ridiculous argument that comes out of every NFL draft where they say how many more 3 stars get picked than 5 stars. Who was the second best player on Nova if not Gillespie? There's plenty of transfers that don't pan out even though their 22-24 so I don't get that point. You either got it or you don't The leading scorers on Auburn and Texas Tech last year were kids that were under the radar. Tech only had 1 top 100 kid on their roster and he was sub. Hard to say development and fit are overblown when you have teams reaching the final four doing it. It happens literally every year were there are really good teams built on under recruited guys. I'll say it again. if the argument is kids in the top 150 usually outperform kids in the next 150 I don't think that's some genius observation. I also don't think that's the point people try and make when they say rankings don't matter. The point is you should evaluate the kid (and the fit) not the ranking.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 22:05:00 GMT -5
Not sure where the woah came from. I didn’t attack you I simply broke down all your points as I will do again. Reed went from 6’5 to 6’9. Yes 4 inches hell even 3 inches makes all the difference in the world. Gilispie shot 39/33 in conference play and only averaged just over 4 assists. If you think he was the 2nd best player on that team then you must also think Akinjo (before he went iso) or Allen would’ve been the 2nd best player on that team. At least those 2 could knock down 3’s at a higher rate which is a great quality on Nova. Gil wasn’t even a 2 star coming out he was a no star. He played one year of HS in Jamaica. it would be like if Tim becomes a star. That’s not a recruiting ranking miss. That’s an unknown project lottery ticket although with Gil they took him from Juco so they knew more what they were getting. I mention transfers because they are usually 22-24 years old by the time they pan out so them having a senior year when they are considerably older than everyone does not mean the rankings missed. It means they outlived the rankings. I’ve often said on this board old guys win in college basketball. The body development between and 22 and a 19 year old is huge. The entire development finding right place is way overblown. There is a reason very few guys from off this range make a big impact. Of course there are going to be some because there are so many more. Every year these guys make up 25-30% of players so if the other 70% produce a few winners that’s not surprising. It’s like the same ridiculous argument that comes out of every NFL draft where they say how many more 3 stars get picked than 5 stars. As it pertains to the Hoyas at least half of our HS recruits should be 4’s. If not it’s time to find someone who can achieve that. There are probably a few coaches that could thrive just scouring the 3’s but Ewing isn’t one of them. Nova doesn't run a system that relies on one person to get players involved, they had 5 players with 34 or more assists in conference play(Brunson only avg 4.6 his last season). Gtown had 3 players over 34 assists in conference play... Either way, Gillespie is a good college player who's gotten better from great coaching in my view... You could easily argue he was better as a So. than Jr. if anything he certainly didn’t make a step forward. There is a reason that Nova has fallen off from a national elite to just a BE elite once he took over at PG the last 2 years. Of course he’s a good college player but he’s not 2nd team all BE level or in the same stratosphere of the past Nova guards. I guess we are going to have to disagree but I think there are plenty of other PGs you can put on Nova and they would be just as good if not better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 22:07:58 GMT -5
Not sure where the woah came from. I didn’t attack you I simply broke down all your points as I will do again. Reed went from 6’5 to 6’9. Yes 4 inches hell even 3 inches makes all the difference in the world. Gilispie shot 39/33 in conference play and only averaged just over 4 assists. If you think he was the 2nd best player on that team then you must also think Akinjo (before he went iso) or Allen would’ve been the 2nd best player on that team. At least those 2 could knock down 3’s at a higher rate which is a great quality on Nova. Gil wasn’t even a 2 star coming out he was a no star. He played one year of HS in Jamaica. it would be like if Tim becomes a star. That’s not a recruiting ranking miss. That’s an unknown project lottery ticket although with Gil they took him from Juco so they knew more what they were getting. I mention transfers because they are usually 22-24 years old by the time they pan out so them having a senior year when they are considerably older than everyone does not mean the rankings missed. It means they outlived the rankings. I’ve often said on this board old guys win in college basketball. The body development between and 22 and a 19 year old is huge. The entire development finding right place is way overblown. There is a reason very few guys from off this range make a big impact. Of course there are going to be some because there are so many more. Every year these guys make up 25-30% of players so if the other 70% produce a few winners that’s not surprising. It’s like the same ridiculous argument that comes out of every NFL draft where they say how many more 3 stars get picked than 5 stars. As it pertains to the Hoyas at least half of our HS recruits should be 4’s. If not it’s time to find someone who can achieve that. There are probably a few coaches that could thrive just scouring the 3’s but Ewing isn’t one of them. Nova doesn't run a system that relies on one person to get players involved, they had 5 players with 34 or more assists in conference play(Brunson only avg 4.6 his last season). Gtown had 3 players over 34 assists in conference play... Either way, Gillespie is a good college player who's gotten better from great coaching in my view... Exactly right. Even Arch only had 1 season where he averaged more than 4 assist a game and it was barely over (4.2).
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 22:10:12 GMT -5
You're definitely right about those P5 schools but they're big schools with a lot to sell(not implying cheating at all) I was really referring to schools similar to Gtown(basketball only programs)... I made the point in the program thread that JT3 did well after he established himself with his early teams... My point is I'd rather have a good coach over "talent" to me talent will always be attracted to good coaching... By taking out P5 schools you are eliminating a lot but I’ll give you 2. UConn and Memphis. You could say Harvard has had a few better classes during Ewing’s time than his last 2 although they’ve had some duds mixed in but the fact that is even a discussion just shows where we are at. Uconn won the tourney in 2014, Ollie recruited well off of that plus the school has won 4 titles in 20 years... I'm interested to see how well Hardaway will do if he doesn't win a lot and if these kids aren't improving...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 22, 2020 22:17:41 GMT -5
By taking out P5 schools you are eliminating a lot but I’ll give you 2. UConn and Memphis. You could say Harvard has had a few better classes during Ewing’s time than his last 2 although they’ve had some duds mixed in but the fact that is even a discussion just shows where we are at. Uconn won the tourney in 2014, Ollie recruited well off of that plus the school has won 4 titles in 20 years... I'm interested to see how well Hardaway will do if he doesn't win a lot and if these kids aren't improving... Ollie isn’t the coach there anymore. They’ve had essentially the same past few years that we have. They were in a much worse conference and they have out recruited is by a mile. If you keep adding these stipulations were are essentially going to be down to only being able to pick the Hoyas.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on May 22, 2020 22:28:26 GMT -5
Nova doesn't run a system that relies on one person to get players involved, they had 5 players with 34 or more assists in conference play(Brunson only avg 4.6 his last season). Gtown had 3 players over 34 assists in conference play... Either way, Gillespie is a good college player who's gotten better from great coaching in my view... You could easily argue he was better as a So. than Jr. if anything he certainly didn’t make a step forward. There is a reason that Nova has fallen off from a national elite to just a BE elite once he took over at PG the last 2 years. Of course he’s a good college player but he’s not 2nd team all BE level or in the same stratosphere of the past Nova guards. I guess we are going to have to disagree but I think there are plenty of other PGs you can put on Nova and they would be just as good if not better. Why do we need to debate what year he was better in? Especially if you admit that he's a good college player... Who would you have chosen ahead of him, out of curiosity?
|
|