top 10 recruits-is in worth it

[Deleted]

Hi Guys!!

I was looking at the recruiting table and wondering, if some of the 5 star recruits are really worth it. If you think about it, how many of the freshman make that much of an impact?? This was an unusual year in that Oden, Durant, Conley Jr. made an inpact, but most of the top freshmen in the country were contributors at best. In addition, those top players are going to declare for the draft after a year.

Take a player like Monroe. Even if we got him, he would take time to adjust to our offense and then he would be gone after a year. So what's the point?? I doubt Freeman or Wright will be as valuable to our team this coming year as J. Wallace.

Furthermore, neither Green, Hibbert, or J Wallace were top 100 players. Look how good they werewhen they arrived and how they are now.

I like 3 and 4 star players, or a 5 star player who needs work such as Macklin who I suspect will be a good if not a great one before he is finished here.

What do you guys think???

[SFHoya99]

I think you need a balance.

If you look at last year's Top 10, almost all of them were easily worth it. The only ones I'd question are Spencer Hawes and Thaddeus Young -- guys good enough to jump but didn't really help their teams.

I think Monroe has a chance to be Durant/Oden, which helps. But I also think there's plenty of Chase Budinger or Gerald Henderson types who will stay for more than one year (although Gerald barely played last year).

So I think the denigration of Top 10 talent is overstated.

That said, I think the next level of talent down is best, especially when they fit the system. Our staff, more than any other, I think, needs to think fit. And fit not so much in skills (they've proven they can teach) but rather in mentality.

First and Foremost, our players need to be team players and value winning over personal stats. That doesn't mean personal development needs to be sacrificed, but this team should not tolerate a ball hog.

[Bahstin]

You could have said the same thing about Macklin last year. He won't get run and be gone after a year.

I think you go after them and guage interest. If they are the type of people that are willing to put in the time to learn the system you've got a great recruit. If they are not willing to do so and are sure they are one and done, then they may be better somewhere else. No biggie.

[hoyasexy]

I guess it depends on your situation. One might argue that even Durant didn't do much for his school, considering Texas bowed out in the second round of the tournament after getting pasted by USC. Some schools who are not big-time programs may never get any substantial short or long term benefits from a one-and-done guy.

A team that might benefit from one of these guys would be a school that has a bunch of talent already but might just be one player away from having a truly special team. The prototyical example would be a team coming off a final four run, losing arguably its best player to early entry in the NBA but no other rotation players.

Does anyone know of any such team?

[hoyaboy1]

hoyamonkey said:

A team that might benefit from one of these guys would be a school that has a bunch of talent already but might just be one player away from having a truly special team. The prototyical example would be a team coming off a final four run, losing arguably its best player to early entry in the NBA but no other rotation players.

Does anyone know of any such team?

UCLA?

[RDF]

Just because someone says they are "one and done" doesn't mean that will happen. You have to account for maximizing your potential--and if you have someone who just wants to leave to get into NBA--don't bother. If you have someone who wants to make money and go as high as possible--then you recruit them--especially in a case like Monroe where he's a good enough student he could qualify for admission whether he was an athlete or not.

Learning curve is a lot different then when III first took over. You have players who know the system and can help their teammates as opposed to everyone learning at same time. You have more skilled talent entering program which makes their learning curve shorter. Where Jeff Green was a special player--Monroe possesses some skills Jeff didn't upon entering Georgetown--and he's only 16 years old now. He still needs to work on his perimeter shot to be a complete player--and Hoyas are recruiting him as a Jeff-like SF. Most want him at PF. Georgetown lets you play your game and doesn't hold you to a "spot"--others will put him on block and he'll stay there. He's likely given the right answers to Hoya staff because we're recruiting him as the top priority in '08 class and they wouldn't do that if he told them he's leaving school no matter what his FR year is like.

[idhoya]

I take the best dudes I can and let the chips fall. You are always recruiting a couple of years ahead anyway. You think III would turn down Monroe if he said he's coming, but will only stay a year? I think not. Let's look at this for what it is now, which is big bizness!! Too many wrong decisions cost coaches their jobs. Since revenue is being generated by the Durants', Odens' and Melos' of the world, you have to take a gamble on them from time to time. Obviously you can't have bunch of one-n-dones, but like SF said, you need balance. Monroe is not an academic risk, but could have an economic situation and have to jump. Couldn't blame him and it doesn't damage a program really.

[prhoya]

Take Monroe. He fits!

[idhoya]

plus he fits.

[hifigator]

We had this discussion on our board a couple of weeks ago, and just like some of you said, the consensus answer is that it depends. I think too many people aren't understanding the impact of the 19 year/one year removed from high school rule. Yes, we always had to deal with potentially investing into a player only to have him leave early. When the coaches recruited before, they might factor in grades and the kids dedication to school a little bit more when making determinations between players. Certainly that still has to be part of the equation. But I think you have to think about the elite players in that one and done category entirely differently. Every coach should and probably will still want talents such as Oden and Durant, even though they will in all likelihood leave after only a year. Essentially, these are guys who wouldn't have even been on campus to begin with, were it not for the new rule.


So the answer is yes, you still go after those elite guys, but you view them in totally different light than we traditionally did guys who "might" leave.

[hifigator]

Along these same lines of thought, I just wonder how much of this factor is playing into Billy's decisions.


www.gatorcountry.com/basketball_recruiting/article/kenny_kadji_commits_to_donovan_gators/1651


Before you click the link, yes it is about a gator recruit. But I think this fits in with the discussions on the one and done type of guys. Like I said, every coach would want the Odens and Durants, but like the original poster mentioned, a steady stream of short term scholarship athletes would likely be counterproductive to the program. Billy seems to be more interested in the character of the guys than the number of stars after their names. Sure we got Nick Calathes this year as well as some other highly ranked kids. And yes, he did go after Patrick Patterson. But we have had our strongest successes with guys who weren't all that highly regarded coming out of high school, like Noah, Horford and Green. Sure, Brewer was a high school All-American, but I see a different sort of trend. Billy seems to be building a relationship with certain AAU programs and it is working out for both the student-athletes as well as the university. So if I had to summarize the strategy Billy is using, he is trying to build the program with 3 to 4 year guys of strong character who are unlikely to get in trouble, but still looking for that occassional star player that will fit in cohesively rather than creating inner turmoil. Just three years ago we had a team that featured, in Anthony Roberson and David Lee, a couple of Parade All-Americans, as well as highly regarded Matt Walsh. In spite of that "talent," we didn't accomplish many of our goals. Not surprisingly, the very next year with a roster almost entirely of unkown and unheralde players, we win the Natty Tite and as we all know, repeat again the next year. Now of course on the heels of the draft those "no names" are multi-millionaires.

I think Billy is putting together a system which is working, and like I said, it is working for both the University as well as the student-athletes. Granted, those things tend to go hand in hand, but still.

What we do know is that teams can be very successful with the likes of Noah, Jeff Green, Jonathon Wallace and Al Horford while successfully landing the "can't miss guys" like Roberson is not a formula for success. To finish the thought, I think Roberson has the talent to play in the NBA, but not the right mental make-up. So the opposite is also true. Just as buying into the right system is good for both the institution as well as the player, not doing so harms both the player and the team.

[kchoya]

hifigator said:

We had this discussion on our board a couple of weeks ago,

Wait, wait, wait, WAIT! You have your "own" board? A board for Florida fans? Really? I thought this was the only place you came? Why are you still here? I wish you were one and done.

[Dhall]

This shouldn't be overanalyzed. Would you rather have a guy that shoots 30% from three-point range but "knows the system" or a guy that shoots 50% from there and doesn't know the system? How about a 6'9 guy who is not a great rebounder but has good chemistry with his teammates versus a 7'0 guy who dominates in the paint but has no idea where his teammates are on the floor?

Yes, basketball is a team sport, but freshmen have about 6 months of playing time with their teammates (including 3-4 months of practices with coaches) before conference play begins so that's plenty of time to get to know their teammates. Take the best players even if they leave after one year. The one exception might be a point guard who really is responsible for starting a lot of plays and knowing how to direct traffic more than anybody else (or point forward position in Hoyas' offense).