Recruiting news

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,426
#6,426
germanicus said:
We had four top 60 guys on the roster - Stokes, Maymon, McRae and Stokes - just two years ago. Not coincidentally, that was a Sweet 16 team.

The kind of recruiting you describe will leave you perpetually stuck in the middle of the SEC.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.....we need have more than a few top 100 guys and missed with a few below that are steady college guys.
 
#6,427
#6,427
germanicus said:
That would be a non-sequitur.

You don't hire a guy for the same job at a similar company at a higher salary with the expectation that his performance will be less than it was in his previous position. At least I hope not.
Click to expand...

From what I recall he was making around $2.6m at Texas?
 
#6,428
#6,428
germanicus said:
We had four top 60 guys on the roster - Stokes, Maymon, McRae and Stokes - just two years ago. Not coincidentally, that was a Sweet 16 team.

The kind of recruiting you describe will leave you perpetually stuck in the middle of the SEC.
Click to expand...
What did Bruce's first roster that went to the NCAAT as a 2 seed have on it?
 
#6,429
#6,429
BruinVol said:
#10 rated shooting guard in the country and #44 overall prospect is argued to be flawed because he is too small to play the 4.

Makes perfect sense considering the context
Click to expand...

And Blackwell is the #9 SF in the country and #38 overall prospect, yet you're arguing he's not as attractive as a recruit because he doesn't have a "true position"...you don't see the hypocrisy, really?

All I've been arguing is that you're basically trying to say Clarke would've been a better get than Blackwell because what position he plays is still TBD. Yet Clarke also was said to not have a true position, so I don't see how you can use that arguement to downgrade one recruit but not the other?
 
Last edited:
#6,430
#6,430
bleedingTNorange said:
And Blackwell is the #9 SF in the country and #38 overall prospect, yet you're arguing he's not as attractive as a recruit because he doesn't have a "true position"...you don't see the hypocrisy, really?
Click to expand...

I want him. He and Jenkins are the entire centerpiece of the class. Exactly what I have posted.

However with recent developments it appears getting him won't be the feather in Barme's cap that it once appeared with a majority of the big boys pulling out of the race. Beating Vandy in recruiting isn't and shouldn't be the measuring stick. That's why I am not willing to compare his recruitment to the harris/hubbs/stokes/looney of the world.
 
#6,431
#6,431
BruinVol said:
I want him. He and Jenkins are the entire centerpiece of the class. Exactly what I have posted.

However with recent developments it appears getting him won't be the feather in Barme's cap that it once appeared with a majority of the big boys pulling out of the race. Beating Vandy in recruiting isn't and shouldn't be the measuring stick. That's why I am not willing to compare his recruitment to the harris/hubbs/stokes/looney of the world.
Click to expand...

Those 4 you listed are all 5*, Blackwell definitely is not, but neither was Clarke for that matter. Many schools backed off Ramar Smith who was a 5*, it was still a recruiting coup for Pearl. Stokes enrolled mid semester which limited his options to about 2-3, but that was still a great get by Zo.

Sometimes in recruiting things happen, sometimes you get lucky and a team you're competing with fills up and doesn't have an available scholarship, doesn't change where that recruit is ranked though, or how good of a get it would be IMO.

My original point and major contention was that you wanted to grade Clarke, Phillips and Schofield higher than you would Blackwell, Bone, Fulkerson and Williams...when in fact that second class would be ranked about 25 spots better in the team rankings, it just made little sense to me.
 
Last edited:
#6,432
#6,432
bleedingTNorange said:
Those 4 you listed are all 5*, Blackwell definitely is not, but neither was Clarke for that matter. Many schools backed off Ramar Smith who was a 5*, it was still a recruiting coup for Pearl. Stokes enrolled mid semester which limited his options to about 2-3, but that was still a great get by Zo.

Sometimes in recruiting things happen, sometimes you get lucky and a team you're competing with fills up and doesn't have an available scholarship, doesn't change where that recruit is ranked thiugh IMO.
Click to expand...

Good post and good points for not feeling like a class was a slam dunk A grade without such players.
 
#6,433
#6,433
BruinVol said:
Good post and good points for not feeling like a class was a slam dunk A grade without such players.
Click to expand...

Not sure where I mentioned anything about grades in that post...I still mean what I said last night, Jenkins/Blackwell/Bone/Fulkerson would be a Grade A class for the early signing period IMO. That's a top 10-15 ranked class, can't really expect much more than that IMO
 
#6,434
#6,434
bleedingTNorange said:
Not sure where I mentioned anything about grades in that post...I still mean what I said last night, Jenkins/Blackwell/Bone/Fulkerson would be a Grade A class for the early signing period IMO. That's a top 10-15 ranked class, can't really expect much more than that IMO
Click to expand...

So it would be in that 10-15 range without these kids rising in the rankings like we are hoping??

If so then certainly yes a B+/A- grade would be appropriate. Since we have been in the top 10 before I will save the As for that
 
#6,435
#6,435
BruinVol said:
So it would be in that 10-15 range without these kids rising in the rankings like we are hoping??

If so then certainly yes a B+/A- grade would be appropriate. Since we have been in the top 10 before I will save the As for that
Click to expand...

Yes that's correct, and fair enough.
 
#6,437
#6,437
BruinVol said:
Maybe we get lucky with another bigtime guy falling in our lap in the spring. Coaching changes could really help us and saving 1-2 spots for the spring wouldn't be a bad thing
Click to expand...

The international scene will always be something to remember too with this staff, it's possible there's a name or two that this staff is eyeing and evaluating that's in Canada or Australia etc., may not be someone we here about until the deal is almost sealed.
 
#6,439
#6,439
bleedingTNorange said:
The international scene will always be something to remember too with this staff, it's possible there's a name or two that this staff is eyeing and evaluating that's in Canada or Australia etc., may not be someone we here about until the deal is almost sealed.
Click to expand...

Most of the Canadian basketball scene is inundated with media coverage now, especially since the high major players likely play on either CIA Bounce or Canada Elite. So recruitment of Canadian players is basically the same as the recruitment of US players. Hard to keep the recruitment under-wraps anymore.
 
#6,440
#6,440
dbrasner said:
Most of the Canadian basketball scene is inundated with media coverage now, especially since the high major players likely play on either CIA Bounce or Canada Elite. So recruitment of Canadian players is basically the same as the recruitment of US players. Hard to keep the recruitment under-wraps anymore.
Click to expand...

Not really true, the Alexander recruitment and Kasongo recruitment were very quiet as compared to say Phillips and Schofield.
 
#6,442
#6,442
germanicus said:
We had four top 60 guys on the roster - Stokes, Maymon, McRae and Stokes - just two years ago. Not coincidentally, that was a Sweet 16 team.

The kind of recruiting you describe will leave you perpetually stuck in the middle of the SEC.
Click to expand...

You listed Stokes twice. Obviously B. Lopez is the 4th.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top