Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (October 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
How much more prioritizing do you want... As far as I know, we haven't even had an in home with someone shorter than 6'6" for 2019. UI is going to have a tough time signing a top 50 big. We got Oscar to visit (who is a five star recruit) and we are in his top three. All signs point to us missing, but regardless of what people want to say, we prioritized him, which is exactly what you wanted. Throw in Timme, Cockburn, Mitchell, and Walker (and im sure others im missing off the top of my head) and we are prioritizing a big about as much as a team can.

I think you would be better to focus frustrations on closing on one of the names I mentioned. That is something I can get behind, because so far, we have closed on zero top 150 bigs, let alone top 50. That's frustrating.
I didn't make my point well. I think they're setting the right priority
 
Captain Trips-ville, Planet Houston
Maybe for a few, but I'm sure most felt like Samba's season was mostly lost when he couldn't enroll in summer school. My hope right now is he doesn't get too discouraged and bail if the season doesn't go well for him. In a perfect world he should redshirt.
Hyperbole much? While it's definitely not ideal, missing the summer workouts & team bonding is not a season sinker. Not by a long shot. Granted, Kane may have an underwhelming debut season. But putting that on getting to CU in August? Sorry, not buying it.
 
There is some inherent problem with official visits as there is a limit and we indeed experienced that problem first hand. However, the problem is not offering Fall OVs to talented recruits. The problem is not closing and then going on desperation mode in the Spring when you start wasting OVs on project type players for some of which you still have increased competition (other teams will realize needs during the season depending on injuries and players leaving).

There are two possible solutions. The first solution (preferred) is improving your ability to close with talent in the Fall. The second solution is that you start targeting project recruits in the Fall, when project players are more likely to accept an offer from UI as there are not be many P5 high-major programs likely to offer them that early. I personally find the second solution troublesome by itself but necessity may eventually dictate adoption.
I don't really see much downside in the latter since they could still target plan A guys with the projects already on board.
 
Fourth-leading scorer at The Patrick School, averaging eight points per game.
Chose Illinois over offers from Hofstra, Manhattan and St. Bonaventure.
The first line isn't as bad as the last. His team was loaded with D1 talent so it's understandable that he didn't average much. I'm not concerned about his offense really. The 2 rebounds per game is what worries me, and also his defense is going to be a red flag until we see him in action. I love the vibe I get from Giorgi but I'm still a little concerned about what he'll be able to bring to the table besides the intangibles. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended being a bust, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he ended up having a slightly better career than Maverick Morgan.
 
I don't really see much downside in the latter since they could still target plan A guys with the projects already on board.
The total number of OVs does not increase because you decide to offer projects early neither do your chances of closing on highly ranked recruits. What actually decreases are the chances that these project recruits pan out, because even Spring targeting on projects is dependent at least on how these projects fared during their senior season, important information that you will not have in the Fall. It will amount to even taking more shots in the dark(er) during Fall.
 
Likes: KevinC

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
There is some inherent problem with official visits as there is a limit and we indeed experienced that problem first hand. However, the problem is not offering Fall OVs to talented recruits. The problem is not closing and then going on desperation mode in the Spring when you start wasting OVs on project type players for some of which you still have increased competition (other teams will realize needs during the season depending on injuries and players leaving).

There are two possible solutions. The first solution (preferred) is improving your ability to close with talent in the Fall. The second solution is that you start targeting project recruits in the Fall, when project players are more likely to accept an offer from UI as there are not be many P5 high-major programs likely to offer them that early. I personally find the second solution troublesome by itself but necessity may eventually dictate adoption.
I largely agree. But what's kinda funny is that some people want to avoid desperation mode in the spring by going into desperation mode in the summer before.
 
Likes: Obelix
The total number of OVs does not increase because you decide to offer projects early neither do your chances of closing on highly ranked recruits. What actually decreases are the chances that these project recruits pan out, because even Spring targeting on projects is dependent at least on how these projects fared during their senior season, important information that you will not have in the Fall. It will amount to even taking more shots in the dark(er) during Fall.
Sure, but I'm not too worried about OVs despite the challenges from the last cycle. Also, it the projects end up having a bad senior year with lower expectations that changes the coaching staff perception on their value, I trust the staff to do what they need to do in those types of situations.
 
I largely agree. But what's kinda funny is that some people want to avoid desperation mode in the spring by going into desperation mode in the summer before.
That is why this solution is troublesome. Not only does it amount to desperation and self-admission that you are bad at recruiting, but you are taking chances on project recruits with even less information on them (i.e., senior year). Total shots in the dark.
 
The first line isn't as bad as the last. His team was loaded with D1 talent so it's understandable that he didn't average much. I'm not concerned about his offense really. The 2 rebounds per game is what worries me, and also his defense is going to be a red flag until we see him in action. I love the vibe I get from Giorgi but I'm still a little concerned about what he'll be able to bring to the table besides the intangibles. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended being a bust, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he ended up having a slightly better career than Maverick Morgan.
We need to do much better than MM. He was a below average B1G center in all 4 years at UI. He will go down as one of a handful of players (Tate and Hill as others) to never go to the dance in their 4 years at UI. Last group to fall in that category was over 40 years ago.
 
Sure, but I'm not too worried about OVs despite the challenges from the last cycle. Also, it the projects end up having a bad senior year with lower expectations that changes the coaching staff perception on their value, I trust the staff to do what they need to do in those types of situations.
If you imply signing project recruits on LOIs in the Fall (with less information), seeing how they do during the season and then trying to rescind on the LOIs in the Spring, and then after that start looking again for other project recruits offering more OVs (it is not that those OVs in the Fall do not count) then it is not only a questionable strategy which can backfire on PR/backlash and ethics, it also assumes that you have less time to recruit in Spring, and furthermore you have created more of a problem with OVs. I know that you are not concerned with OVs, but it is not that a limit does not exist. We did run into a problem already.
 
We need to do much better than MM. He was a below average B1G center in all 4 years at UI. He will go down as one of a handful of players (Tate and Hill as others) to never go to the dance in their 4 years at UI. Last group to fall in that category was over 40 years ago.
I don't want to rehash this old argument, but upper classman Morgan wasn't a below average BIG center. His defense/athleticism were rough but offensively he was very efficient.
 
Iowa City
We need to do much better than MM. He was a below average B1G center in all 4 years at UI. He will go down as one of a handful of players (Tate and Hill as others) to never go to the dance in their 4 years at UI. Last group to fall in that category was over 40 years ago.
I would like better than MM. But you can live with MM when you have TF, Ayo, Jones, Monte, Kip ect. as weapons. Its when MM is playing Robin to Malcom Hills Batman that gets you the 4 years we got.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if he ended being a bust, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he ended up having a slightly better career than Maverick Morgan.
Is there any project recruit really that you would not be able to make the same statement a priori?
 
I would like better than MM. But you can live with MM when you have TF, Ayo, Jones, Monte, Kip ect. as weapons. Its when MM is playing Robin to Malcom Hills Batman that gets you the 4 years we got.
You hope they develop but it is not that these player already have more potential than Kendrick Nunn had at the time.
 

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
That is why this solution is troublesome. Not only does it amount to desperation and self-admission that you are bad at recruiting, but you are taking chances on project recruits with even less information on them (i.e., senior year). Total shots in the dark.
Exactly. So go afterthe surefire guys right now. Plan b in spring. Hope you don't have to continue down that path
 
I don't want to rehash this old argument, but upper classman Morgan wasn't a below average BIG center. His defense/athleticism were rough but offensively he was very efficient.
offensively some good moments, but still overall way below average when you throw in he was probably the worst defensively in the B1G. Here's the list for you to pick from his Senior year, Haas, Happ, Justin Jackson, Lynch, Bryant, Pardon, Trevor Thompson, Cook., Gettys, Lamar Stevens, and Nick Ward.
 
offensively some good moments, but still overall way below average when you throw in he was probably the worst defensively in the B1G. Here's the list for you to pick from his Senior year, Haas, Happ, Justin Jackson, Lynch, Bryant, Pardon, Trevor Thompson, Cook., Gettys, Lamar Stevens, and Nick Ward.
"Some good moments" is selling him short IMO. He had some really good games for us. Most of those guys were better individual talents than MM, won't argue there. If you look at Morgan's body of work he played really well against some of those guys. 11.3ppg on 55% from the floor in conference ain't bad. Some of his best games came against guys like Bryant, Moe Wagner, Minny's front court, MSU, etc. Was one of the more efficient players in the BIG.
 
Is there any project recruit really that you would not be able to make the same statement a priori?
Sure, but that's still an improvement from my initial expectations when we signed him.
 
Gilbert, AZ
"Some good moments" is selling him short IMO. He had some really good games for us. Most of those guys were better individual talents than MM, won't argue there. If you look at Morgan's body of work he played really well against some of those guys. 11.3ppg on 55% from the floor in conference ain't bad. Some of his best games came against guys like Bryant, Moe Wagner, Minny's front court, MSU, etc. Was one of the more efficient players in the BIG.
If he had red-shirted like he should have his freshman year he would have made a huge difference last year
 
Likes: Chukwuwumba
If you imply signing project recruits on LOIs in the Fall (with less information), seeing how they do during the season and then trying to rescind on the LOIs in the Spring, and then after that start looking again for other project recruits offering more OVs (it is not that those OVs in the Fall do not count) then it is not only a questionable strategy which can backfire on PR/backlash and ethics, it also assumes that you have less time to recruit in Spring, and furthermore you have created more of a problem with OVs. I know that you are not concerned with OVs, but it is not that a limit does not exist. We did run into a problem already.
I guess I'm implying that we get those guys on board because they won't scare away players that can come in and impact the game right away. If we end up signing a top player in the fall, they can either be okay with their role and move on if they want more PT elsewhere. I'm not convinced that the senior year is as big of a factor as you're making it out to be.
 
Central Illinois
Is Higgs a "4" or post player? If so, it seems like we've got as many as three project bigs right now. How many exactly do people want? The reason I'm asking is we've got a lot of people suggesting we take on another project (to me any big over 75 in rankings is a project). I'd like to get a big this class like everyone else. But I can also see passing on players that we truly don't believe won't pan out.
Higgs is more of a 3/4 type player.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless you get a MCDAA, it’s likely they are a “project big.” Additionally, even some MCDAA bigs are projects, too. Quite some time ago, I analyzed top 40 bigs from the last 10-15 years and the averages came out to something like 6 or 7 ppg and around 5rpg. Very few averaged over 10ppg. If you recall, Meyers averaged 2ppg his freshman year, therefore, taking a guy with a high ceiling (Kane) or a guy who works hard and fits the system (Giorgi) is not a bad way to go. Sure getting guys who are higher ranked seem like they would develop better, but look at Wisky’s bigs and how they have abused teams over the years despite being not highly ranked.
 
Higgs is more of a 3/4 type player.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless you get a MCDAA, it’s likely they are a “project big.” Additionally, even some MCDAA bigs are projects, too. Quite some time ago, I analyzed top 40 bigs from the last 10-15 years and the averages came out to something like 6 or 7 ppg and around 5rpg. Very few averaged over 10ppg. If you recall, Meyers averaged 2ppg his freshman year, therefore, taking a guy with a high ceiling (Kane) or a guy who works hard and fits the system (Giorgi) is not a bad way to go. Sure getting guys who are higher ranked seem like they would develop better, but look at Wisky’s bigs and how they have abused teams over the years despite being not highly ranked.
The numbers appear to be like they're project bigs but that doesn't paint the whole picture. Just because they're freshmen doesn't mean they're projects. In most cases they're just behind on the depth chart. We just happen to be in a scenario where we truly have some bigs that could be considered projects but will get way too many minutes out of necessity.
 
I guess I'm implying that we get those guys on board because they won't scare away players that can come in and impact the game right away. If we end up signing a top player in the fall, they can either be okay with their role and move on if they want more PT elsewhere. I'm not convinced that the senior year is as big of a factor as you're making it out to be.
I am honestly not sure what you are implying. If you go after project recruits in the Fall, you are definitely taking more of a risk on their possible success rate as you have less information. Quite a few of those project recruits are late bloomers, some international, etc. But independent of that, they still occupy valuable scholarships. Scaring away highly ranked players is hardly a problem, we are not losing any highly ranked talent right now because they are scared. So at the end, you have given out scholarships to project recruits earlier. What does this help you in upgrading talent level needed to compete in the B1G, which is the purpose of recruiting? It does not move the needle from where we are right now.

There are plenty of project recruits that will accept an offer from UI earlier in the cycle but the purpose is not just fill scholarships with project recruits. The purpose is to get talent to compete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.