Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (May-June 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#27      

Tevo

Wilmette, IL
As anyone could tell you who's ever taken a girl on a date and made her pay for her own dinner... this is completely overrated :huh:

Hey, if you make her pay and she still commits to you, you know she's a keeper!
 
#28      

Tevo

Wilmette, IL
I would like to see at least one crystal ball to Illinois for Okoro. Of course I take those with a huge grain of salt, but I like to see at least one before getting my hopes up.

If I see no CBs for Illinois, then I'll know he's not coming, but if I see some or a lot, then I'll remember that CBs mean nothing!
 
#29      
Hey, if you make her pay and she still commits to you, you know she's a keeper!

Or if she buys, then you immediately get on one knee and lock that down.
 
Last edited:
#34      

KrushCow31

Former Krush Cow
Chicago, IL
If I see no CBs for Illinois, then I'll know he's not coming, but if I see some or a lot, then I'll remember that CBs mean nothing!

Ha. I don't think CBs mean much, but I like to at least see one when there's like 12 predictions. That's all.
 
#35      

kuhl84

Orlando, FL
Guaranteed that once an OV opens up, if Okoro is still available or even has already committed to Illinois, he'll get an OV. Alan took his OV after already committing.



He will be enrolled somewhere (hopefully UI) prior to an OV opening up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#38      

illini80

Forgottonia
Okoro wants the education....would he rather have Purdue or Illinois on that paper?

Computer Science!

https://purdue.rivals.com/news/purdue-target-francis-okoro-has-plans-beyond-basketball

Thanks for the link.

In general I wouldn't be very confident about his recruitment given how things have played out, but a lot of people with at least some insight feel confident that we will land him. I do think the reclassification helps us. I'm keeping the cup handy just in case though.....
 
#40      

NBB1979

UIUCFAN1
Springfield, IL
I'm not as concerned with pulling in big name recruits with this regime and as I was in the past.


Underwood seems to have types of players that he is looking for, i.e. a rim runner, athletic wing, shooter, etc. And I think he goes after players that fit those types, and it's pretty much first come/first serve by type. I'm sure he has preferences, but I don't think he gets caught up in whether a player is rated # 60 vs. 150 vs. 220, etc.


You could argue some of the commitments seem like reaches, desperation, etc. but I think it shows he has confidence in his system will work so long as he has the pieces to run it properly, and that he can beat you if is system is working.


That being said, I really hope we land Okoro. In the short term, I think he is far more likely to make an immediate impact than our current commits, and with him I think we are a tournament team next year. But again, I am just speaking in terms of likelihood. Who's to say Samba couldn't pull a Trent Frazier and leapfrog Okoro next year, even assuming we do get him?


I am excited to see how the system works with all of these new pieces. Go Illini!

While I think it's fine to "recruit to a system" - history shows that the higher rated the talent (generally speaking) the better the player. There are some 5* flame outs - and there are some 2* studs - but in general - the more talented (higher ranked) players perform better.

We have a 5* - a borderline 4* - and couple/few 3*'s and some unrated - i think that's an ok balance for the class we brought in. If we have a 3 man class - i'm with a high 4*, a solid 3*, and a project.

I just want to make sure that we aren't being complacent and think that we can take project after project just because underwood recruits to his system, not the player rankings

Go Illini :chief:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#41      
While I think it's fine to "recruit to a system" - history shows that the higher rated the talent (generally speaking) the better the player. There are some 5* flame outs - and there are some 2* studs - but in general - the more talented (higher ranked) players perform better.

We have a 5* - a borderline 4* - and couple/few 3*'s and some unrated - i think that's an ok balance for the class we brought in. If we have a 3 man class - i'm with a high 4*, a solid 3*, and a project.

I just want to make sure that we aren't being complacent and think that we can take project after project just because underwood recruits to his system, not the player rankings

Go Illini :chief:
We have a group of guys who have a range of talent, BU has said ranks don't matter, but I do believe that evaluation does. Griff , Bez and Samba have low ranks, so we are led to think they will not be as good as higher ranked players. With proper training and conditioning, a solid coach will get the most out of the players. This is where "culture" takes over. You can teach a player plays, but a group of players that have a desire to win, will have the team goal of winning, part of their nature. This I think is the one thing BU has required, guys that are winners . Time will tell, but this is his group, let' see what he does with system and culture.;):illinois:
 
#44      
Coach and staff can watch open gym during an UV while at an OV they can't be present.

Which is a joke at Ubben where the coach's offices are virtually adjacent to the gym. The coaches are free to hit the head and vending machines as often as they like.:)
 
#45      

sacraig

The desert
There is at Louisville.

giphy.gif
 
#48      

Joseph Kerr

Fort Wayne, IN
Lesser players

Not everyone has to be a star in a "system". I agree it helps to get the talent, but one could use the talent of Mark Smith to negate that the talent wills out. The Patriots and the Spurs are system oriented and change players, some with talent, some with the skill set needed in the system. Having a center who is great at shooting 3's won't work in everyone's system, nor will a big body banger (although less talent to be huge, this fits better in most systems). We all want talented players, but to suggest Matic was a talent, or even Alstork was a talent might make you think the fact that their talent fit the systems they played in before. The blue bloods have a lot of talent sitting on their bench....sitting on their bench because they thought their talent would get them ahead of others. I like the talent we have brought in. You cannot say we have not gotten more athletic, and that the talent coming in appears to be just as good as an Alstork or Matic, if not actually better. Now it is up to the coach as it will be the first year he gets to put 5 players of his choosing on the court, young they may be.

Well, the premise that "a solid coach will get the most out of the players," obviously did not work with Mark Smith, Vesel, and Alstork, with the same solid coach.

I am less of a believer that we'll somehow outsystem and outsmart some of the other excellent coaches in the B1G and nationwide, or that we somehow have some magical powers to find the diamonds in the rough at much higher rate.

Frazier was not recruited and signed by BU, but did great, whereas the aforementioned players ended up mediocre at best. Deron, Dee, Augie, Powell and Luther did fine under Weber as well, despite not recruited/signed by him either. So good players, independent of rankings, will likely do well under many systems, although there is indeed a correlation with rankings, so we do need the Okoro's, the Liddell's, and Miller's of the world to become consistent contenders. Let's start with one of them... :thumb:
 
#50      

Dren1

Glenview, IL
Lighten up Francis, we are talking recruiting moving forward, and getting one of them, specifically Okoro, Liddell, and Miller. You can't even recognize a positive hint even if it hits you in your behind. :)
So is your positive hint that we will get Okoro?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.