Fabrizius to Dayton?

[NYWarrior]

looks like it could happen soon

http://ilprepbullseye.com/page42.html

seems like MU pulled back a bit with him -- good shooter

[augoman]

hmm, why would we pull back from a 6'8" good shooter?

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

hmm, why would we pull back from a 6'8" good shooter?

Because all he can do is shoot. The flak that Novak and Fitz have gotten over their physical tools would be nothing compared to what LF would get during his 4 years.

[augoman]

still, on a team that couldn't buy a 3 after mid-season last year(except for Kinsella), a 6'8" good shooter would be a God send.  Remember, Novak didn't do anything but shoot his freshman year, and he needed a wide-open shot, or a double screen to do it!  He was a senior before he realized his d and rebounding potential, and he was great!

[MUBasketball]

Based on nothing but pictures of Fabrizius, I was not excited about him at all. Now obviously, he will bulk up over the duration of his college career, but I think the scholarship will be better used elsewhere.

We'll see how he does, wherever he ends up. Looks like its between Dayton and Northwestern.

EDIT: Disregard, turns out he veraballed to Dayton today.

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

still, on a team that couldn't buy a 3 after mid-season last year(except for Kinsella), a 6'8" good shooter would be a God send.  Remember, Novak didn't do anything but shoot his freshman year, and he needed a wide-open shot, or a double screen to do it!  He was a senior before he realized his d and rebounding potential, and he was great!

So, you want a kid to remedy a problem that would be a full season and a half in the past when he steps on campus? And that's being generous is saying he could be a remedy to anything as a Freshman.

Sounds like reactionary recruiting. I don't think you can take one instance where a skill is lacking and base your recruiting on that. Too much time in between. Now, a certain type of athlete or a certain position is different and we've seen that strategy work for Crean.

[augoman]

obviously you don't base all your recruiting on one need, but you learn from your experience and make sure you cover as many deficiencies as possible..., and don't pass up talent wishing for something else.  If it were as simple as we think, we'd have had guards to play when Diener went down, forwards to shoot when Novak graduated, and CENTERS to rebound and score when RJax graduated.  Some of those needs have been met.

[Harrison]

You can only have 5 guys on the court and the best teams have 5 guys that offer multi talents. 
I absolutely agree the guy lokks like and is rated like a poor poor man;s Novak and a poor man's Fitz.  Agreed people bitched about Novak bringing nothing but a shot and being a liability every where else until he was a senior and he was a top 50 recruit .  people bitched about Fitz for 1.5 to 2 years too.  Given the current and future makeup of this team and the atheticism it will have i always thought he was a poor fit.
Now if he was a 4 star player that could shoot lights out and bring somethings else to the table then that is a different story.  Mu is a position now to recruit and sign nothing but 4 and 5 star recruits and will need to to keep pace in the BE.  2 and 3 star single dimension players have no place, dayton and the A-10 sounds like a much better fit

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You can only have 5 guys on the court and the best teams have 5 guys that offer multi talents. 
I absolutely agree the guy lokks like and is rated like a poor poor man;s Novak and a poor man's Fitz.  Agreed people bitched about Novak bringing nothing but a shot and being a liability every where else until he was a senior and he was a top 50 recruit .  people bitched about Fitz for 1.5 to 2 years too.  Given the current and future makeup of this team and the atheticism it will have i always thought he was a poor fit.
Now if he was a 4 star player that could shoot lights out and bring somethings else to the table then that is a different story.  Mu is a position now to recruit and sign nothing but 4 and 5 star recruits and will need to to keep pace in the BE.  2 and 3 star single dimension players have no place, dayton and the A-10 sounds like a much better fit

I agree that you need talent... but not everybody is destined for stardom.

People are highly critical of the transfer rate, but want all 5 star recruits.

Well, if you want all 5 star recruits, you are going to have a high transfer rate because they are going to want to play early and often (which isn't always possible).

My point is sometimes guys are recruited to be role players, and they understand that.

I can't speak for this specific case... I'm speaking more in generalities regarding 2 star recruits versus 5 star recruits.

[Harrison]

Not that i completely disagree in regards to your statement.  but i think that applies more to aDuke or a Arizona. 
What 5 star recruits have transferred from MU.  We have only had a few probably the highest rtaed to transfer is mason, the only othewr transfer of any real talent was ODb.  Both of those were more personal things but defiitely not PT issues.

But i do completely disagree with your other point.  A "role" player that is single dimensional by deenition is lacking in other areas.  i would rather have role players that may not be superstars but are decent in many categories.  Ala a townsend or a chapman, or a sanders or a FItz.  can playd, can hit the open shot, can make the pass, can put it on the floor.  A Cubillan or a Chrsitopherson or a Williams.  A guy like an Anglavar was maybe the second best 3 shooter ever at Mu(at least since '87 rule change) but he brought nothing else.  Those guys will get used in the BE cuase you have to do so many things on both ends of the floor or you are a big liabilty. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not that i completely disagree in regards to your statement.  but i think that applies more to aDuke or a Arizona. 
What 5 star recruits have transferred from MU.  We have only had a few probably the highest rtaed to transfer is mason, the only othewr transfer of any real talent was ODb.  Both of those were more personal things but defiitely not PT issues.

But i do completely disagree with your other point.  A "role" player that is single dimensional by deenition is lacking in other areas.  i would rather have role players that may not be superstars but are decent in many categories.  Ala a townsend or a chapman, or a sanders or a FItz.  can playd, can hit the open shot, can make the pass, can put it on the floor.  A Cubillan or a Chrsitopherson or a Williams.  A guy like an Anglavar was maybe the second best 3 shooter ever at Mu(at least since '87 rule change) but he brought nothing else.  Those guys will get used in the BE cuase you have to do so many things on both ends of the floor or you are a big liabilty. 

I don't disagree that the role players need a multitude of skills.

Like I said, I can't speak to this recruit specifically, because I have never seen him play. I can't comment on his specific skill set.

I'm just saying that having some lower ranked recruits (whatever their skill set) come in and work their tail off for 4 years and be solid role players isn't a bad thing. If MU is recruiting a player, they must see something they like.

I don't think John Harris was great at MU (or highly ranked out of highschool), but he was solid in every game. Same for Joe Chapman.

I don't have a problem with MU signing some lower ranked players that can come in and play limited minutes and contribute.

[Harrison]

to that i agree...that was my problem on paper with fabrizius ...  it seems his ticket to D1 is shooting and size and that his post up game, rebounding, footspedd, ballhandling, and defense were suspect at best.

Agreed on Harris, the problem with harris is he was a 2-3 year starter, when he would have gotten Burke like minutes on recent teams.  role player on a good team. problem was he was one of our best players...hence the lack of success.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

to that i agree...that was my problem on paper with fabrizius ...  it seems his ticket to D1 is shooting and size and that his post up game, rebounding, footspedd, ballhandling, and defense were suspect at best.

Agreed on Harris, the problem with harris is he was a 2-3 year starter, when he would have gotten Burke like minutes on recent teams.  role player on a good team. problem was he was one of our best players...hence the lack of success.

Yea, I agree that Harris and Burke might be somewhat similar... and thus that is why we are better now and why Burke doesn't play much.

But, I will say that Burke may develop into a nice player that can get you 10min a game (occasionally more) over the next 2 seasons.

Not every player that MU recruits needs to be all-american. I don't know anything about this specific recruit, I just think that it would be a little foolish to always try and land top - top talent. I mean, talent usually is good... but if kids are unhappy or not accepting their roles, then you have a problem. I don't know that this has happened yet, I'm just throwing the idea out there that a good recruiting class isn't necessarily all star players. It's probably a mix of start power, raw potential guys, and dirty work and role guys.

[Djgoldnboy]

still, on a team that couldn't buy a 3 after mid-season last year(except for Kinsella), a 6'8" good shooter would be a God send.  Remember, Novak didn't do anything but shoot his freshman year, and he needed a wide-open shot, or a double screen to do it!  He was a senior before he realized his d and rebounding potential, and he was great!

Fitz was at 42% last year, don't put the woeful shooting of a few on the whole team, granted he needs to take more shots, but still we'll be set this year with Fitz, Cubey and Scott off of the bench....I expect our 3 point % to rise pretty significantly this year (especially if Lazar starts to feel comfortable outside as people has saying he has been of late)

[augoman]

who are the 4 and 5 star recruits you're referring to?