will this help MU with Quintrell Thomas? Seeing how it is only Maryland's first commitment it is not an issue with no more scholarships to offer and only time will tell. A class of Shumpert, Williams, and Thomas continues to be my personal wet dream.
Unfortunately, history tells us it will prabably be Williams and two clowns we have never heard of before.
maryland is going after 3 of the bigs we are pursuing - thomas, ben-eze, sutton. my preference (granted, i've never seen any of them play) would be ben-eze; he has the height we badly need!
Height is over rated in the snese that height is only hieght. Would you rather have Mike Kinsella or faisal abraham? My recollection is that Fai at 6'7" is the schools 3rd or 4th all time shot clocker, additionally he was tough as nails and strong. he could body and push out bigger guys. Additionally, he was agreat leaper and most importantly couldd rebound out of his area. Meaning he did not just get rebounds that came to him but had the athleticism to go get balls over others or away from his spot. Give me two 6'8" guys that can do that all day long!! That is part of oozes problem, Burkes too. they only get rebounds that hit them in the chest. Evrything I read about Thomas speakes of his strenthg, leaping ability and toughness. Those are the guys i want. Mbakwe and Thomas on the baseline!!
I agree with Harrison.
I'm seeing Crean recruiting a lot of "do everything" forwards: they're long, quick, and can defend multiple positions. Similar to Cuse and Cincy's frontlines.
Quote from: Harrison on August 03, 2007, 10:17:32 AM
A class of Shumpert, Williams, and Thomas continues to be my personal wet dream.
Unfortunately, history tells us it will prabably be Williams and two clowns we have never heard of before.
C'mon dude... the Wade class was awesome (ODB, WADE, Merrit) and the James class was great (James, Matthwes, McSteal)...
I don't think that we are going to just get williams and 2 clowns. I admit that MU has reached on some recruits, but there is a lot of potential in last years frosh. and this years frosh as well.
Quote from: Harrison on August 03, 2007, 10:17:32 AM
will this help MU with Quintrell Thomas? Seeing how it is only Maryland's first commitment it is not an issue with no more scholarships to offer and only time will tell. A class of Shumpert, Williams, and Thomas continues to be my personal wet dream.
Unfortunately, history tells us it will prabably be Williams and two clowns we have never heard of before.
A lot of people felt Cubillan was a clown. That was probably down to the fact that 95% of MU fans on these boards had never seen him play. In fact, 95% of fans on these boards never see any recruits play prior to entering MU so they probably feel most of them are clowns.
I love Cubillan -- he and McNeal are my two favorite returners -- but he's not a marquee recruit. The way it's shaping up, he may never start a game for MU. He's a lot like Karon Bradley.
Cubillan is a LOT better than Karon Bradley.
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on August 03, 2007, 02:41:42 PM
Cubillan is a LOT better than Karon Bradley.
yes. and he seems to understand/accept his role unlike mr bradley at MU
2002 Mualum...I absolutely agree those two classes were good classes. Unfortunately his 6 other classes have left ALOT!!! to be desired. Jury is out on last years class...LAzar is good ...Cubes can catch and shoot...it remains to be seen what else he can do without the three amigos.
Definite props to Crean on his two classes...one took us to the Final 4...unfortunately when ODB and then Wade left recruitng blunders produced 2 brutal seasons (records were not bad but we beat cupcakes and were outclassed by NCAA caliber teams). Then he signed his second great class and we are in the NCAA's two years running.
I stand by my comments...any betting man would see a 75% failure rate and bet on failure. The concern is what happens when the big 3 leave, is Crean restocking the shelves? Big time question mark. Espn thinks not giving our incoming class a ranking of 10 out of 16.
2 for 8 aint great.
Quote from: Harrison on August 03, 2007, 03:16:04 PM
I stand by my comments...any betting man would see a 75% failure rate and bet on failure. The concern is what happens when the big 3 leave, is Crean restocking the shelves? Big time question mark. Espn thinks not giving our incoming class a ranking of 10 out of 16.
2 for 8 aint great.
2 for 8 ain't great, but it also might not be so (you admit as much in evaluating Cuby and Lazar). The 07 class should be helpful, but not great. But TC did fill two key needs (shooting and a rebounder with potential). The 08 and 09 classes are huge for MU given the veteran nature of the roster heading into those seasons.....MU will have PT available to talented kids, and it seems that Nick Williams is a keeper. I'd expect TC to do just fine in 08 given the kids he's in with, and if he can land Wilson in 09, we wont have these threads much more.
Quote from: Harrison on August 03, 2007, 03:16:04 PM
2002 Mualum...I absolutely agree those two classes were good classes. Unfortunately his 6 other classes have left ALOT!!! to be desired. Jury is out on last years class...LAzar is good ...Cubes can catch and shoot...it remains to be seen what else he can do without the three amigos.
Definite props to Crean on his two classes...one took us to the Final 4...unfortunately when ODB and then Wade left recruitng blunders produced 2 brutal seasons (records were not bad but we beat cupcakes and were outclassed by NCAA caliber teams). Then he signed his second great class and we are in the NCAA's two years running.
I stand by my comments...any betting man would see a 75% failure rate and bet on failure. The concern is what happens when the big 3 leave, is Crean restocking the shelves? Big time question mark. Espn thinks not giving our incoming class a ranking of 10 out of 16.
2 for 8 aint great.
I hear ya... and I don't think you are being totally unreasonable... but I just think that that there have been a few nice classes... and quite honestly, I think MU is still on the rise... so I expect the classes to get better.
I think this year's incoming class is pretty nice. Arguably the 2 best player(s) out of Wisconsin and Minnesota... I know that nationally this year's class might not have been ranked extremely high, but I'll take the top 2 players out of those states every year.
I hear what you are saying though... I guess my expectations are a little different. I'm looking for long term growth, and I would say MU is still climbing.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 03, 2007, 02:02:16 PM
I love Cubillan -- he and McNeal are my two favorite returners -- but he's not a marquee recruit. The way it's shaping up, he may never start a game for MU. He's a lot like Karon Bradley.
He may not have been a marquee recruit but he could turn into a marquee player for MU in the sense that his value to the team will be high over the next 3 years.
Back to the topic, was Cubillan a "clown"? Is any recruit that's not marquee a "clown"? And, how do we define marquee?
The last few classes it seems Crean has learned how to balance out the team between marquee players and role players. He always seems to have at least one clown because, let's face it, we need the lighter side of things from time to time.
Hate to weigh in on a negative but need to say; our last two classes garnered nothing higher than a 3 star, (versus uw w/ 2-4 stars and 2-3 stars each year) and we don't seem to be in on any 'marquee' players for '08. Mbakwe is our highest rated (rivals 150) player, and he is 148 (versus uw's 2 in the top 100-again). Noone over 6'7", noone w/ a rep for 'aggressive' boards. I'm primed for some GOOD news here, fellas- can someone give me some? :'(
Quote from: augoman on August 03, 2007, 06:26:16 PM
we don't seem to be in on any 'marquee' players for '08
Iman Shumpert much?
Quote from: augoman on August 03, 2007, 06:26:16 PM
Hate to weigh in on a negative but need to say; our last two classes garnered nothing higher than a 3 star, (versus uw w/ 2-4 stars and 2-3 stars each year) and we don't seem to be in on any 'marquee' players for '08. Mbakwe is our highest rated (rivals 150) player, and he is 148 (versus uw's 2 in the top 100-again). Noone over 6'7", noone w/ a rep for 'aggressive' boards. I'm primed for some GOOD news here, fellas- can someone give me some? :'(
This whole post is just flat out wrong on every level. First of all by services that rank 5th year seniors Heyward was ranked and Mbakwe is a RSCI top 100 player - who cares that one service (which might be the worst of all of them) ranked him 150, the collective ranked him a 4 star - and not to mention that he does have a rep for grabbing boards. And as for 'marquee' players we have a good shot at our first McD AA in a quarter century. This isn't even mentioning Cristopherson who is considered one of the top shooters in the class and was a top 100 prospect till he stopped playing AAU ball and then dropped off the lists
"""This whole post is just flat out wrong on every level. First of all by services that rank 5th year seniors Heyward was ranked and Mbakwe is a RSCI top 100 player - who cares that one service (which might be the worst of all of them) ranked him 150, the collective ranked him a 4 star - and not to mention that he does have a rep for grabbing boards. """"
Well...I think that post really misses the point on many levels as well....
First of all, getting 1 top 100-150 type player a year in the Big East is simply a recipe for disaster. Our competition, in Louisville, Uconn, Syracuse, WVU -with Huggy, Villanova, Georgetown, and Pittsburgh (and I am only naming the for sures) will sign 2-3-4 top 100 players each and every year and will most likely scatter in a few McD's as well.
Our recruiting the last two years has not been on par with the top half of the BE, in fact ESPN rated it 10 of 16. The reason we have been competitive has been Steve Novak and the 3 amigos. When those 3 leave we are in deep trouble. This year's recruiting class and next are absolutely huge for the program. The 3 amigos represent 3 of the 4 highest rated players Crean has ever signed at MU. Accordingly,they have lifted the team after two woefully untalented seasons into two straight NCAA's.
I will absolutely agree that the recruitng as a whole has improved and that the incoming class and the class before while not great are better than some of Crean's earlier classes, but that simply does not matter.
Those two classes would be fine and successful in C-USA, but while we signed those two classes the aforementioned schools have all signed 5-6-7 top 100 kids and almost all of them have signed multiple McD's all-americans.
To compare these MU classes with previous MU classes is plain wrong, they must be compared to our competition. Those schools and I will throw in ND, Depaul, now Cincy, have out recruited us the last two years as well.
Mu is in deep trouble in 2 years...we will have 2 more outstanding seasons led by our outstandingly talented highly rated guards but then we will face a huge talent deficiency if those 3 top 50 type talents are not replaced in kind.
I hate to be the caster of doom and gloom, because I am going to enjoy the heck out of the next two seasons, but without 2-3 top 75 type players in the next two years year three will be ugly.
Quote from: Harrison on August 04, 2007, 12:36:18 PM
"""This whole post is just flat out wrong on every level. First of all by services that rank 5th year seniors Heyward was ranked and Mbakwe is a RSCI top 100 player - who cares that one service (which might be the worst of all of them) ranked him 150, the collective ranked him a 4 star - and not to mention that he does have a rep for grabbing boards. """"
Well...I think that post really misses the point on many levels as well....
First of all, getting 1 top 100-150 type player a year in the Big East is simply a recipe for disaster. Our competition, in Louisville, Uconn, Syracuse, WVU -with Huggy, Villanova, Georgetown, and Pittsburgh (and I am only naming the for sures) will sign 2-3-4 top 100 players each and every year and will most likely scatter in a few McD's as well.
Our recruiting the last two years has not been on par with the top half of the BE, in fact ESPN rated it 10 of 16. The reason we have been competitive has been Steve Novak and the 3 amigos. When those 3 leave we are in deep trouble. This year's recruiting class and next are absolutely huge for the program. The 3 amigos represent 3 of the 4 highest rated players Crean has ever signed at MU. Accordingly,they have lifted the team after two woefully untalented seasons into two straight NCAA's.
I will absolutely agree that the recruitng as a whole has improved and that the incoming class and the class before while not great are better than some of Crean's earlier classes, but that simply does not matter.
Those two classes would be fine and successful in C-USA, but while we signed those two classes the aforementioned schools have all signed 5-6-7 top 100 kids and almost all of them have signed multiple McD's all-americans.
To compare these MU classes with previous MU classes is plain wrong, they must be compared to our competition. Those schools and I will throw in ND, Depaul, now Cincy, have out recruited us the last two years as well.
Mu is in deep trouble in 2 years...we will have 2 more outstanding seasons led by our outstandingly talented highly rated guards but then we will face a huge talent deficiency if those 3 top 50 type talents are not replaced in kind.
I hate to be the caster of doom and gloom, because I am going to enjoy the heck out of the next two seasons, but without 2-3 top 75 type players in the next two years year three will be ugly.
WOW! This post misses the point on so many levels, i don't even know where to start to rip it apart. Thankfully I am going on vacation in a few hours and won't have the time to go paragraphs upon paragraphs on why this post is so off base but I will leave you with a few points to ponder.
First of all rankings are great and all but to rely on rankings without seeing the players for yourself and than bash those players is beyond idiotic. We could have 3 studs out of freshmen class but you have already written them off without seeing them. Thats just wrong.
Second, UConn's great recruiting class of last year landed them where? Success has to do with getting great players but it also has to do with team formation and team chemistry.
Third, you might not think Hayward and Cube are great players but I think they are very good four year players that every good team needs and wants.
Fourth, nice of you to not take into account that TC is in on Shumpert and Wilson. Two players who we have a good chance at getting and blow away James, McNeal and Matthews in terms of rankings since it seems like that is all you care about. You want top 50 talent, well we are in 2 top 30 talent in 08 and 09.
Fifth, I wouldn't rely on ESPN for any recruiting information. my recommendation is for you to look at all the rankings out there and not just pick and choose the one that fits your agenda but again take rankings with a grain of salt.
Sixth, yes we were/are competitve because of Novak and James and McNeal and Matthews and than it will be hayward and Mbakwe and Williams and Shumpert and Wilson and........ Recruiting has been up and down but it is trending upward and we are in on a lot of great talent. Some will come and some will not but I wouldn't say we are looking at doom and gloom with what we have coming in this year (Mbakwe, Hazel, CHristopherson), next year (N. Williams, maybe Shumpert, Thomas, Ben-Eze) or the year after (maybe J. Wilson).
The future looks bright beyond the next two years.
Quote from: Harrison on August 04, 2007, 12:36:18 PM
"""This whole post is just flat out wrong on every level. First of all by services that rank 5th year seniors Heyward was ranked and Mbakwe is a RSCI top 100 player - who cares that one service (which might be the worst of all of them) ranked him 150, the collective ranked him a 4 star - and not to mention that he does have a rep for grabbing boards. """"
I will absolutely agree that the recruitng as a whole has improved and that the incoming class and the class before while not great are better than some of Crean's earlier classes, but that simply does not matter.
I think it does matter... again, in the grand scheme of things, MU is still a rebuilding program that is on the rise. We are not Duke... MU is building better and better classes and putting them closer together. ALSO, getting Mr. Basketball Wisconsin and a top 2 or 3 player from MN every year should give MU enough talent (provided some solid role players are recruited as well).
Those two classes would be fine and successful in C-USA, but while we signed those two classes the aforementioned schools have all signed 5-6-7 top 100 kids and almost all of them have signed multiple McD's all-americans.
To compare these MU classes with previous MU classes is plain wrong, they must be compared to our competition. Those schools and I will throw in ND, Depaul, now Cincy, have out recruited us the last two years as well.
You are just putting too much emphasize of specific numbers. I realize that talent wins, but do you think that anybody knows the difference between the #50 ranked kid and the #100 ranked kid? These are 18 year old kids... there are WAY too many variables in the way they are ranked to put this much faith in the numbers.
Mu is in deep trouble in 2 years...we will have 2 more outstanding seasons led by our outstandingly talented highly rated guards but then we will face a huge talent deficiency if those 3 top 50 type talents are not replaced in kind.
I hate to be the caster of doom and gloom, because I am going to enjoy the heck out of the next two seasons, but without 2-3 top 75 type players in the next two years year three will be ugly.
Wow. I mean wow. Re-read what you wrote. I understand that people have high hopes for the program... but now people are getting concerned over recruits for 3 years from now? I mean, c'mon. Relax. You said you were going to enjoy the next 2 seasons, so do so. You are worrying about things that the coaching staff probably doesn't even lose sleep over. Hayward might turn into something special or maybe Mbawke will... or maybe Christopherson will become the next Diener... who knows?
The point I guess is that there are WAY too many variables to worry about recruiting classes 2-3 years from now.
Rankings are fun, and they are fun to read about and banter about... but realistically I wouldn't get concerned too concerned about them.
When did i say 2-3 years out on recruiting?... I am specifically referring to this years signees and next years Also if you dont think the coaches are "worried" about it you are in la la land. that is why they "recruit" year around. Any coach will tell you winning is 90% talent.
Now you can stick your head in the sand all you want...I have been to scores of AAU tourneys but obviously not as many as the gurus. But you are dead wrong rankings are huge!! The six highest rated players Crean has signed have been Wade, Diener, Novak, and the 3 amigos. Not if you want to rely on your unpolished diamond stuff feel free. However, today's recruits for the most part are seen so very much that there is not a tremendous amount of mystery or questions on how good a kid is.
and i am happy for you that you think MU recruiting is getting better. This is an absolute worl not a relativity matter nothing. Bottom line MU was a poor team in C-USA when we only had 2-3 three top 100 kids after Wade left. Then Crean signs 3 Top 50 kids...boom! Zero since, meanwhile Syracuse 3 MCd's, Georgetown 3, Villanova, Louisville, etc. one awesome class after another. Stick your head in the sand, But like 2004 and 2005, we will be sorely out talented when we lose those three. If you honestly beleive Cubillan and Christopherson can replace any two of the 3 amigos in a year or two then you have very little knowledge of basketball. Pittsburgh game without Jerel and when james went out...ring a bell? Sorry charlie, but our last two classes are role players Lazar and Mbakwe might turn out as nice players but they are not the elite type players to compete at the top of the BE. Syracuse, Uccon, Gergetown, Louisville and others will have 2-3-4 Mcd's on those squads.
Quote from: Harrison on August 04, 2007, 08:38:33 PM
The six highest rated players Crean has signed have been Wade, Diener, Novak, and the 3 amigos.
Merritt was ranked higher than Wade. Dameon Mason was ranked higher than Wade. Even Lazar Hayward was ranked higher than Wade by many people.
Hayward was 73rd in Rivals rankings and 78th in Hoopmasters. The only reason he didn't get consensus top 100 is because so many of the people who do the ranking separate the post graduate players from the regular high schoolers. Scout had him as a 4 star player and the 13th ranked shooting guard. He would have been in the top 50-60 but they don't include 6th year players. It's the same with Hoopscoop and Prepstars. They both had him in the top 10 post graduate players but didn't include him in the top 100 because of his age. Clark Francis when contacted came out and said that Hayward was a top 50 player.
Quote from: Harrison on August 04, 2007, 12:36:18 PM
"""This whole post is just flat out wrong on every level. First of all by services that rank 5th year seniors Heyward was ranked and Mbakwe is a RSCI top 100 player - who cares that one service (which might be the worst of all of them) ranked him 150, the collective ranked him a 4 star - and not to mention that he does have a rep for grabbing boards. """"
Well...I think that post really misses the point on many levels as well....
First of all, getting 1 top 100-150 type player a year in the Big East is simply a recipe for disaster. Our competition, in Louisville, Uconn, Syracuse, WVU -with Huggy, Villanova, Georgetown, and Pittsburgh (and I am only naming the for sures) will sign 2-3-4 top 100 players each and every year and will most likely scatter in a few McD's as well.
Our recruiting the last two years has not been on par with the top half of the BE, in fact ESPN rated it 10 of 16. The reason we have been competitive has been Steve Novak and the 3 amigos. When those 3 leave we are in deep trouble. This year's recruiting class and next are absolutely huge for the program. The 3 amigos represent 3 of the 4 highest rated players Crean has ever signed at MU. Accordingly,they have lifted the team after two woefully untalented seasons into two straight NCAA's.
I will absolutely agree that the recruitng as a whole has improved and that the incoming class and the class before while not great are better than some of Crean's earlier classes, but that simply does not matter.
Those two classes would be fine and successful in C-USA, but while we signed those two classes the aforementioned schools have all signed 5-6-7 top 100 kids and almost all of them have signed multiple McD's all-americans.
To compare these MU classes with previous MU classes is plain wrong, they must be compared to our competition. Those schools and I will throw in ND, Depaul, now Cincy, have out recruited us the last two years as well.
Mu is in deep trouble in 2 years...we will have 2 more outstanding seasons led by our outstandingly talented highly rated guards but then we will face a huge talent deficiency if those 3 top 50 type talents are not replaced in kind.
I hate to be the caster of doom and gloom, because I am going to enjoy the heck out of the next two seasons, but without 2-3 top 75 type players in the next two years year three will be ugly.
Thanks Harrison. Good post. In summary, MU needs to get some top talent over the next 2 years to replace the top talent that will be inevitably leaving. I hope TC can do it. Perhaps a good run into the NCAAs this year and a Big East championship will give MU and Crean just enough notoriety so top recruits want to come here but not so much as Crean gets an offer and accepts to coach at some bigger name school.
Wade was a top 40 recruit by those in the know. Bullseye had his as the #2 recruit in Illinois behind Darius Miles who went in the lottery out of HS. Merritt was no hwere nearly as highly ranked 75-100. Mason was not as high either. But if it is your intent to take the whole premise of the argumnet and base it on Wade's particular ranking than fine with you. Bottom line is the top 1/3 of te BE has recruited our socks off the last two years and if it continues we will be in trouble. OK i will appease you, Mason was higher than Wade and Lazar was top50-75. Ok good for you.....we have still gotten our socks recruited off by 5-6-7-8 other BE teams 4-5 of whome have signed multiple McD's and 5-6-7 Top 100 recruits.
Wade was a top 40 recruit by those in the know. Bullseye had his as the #2 recruit in Illinois behind Darius Miles who went in the lottery out of HS. Merritt was no hwere nearly as highly ranked 75-100. Mason was not as high either. But if it is your intent to take the whole premise of the argumnet and base it on Wade's particular ranking than fine with you. Bottom line is the top 1/3 of te BE has recruited our socks off the last two years and if it continues we will be in trouble. OK i will appease you, Mason was higher than Wade and Lazar was top50-75. Ok good for you.....we have still gotten our socks recruited off by 5-6-7-8 other BE teams 4-5 of whome have signed multiple McD's and 5-6-7 Top 100 recruits.
By no means am I a recruiting guru - nearly all of my info on the top recruits comes from this site and a few others on line - but this does concern me. While Marquette is better off than it was a couple years ago in this department, I have to remind myself at times to take off the rose colored glasses. Harrison's post is kind of a reality check. When the top recruiting classes are mention, we hear the same schools over and over again - it seems these teams just "reload" as we often hear. While we may have solid players coming in, solid players and McDonald's All Americans are two different things. I'm not saying that we can't continue to compete, but we do need these top 25 or 50 players to start giving MU serious consideration and we need to snag a couple of them soon. The rest of the Big East isn't going to "nice-nice" with us just because we have basketball tradition.
Quote from: Harrison on August 04, 2007, 08:38:33 PM
When did i say 2-3 years out on recruiting?... I am specifically referring to this years signees and next years Also if you dont think the coaches are "worried" about it you are in la la land. that is why they "recruit" year around. Any coach will tell you winning is 90% talent.
In a previous post you said this:
"Mu is in deep trouble in 2 years...we will have 2 more outstanding seasons led by our outstandingly talented highly rated guards but then we will face a huge talent deficiency if those 3 top 50 type talents are not replaced in kind.
I hate to be the caster of doom and gloom, because I am going to enjoy the heck out of the next two seasons, but without 2-3 top 75 type players in the next two years year three will be ugly. "
That's how I figured you were worried about the next 2 to 3 years of recruiting.
As far as my comment about the coaches not being worried... let me clarify. I'm sure the coaches are on top of all of this stuff and are well aware of the talent level they are recruiting. BUT, I also think the coaches understand that there are a TON of variables in recruiting (especially when you are talking about 2 or 3 years down the line). I doubt the coaches are losing sleep over reading the "rankings" put out by whatever recruiting service. They go see the players live, they meet the recruits, they meet their families, the kids visit campus. If MU and the recruit feel it's a good fit, well then the recruit signs. I don't think the coaching staff is really reading all of the recruiting rankings because at the end of the day they are just numbers. It doesn't mean a kid will do well at MU.
Yes, I understand that talent wins games. But, I also understand that if MU can keep landing solid recruits in the 100 range, develop their talents and have them play for 4 years... they are going to be pretty good year in and year out, regardless of what UCONN is doing.
EDIT:
Also, just to be clear, I do think the next 2 recruiting classes are important (every recruiting class is for that matter)... I'm just not sure I'm that nervous about it yet. I have faith that the coaches know what they are doing and they will continue to recruit the players they need to win in the big east.
Two years out, we will have Acker, Cubillan and Christopherson for guards, Mbakwe, Hazel, Saunders, Lazar for sure. Nick Williams, more than likely. A very nice base. If we manage to pull some combination of Wilson, Crittle, Schumpert , one of the Centers, we will be fine. A lot of top notch recruits out there with MU on their short list. We are getting good talent. Not UNC or KU talent, but solid. Assuming that TC stays, enough people stay healthy, and we can avoid wholesale transfers, we will stay competitive in the BE and a fixture in the tournament. SOMEBODY has to be the first round upset, why not us? :-[
can somebody tell me how to "box" or quote another member's comments so I can separate them from my new posts? I'm sure it's simple, but I'm confused!
I agree two years out we'll have Coobs, Christopher, Aker, Hayward,etc. BUT, how does that compare to the top tier Big East teams (including us in that group)? I'm just asking I don't know the rosters as well as many of you do, but does the talent on our roster stack up with those teams in two years? I think that's the whole point isn't it?
I will also throw these two cents in. More and more we're seeing teams with four year players making runs in the tourney because of the cohesiveness of their roster. Many of the top 50 recruits are "one and done" or maybe two years. If you have solid ballers who play all four years, that can make for a aformidible foe with a veteran roster. I think we will see that this year and next becasue in my opinion, it is unlikely any of our grouip will leave early (with the possible exception of DJ).
(Romey: To quote someone's post, click on the "Quote" button at the top of each message. It will populate the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the page with the quote in question.)
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 05, 2007, 12:55:30 PM
(Romey: To quote someone's post, click on the "Quote" button at the top of each message. It will populate the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the page with the quote in question.)
Like this?
Quote from: tower912 on August 05, 2007, 12:25:00 PM
Two years out, we will have Acker, Cubillan and Christopherson for guards, Mbakwe, Hazel, Saunders, Lazar for sure. Nick Williams, more than likely. A very nice base. If we manage to pull some combination of Wilson, Crittle, Schumpert , one of the Centers, we will be fine. A lot of top notch recruits out there with MU on their short list. We are getting good talent. Not UNC or KU talent, but solid. Assuming that TC stays, enough people stay healthy, and we can avoid wholesale transfers, we will stay competitive in the BE and a fixture in the tournament. SOMEBODY has to be the first round upset, why not us? :-[
Where's Crean going?
The last 3 years the same posters have been ripping recruiting, then we go to the NCAA tournament and finish in the top 5 in one of the best leagues in the country.
It's like clockwork. Recruits aren't 5 stars, we can't win without big men, too many guards, Big East teams will kill us, blah, blah, blah, blah.
3 years ago we got beat by Western Michigan in the NIT after finishing 8-8? in Conference USA.
Quote from: MUDPT on August 05, 2007, 10:40:39 PM
3 years ago we got beat by Western Michigan in the NIT after finishing 8-8? in Conference USA.
I'm talking about the last 3 pre-seasons leading up to that season. This is our 3rd pre-season leading into the Big East and it's the same doom and gloom each year.
And yes, we lost to Western Michigan with a multi-million dollar NBA player named Travis Diener sitting on the bench with a broken hand.
The fascination with recruiting always has me perplexed. Yeah, we're not pulling in 5 star guys, but a few 4 stars and plenty of 3 stars...the key is do they mesh well together and play well? A TEAM!! Give me a good team that plays well together over a bunch of great individual players every day of the week.
One needs to just look at LSU, Alabama and a few others from this past season to see what I'm talking about.
We will be just fine. Good kids on the team now, more good players coming in and we will compete and compete at a high level with those kids and continue to go to the post season in the process.
We lost to Western because we had Marcus Jackson bringing the ball up. Good rebounder, tough defender, lots of heart.....not a point guard. TC swore he would never be caught short on guards again. Now, a few years later, looking at the roster, unless there is a bus accident, there is no way we will get caught short of guards.
It's all about finding the balance. The year TD was hurt, we had size but not much in the backcourt. The last couple years we've been guard heavy. From the recruits that we have lined up for the next few years, it looks like TC is trying to find that balance where we have the size we need to not get dominated down low and also have the guards to control the flow of the game and dominate the back court.
"3 years ago we got beat by Western Michigan in the NIT after finishing 8-8? in Conference USA."
Exactly...then we bring in 3 top 50-75 recruits and are in the tourney again.
Go back to 2001 same situation then Crean signs Wade, Merrit and ODB....
Chicos is again lost...our recruitng has been OK at best.
Our lineup in 2 years will have 2-3 top 100 kids depending on what rankings you use and whether those people ever make it on campus. The top of the BE will sport a starting 5 of top 100 kids and 2-3 McD's.
We will struggle if our 3 top 50 types are not replaced with commensuarte talent. And the last two classes have been OK but will not replace this year and next year we must replace or we will struggle until we bring in the type of talent or peers are.
Lastly, I have to address the Uconn comments...the look at Uconn comments saying look at their talent and what happened....That is retarded...no other way to put it. Uconn lost 4-5 guys to the 1st round, a number of whom were underclassmen. they were very talented last year just all young, their "star" in Adrien was about 8th man the year before. After being #1 and two titles I think the having the best talent method seems to work despite one year of struggling with abunch of McD's AA's.
Another perfect example akin to the MU situation is Villanova...a program that had sort of treaded water then they sign 3 top 50 guards and have a couple of trmendous seasons....Last year the bottom would have fell out on Villanova because Jay Wright had signed some nice classes but not Top 1/3 of the BE type classes. The only reasosn and absolutely the only reason Villanova was anything last year and the only rerason they made the NCAA's was because they got Scottie Reynolds. they were on their way to a season that would only make Chico's happy with a bunch of top 150 player getting beat by future NBA players until Samson left OK, and Wright had a McD's AA fall into his lap. He got "lucky" and replaced his talent, Mu has yet to do so.
It's long been my belief Crean recruits best when he has PT to sell.
**** The top of the BE will sport a starting 5 of top 100 kids and 2-3 McD's.
Sort of like how Georgetown's success was fueled by 5 top 100 kids including 2 or three McDonalds . . .
Oops.
Georgetown only had one former top 100 in their starting five last year.
Green and Hibbert were a couple of "projects"--two or three years ago nobody would have given them a chance at competing with the type of talent that UConn or Syracuse or Providence was bringing in. Spunds pretty familiar to the situation MU is finding themselves in.
Now, I'll give you that Georgetown did have a McDonald's AA (Macklin) coming off the bench. For all of 10 minutes/3 points per game. And they've landed a couple more top 50 players this year--of course they had nothing to do with last year's team.
But this notion that only talent laden teams can succeed is pure nonsense. Over the last couple of years teams like MU, Pitt, Georgetown and WVU have all cracked the upper division of the Big East without a ton of proven HS talent.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on August 06, 2007, 10:15:41 AM
It's long been my belief Crean recruits best when he has PT to sell.
No doubt about it, although I think you could probably say that about a lot of schools.
Quote from: Harrison on August 06, 2007, 08:49:16 AM
"3 years ago we got beat by Western Michigan in the NIT after finishing 8-8? in Conference USA."
Exactly...then we bring in 3 top 50-75 recruits and are in the tourney again.
Go back to 2001 same situation then Crean signs Wade, Merrit and ODB....
Chicos is again lost...our recruitng has been OK at best.
Our lineup in 2 years will have 2-3 top 100 kids depending on what rankings you use and whether those people ever make it on campus. The top of the BE will sport a starting 5 of top 100 kids and 2-3 McD's.
We will struggle if our 3 top 50 types are not replaced with commensuarte talent. And the last two classes have been OK but will not replace this year and next year we must replace or we will struggle until we bring in the type of talent or peers are.
Lastly, I have to address the Uconn comments...the look at Uconn comments saying look at their talent and what happened....That is retarded...no other way to put it. Uconn lost 4-5 guys to the 1st round, a number of whom were underclassmen. they were very talented last year just all young, their "star" in Adrien was about 8th man the year before. After being #1 and two titles I think the having the best talent method seems to work despite one year of struggling with abunch of McD's AA's.
Another perfect example akin to the MU situation is Villanova...a program that had sort of treaded water then they sign 3 top 50 guards and have a couple of trmendous seasons....Last year the bottom would have fell out on Villanova because Jay Wright had signed some nice classes but not Top 1/3 of the BE type classes. The only reasosn and absolutely the only reason Villanova was anything last year and the only rerason they made the NCAA's was because they got Scottie Reynolds. they were on their way to a season that would only make Chico's happy with a bunch of top 150 player getting beat by future NBA players until Samson left OK, and Wright had a McD's AA fall into his lap. He got "lucky" and replaced his talent, Mu has yet to do so.
Harrison, when a fact enters your post one day, send me an alert or something. Thanks.
I'll remind you that it was you that said we've had 2 good recruiting classes in 8 years and that we wouldn't make the Big East Tournament 2 years ago.
If TC recruits best with PT to sell, then the 6'10" guys should have been flinging themselves at him. I look at that list over at cracked sidewalks (thanks, by the way, everybody who put that together). If we get one big (preferably Crittle or Ben-easy) and Schumpert, in addition to Williams, we will have a top 20 recruiting class.
Quote from: Harrison on August 06, 2007, 08:49:16 AM
"3 years ago we got beat by Western Michigan in the NIT after finishing 8-8? in Conference USA."
Exactly...then we bring in 3 top 50-75 recruits and are in the tourney again.
Go back to 2001 same situation then Crean signs Wade, Merrit and ODB....
Chicos is again lost...our recruitng has been OK at best.
Our lineup in 2 years will have 2-3 top 100 kids depending on what rankings you use and whether those people ever make it on campus. The top of the BE will sport a starting 5 of top 100 kids and 2-3 McD's.
We will struggle if our 3 top 50 types are not replaced with commensuarte talent. And the last two classes have been OK but will not replace this year and next year we must replace or we will struggle until we bring in the type of talent or peers are.
Lastly, I have to address the Uconn comments...the look at Uconn comments saying look at their talent and what happened....That is retarded...no other way to put it. Uconn lost 4-5 guys to the 1st round, a number of whom were underclassmen. they were very talented last year just all young, their "star" in Adrien was about 8th man the year before. After being #1 and two titles I think the having the best talent method seems to work despite one year of struggling with abunch of McD's AA's.
Another perfect example akin to the MU situation is Villanova...a program that had sort of treaded water then they sign 3 top 50 guards and have a couple of trmendous seasons....Last year the bottom would have fell out on Villanova because Jay Wright had signed some nice classes but not Top 1/3 of the BE type classes. The only reasosn and absolutely the only reason Villanova was anything last year and the only rerason they made the NCAA's was because they got Scottie Reynolds. they were on their way to a season that would only make Chico's happy with a bunch of top 150 player getting beat by future NBA players until Samson left OK, and Wright had a McD's AA fall into his lap. He got "lucky" and replaced his talent, Mu has yet to do so.
I'll just say one last thing and then bail on this debate, because realistically I think everybody agrees, but we are all saying it differently.
Harrison, you are certainly right that MU needs talent to win. You are even right that MU's best teams have come when they have recruited the best talent.
I think were you vier off the path a little bit is when you seem very worried/annoyed with the potential recruiting classes for the next 2 seasons.
Again, we can all agree that MU needs talent to win, but you have to realize the tremendous amount of variables between now and 2010 that will effect MU's W - L record. You are pointing out one variable, but you are missing the big picture that 1000 other things could happen that could have a much greater effect.
I think you are hyper-focusing on player rankings instead of looking at things like:
Regional recruiting (2 great recruits from MN and WI this year, this is important because you like to keep strong recruiting ties in your own region)
Player development (Hayward is supposedly developing very quickly, and ooze has a chance to improve again),
Roster weaknesses (the team is still heavy in guards, but has added some depth in the front court with this year's recruits),
The coaching staff has had some turnover, which isn't great, but the new assistants appear qualified... hopefully they prove to be good coaches
ETC. ETC.
We can agree to disagree, and that's ok, but I just want to be clear that I think you have to look at a lot of things (along with recruiting rankings) before you can say that MU will be in trouble in 2 seasons.
Here's a question for you Muscoopsters: Does anybody know if there's a correlation between assistant coach tenure and recruiting success? From what I read on the recruiting sites, the players seem to express loyalty to the programs who show early interest, and then maintain that support and interest as they come along. I assume our assistant coaches do a lot of this relationship building, and maybe moreso with the younger guys. Just a thought.
This is my first actual post on this forum, but I have been following the forum for quite some time and am a recent graduate of MU, witnessing firsthand the highs and lows of the last few years.
I think everyone who is speaking negatively about the last two recruiting classes is missing the point entirely. For the first time since I have been here, Marquette finally has depth!!!!! I cannot stress that enough. This upcoming season Tom Crean can go deep into his bench. We have depth at every position and no longer do we have to bring in a particular player for offensive upside while disguising on defense. Tom Crean has done an excellent job recruiting high quality players to frontline his attack and surround them with role players.
And in regards to all of the notions about player rankings: I have followed recruiting extensively over the past 7 years and Harrison, your comments are not accurate. Dameon Mason was very highly touted, I believe 32nd by scout.com, Novak in the 50's on a consistent basis, obviously the three amigos in the top 100, and Mbakwe was in the top 100 before taking a dip recently. Three years ago as a sophomore when Minnesota and Iowa State were recruiting him very hard, Trevor was considered by many in Minneapolis to be a can't miss prospect. He has slipped in rivals, but you cannot tell me for one second that you are not happy to have him come in a contribute right away, especially over a guy like Bryce Webster, who by the way was ranked a lot higher a year ago and has been having quite a bit problems or even Nankivil, who many people wanted badly, but simply would not fit into this uptempo offense.
Crean is doing an excellent job for this program by giving the reins to the uber-athletic Three Amigos. And surrounding these guys with excellent role players, like a Cubillan, Hayward, Christopherson, Mbakwe, Acker, Fitz, and Ooze.
And one more thing: this team is not only building itself to win now, but it is shaping up to become a consistent mainstay in the top 8 of the Big East by emerging players that will gladly take the reins from the Three Amigos when need be suggest as a Hayward, and Nick Williams in the future. Its always nice to say we have depth on this team. But it is even better when someone can say that our surrounding players all know their roles and will step up when need be.
"Crean is doing an excellent job for this program by giving the reins to the uber-athletic Three Amigos. And surrounding these guys with excellent role players, like a Cubillan, Hayward, Christopherson, Mbakwe, Acker, Fitz, and Ooze."
I totally agree...the issue is who replaces the big 3... This year and next year or the bottom falls out.
Quote from: Harrison on August 06, 2007, 04:22:50 PM
I totally agree...the issue is who replaces the big 3... This year and next year or the bottom falls out.
A backcourt of Christopherson, Acker, Williams, and Cubillan will not be a "bottom drops out" situation. Add Shumpert and it's likely a "zero drop off" situation.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 06, 2007, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: Harrison on August 06, 2007, 04:22:50 PM
I totally agree...the issue is who replaces the big 3... This year and next year or the bottom falls out.
A backcourt of Christopherson, Acker, Williams, and Cubillan will not be a "bottom drops out" situation. Add Shumpert and it's likely a "zero drop off" situation.
gotta agree there, christopherson is gonna be a very good shooter for us, we've seen what Cubie can do and Acker will be a very solid true point guard. Williams and if Shumpert is added will be a very solid back court. not much of a drop off if any, lose some athleticism but gain shooting
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 06, 2007, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: Harrison on August 06, 2007, 04:22:50 PM
I totally agree...the issue is who replaces the big 3... This year and next year or the bottom falls out.
A backcourt of Christopherson, Acker, Williams, and Cubillan will not be a "bottom drops out" situation. Add Shumpert and it's likely a "zero drop off" situation.
Exactly. Plus Mkwabe is a huge lift for the next 4 years, I think we will land at least one more quality big man in the next 2 years. I don't know why the doom and gloom each year, it's not as if the results have mirrored the gloom at all.
The Big 3 will be replaced but I would argue in a more responsible way, meaning with more depth, more options and not solely a focus on 3 guys. That has already begun to happen with tremendous depth on this team that we haven't seen in years.
TC loves all out and quickness--thus he has stressed guards and shooting forewards when recruiting hs players. He has tended to take transfers or JC players lately for bigs...which has been mixed bag. Why? Surer thing on bigs which is a crap shoot as it is, can pick out the "big" type he needs as a role player, could get a late bloomer, top bigs went pro right out of hs--which wastes 4-6 years of recruiting. Ooze was a project so he was going to stay 4 years. Recently, JC/transfer bigs haven't worked out as well as RJax did. With new NBA draft rule about at least one year, it looks like TC getting back into the game as he sees he is exposed on back line match-up depth. Already, his recruiting list reflects this.
Quote from: Pardner on August 06, 2007, 11:12:58 PM
TC loves all out and quickness--thus he has stressed guards and shooting forewards when recruiting hs players. He has tended to take transfers or JC players lately for bigs...which has been mixed bag. Why? Surer thing on bigs which is a crap shoot as it is, can pick out the "big" type he needs as a role player, could get a late bloomer, top bigs went pro right out of hs--which wastes 4-6 years of recruiting. Ooze was a project so he was going to stay 4 years. Recently, JC/transfer bigs haven't worked out as well as RJax did. With new NBA draft rule about at least one year, it looks like TC getting back into the game as he sees he is exposed on back line match-up depth. Already, his recruiting list reflects this.
another example of the projects bigs sometimes are is Hibbert. Man could barely do a pushup his frosh year and now look at him, still slow but a fairly dominant presence down low.