MU still high on list though
Crittle Sets Two More Official Visits
August 31, 2007
Having already scheduled official visits to Kansas State and Oregon, Josh Crittle recently added two more officials to his September calendar.
The 6'8 forward from Hales Franciscan High School in Chicago will take his first official campus visit on September 7 to the University of Minnesota. Crittle will then trek to Manhattan, KS on September 15 to visit Kansas State. The following week (September 22) Crittle travels to Carbondale, IL, as he will then take an official visit to Southern Illinois University, a visit that was first hinted at by Illinois Prep Bulls-eye in a previous story on our web site. Crittle's final official visit of the month will come on September 29 when he visits Oregon.
If Crittle schedules a fifth and final official visit, it will undoubtedly be to Marquette University, most likely some time in early October. Crittle has already taken unofficial visits to Marquette on multiple occassions and has openly expressed his admiration for Golden Eagles head coach Tom Crean.
Dont get me wrong here becuase I have not seen him play. But this does not really concern me based on everything I have read. From everything we can surmise it would appear Crean wants to sign one more guard and a big man. From there it appears he would like to fill the 4th scolarship with anyhting between a 3 and 5. With all the guys that list us of high interest it would appear Crittle is the lowest rated. The guy is a 6'7" 205lb post player. Most sites list his as a center. Some of the other bigs thet we are recruiting such as Sutton and Ben-Eze are more appealing to me. In the sense that they are both described as playing big and being out of their area rebounders that can control the glass. Rebounding is so so important. Additionally those guys are in the 610-11 range versu 6'7" where we already have a plethora. Here is arecap from one of his tourneys...Josh Crittle is an interesting player. He moves well for his size and gets good positioning, but after that, Crittle can be inconsistent. Crittle will often put himself in good position to score by making a nice move, but then he will sometimes miss an easy shot if a defender looms nearby. Crittle needs to become more physical and learn to finish when drawing contact. I like his body for the college game as a power forward, but Crittle still needs to continue working hard to improve as much as he can.
That does not really impress me when the guy is only 6'7. He will give up 2-3 inches every night in the BE. Seems a Hazel or Burke type. We need a difference maker or two with the exit of Barro.
Quote from: Harrison on August 31, 2007, 10:38:56 AM
With all the guys that list us of high interest it would appear Crittle is the lowest rated.
If you go by Rivals, Sutton is the lowest rated and Crittle and Ben-Eze are about the same. If you use Scout, Sutton is again the lowest rated, and Crittle is ahead of Ben-Eze. Sutton appears to have the most solid interest, and an interesting body type, but a long way to go to be a solid contributor.
Quote from: bma725 on August 31, 2007, 11:21:17 AM
If you go by Rivals, Sutton is the lowest rated and Crittle and Ben-Eze are about the same. If you use Scout, Sutton is again the lowest rated, and Crittle is ahead of Ben-Eze. Sutton appears to have the most solid interest, and an interesting body type, but a long way to go to be a solid contributor.
[/quote]
I guess we just need to get Frank the Tank then :)
depending on the rankings you are correct, ESPN does have ben-eze at 65 etc. Nevertheless, maybe I should have stated "similarly ranked". But me real issue is we already have a group of guys from Burke to Hazel at that 6'"6 to 6'7" range. After Barro we have no one over 6'7 except for Burke awho will be a senior. My point is with Lazar, Hazel, Mbakwe, and Burke for next year all filling the 6'7" 4 type role do we really need another? It seems clear Crean wants a true big. I would prefer he signs two true bigs or a 3 ( swposhire, woolrdige, Goulbourne) instead of creating a log jam at the 4. The old adage of you cant teach size. Like some have opinined ...redshirt sutton or another big. My dream class,is Williams, Shumpert, Ben-eze and Goulbourne/woolridge/sutton/swopshire.
I would happily take Ben-eze, Crittle, Williams and Shumpert. We are losing Ooze, Fitz, and Blackledge for sure, and likely DJ. Having BE, Crittle, Burke, Hazel, and TM as our 4-5's is barely going to be adequate. Lazar is a 3 playing 4. Take all of the 4-5's we can get.
I dont disagree i have opinined many many times our size is going to kill us and last year, this year and possibly next year will be our weakest link. However, it only does so much good to have 5 6'7" 4's. We would only have one 5 provided we sign one, ie ben - Eze. One other issue is we really need a 3. We are ok right now with Wesly filling that role and Fitz and Lazar real threes playing the 4. But going forward to next year We will have wes as a senior and Lazar as ajunior at the 3 and no other 3 in the program. That is why I am saying 2 5's or a 5 and a 3. A swopshire, Goulbourne or woolridge that 66 or 67 Lazar type would be real nice to tutor under Lazar and Wesley for a year two before beaing a 2 year starter at the 3. Maybe they see Willaimas in that role? If so then again I say two 5's
Quote from: Harrison on August 31, 2007, 12:00:22 PM
depending on the rankings you are correct, ESPN does have ben-eze at 65 etc. Nevertheless, maybe I should have stated "similarly ranked". But me real issue is we already have a group of guys from Burke to Hazel at that 6'"6 to 6'7" range. After Barro we have no one over 6'7 except for Burke awho will be a senior. My point is with Lazar, Hazel, Mbakwe, and Burke for next year all filling the 6'7" 4 type role do we really need another? It seems clear Crean wants a true big. I would prefer he signs two true bigs or a 3 ( swposhire, woolrdige, Goulbourne) instead of creating a log jam at the 4. The old adage of you cant teach size. Like some have opinined ...redshirt sutton or another big. My dream class,is Williams, Shumpert, Ben-eze and Goulbourne/woolridge/sutton/swopshire.
I don't disagree that size is important, but I wouldn't get so tied into the inches that are listed. If he can play, he can play.
Herb - take your index finger and your thumb and separate them by two inches. That is the difference between 6'8" and 6'10". I know 2 inches means alot to some around here, but it doesnt mean much in bball.
it's more important for someone to be able to play long as opposed to just being tall. Mbakwe being around 6'7" with an armspan of around 7'2" is much more valuable than someone that is 6'10" and squared of proportionately but doesn't have the athleticism.
mviale ..i did not realize two inches means nothing. you seem to think it does not matter and qualify that with it does not mean much. You are plain wrong. All things being equal the 2 inches brings an advatage. It has already been established that the players are about equal in ability...therefore give me the 6'10 kid which is actually 3 inches taller. additionally 3 inches in heihgt typically equates to 3-4-5 inches more in wingspan meaning standing flat footed the taller player is 6 or so inches higher up to rebound, block shots, deflections etc. additionally Ben-eze out weighs Crittle by 30 lbs. Two inches typically means more than the space between two fingers ...hopefully this was educational for you.
Quote from: Harrison on September 02, 2007, 09:31:41 PM
mviale ..i did not realize two inches means nothing. you seem to think it does not matter and qualify that with it does not mean much. You are plain wrong. All things being equal the 2 inches brings an advatage. It has already been established that the players are about equal in ability...therefore give me the 6'10 kid which is actually 3 inches taller. additionally 3 inches in heihgt typically equates to 3-4-5 inches more in wingspan meaning standing flat footed the taller player is 6 or so inches higher up to rebound, block shots, deflections etc. additionally Ben-eze out weighs Crittle by 30 lbs. Two inches typically means more than the space between two fingers ...hopefully this was educational for you.
actually, it would only be 4.5 inches since armspan is from finger tip on one hand to finger tip on the other hand...so you have to divide by two to get the reach above his head...and it matters more with shoulder height than overall height. You can have two guys that are the same height but one could have a shoulder height an inch higher than the other guy. Just throwing that out there
I can only recall experience here. I am 5'10" and I can rebound and score with regularity against a 6'1" guy. In fact, I can usually out muscle them. However, when I played against a 6'5" kid, I could not outrebound in fact I would move outside. I would say 5-7 inches make a difference but 2-3" difference doesnt mean a thing.
So Herb, you should be asking for 7 footers, if you really want a difference. However, the game is really being played smaller now and not many graceful 7 footers out there.
Quoteactually, it would only be 4.5 inches since armspan is from finger tip on one hand to finger tip on the other hand...so you have to divide by two to get the reach above his head...and it matters more with shoulder height than overall height. You can have two guys that are the same height but one could have a shoulder height an inch higher than the other guy. Just throwing that out there
Another angle to consider: Since most people have one leg longer than the other, you could have one player with two shoulder heights. If you take a 6'7" guy with a small head, he could have the shoulder height of a guy 6'9", or maybe even 6'10" on his tall side. Additionally, exploiting the shoulder-height mismatch of the opposition, and attacking there, could be a difference maker. Maybe we should scout the opposition to see what side they carry their backpacks on!
Let's not get lost amidst the debate "shoulder height" and "wingspan". You could also debate for a long time about vertical jump (in.) and technique.
I think the biggest factor is wingspan. That's what made Dwyane Wade so attractive (despite his other skills) because he could defend with such a wide wingspan for a 2g. Conversely, that's why guys with short arms struggle in the NBA despite having big bodies (see Rafael Araujo).
Two inches makes a difference. You are comparing a potential 6'7" recruit to a potential 6'9" recruit. While the 6'7" recruit in this case may be more athletic, he is not going to be more athletic than the bigger players at a UCONN, Louisville or Georgtown.
I'm 6'2". I've played against guys that are 6'5". Since I am slightly quicker than these guys, I was able to get inside position on rebounds and out rebound them. The size isn't everything. Players like Mbakwe are quick and strong and, imo, that can definitely even up the playing field when he's matched up against someone that is 6'10" because of these attributes. Plus, he has a 7'2" armspan!! that's huge. so even if you do have a guy that's 6'10" with an armspan equal to his height. Mbakwe can still reach higher standing flat footed because of his long arms.
You guys are losing the point. My point all along and my counter to mviaile's very uneducated statement was that "all other things being equal" a taller player will also have a longer wingspan. the height plus the wingspan will make him a more effective player "all other things being equal". Of course a "shorter" player that has a huge wingspan, huge hops, tremendous strenght etc. could counter a taller player wihtout. However my original point was that the majortity of the evaluations did not point to Crittle having any of those qualities that would cause me to be overly exited adding yet anohter 6'7"PF in lieu of a true 5.
wouldn't be happier with an extra 2 inches?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on September 03, 2007, 12:58:23 PM
wouldn't be happier with an extra 2 inches?
damn, you beat me to it. What woman wouldn't be happier with an extra 2 either? 8)
Quote from: Harrison on September 03, 2007, 10:39:46 AM
You guys are losing the point. My point all along and my counter to mviaile's very uneducated statement was that "all other things being equal" a taller player will also have a longer wingspan. the height plus the wingspan will make him a more effective player "all other things being equal". Of course a "shorter" player that has a huge wingspan, huge hops, tremendous strenght etc. could counter a taller player wihtout. However my original point was that the majortity of the evaluations did not point to Crittle having any of those qualities that would cause me to be overly exited adding yet anohter 6'7"PF in lieu of a true 5.
Uneducated - you're the one debating how 2" separates the babies from the manchilds. I was trying help you understand that it doesnt matter.
all things being equal 2" makes atremendous difference...2" in height equates to 2-4 inches in reach meaning that player is 4" to six inches taller or longer when going for the ball. That is abig diffeence in th egame in regards to steals rebounds, blocks etc. Agian all things being the same except for the height. which is what i stated...no freaking kidding someone better in all the other areas would be more valuable. My point all along was the were similarly ranked therefore we need height. Considering we will have one player over 6'7" next year and he is a6'8" bench warmer
Back to the original topic, I think Crean is waiting to see what Ben-Eze does as he's the true C that Crean is after, if he verbals to MU, Crittle may need these other options.......at least that's what I seem to be reading between the lines here.
Quote from: Djgoldnboy on September 04, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
Back to the original topic, I think Crean is waiting to see what Ben-Eze does as he's the true C that Crean is after, if he verbals to MU, Crittle may need these other options.......at least that's what I seem to be reading between the lines here.
Going further, I do think there is strong mutual interest and we could see a repeat of the 4 commits, 3 scholarship situation assuming a departure next April. Crittle may be exploring his options otherwise and by the time he visits MU around Midnight Madness I think we'll have heard the decisions of Shumpert and Ben-Eze which would affect his choice.
It will be fun.
Size, vertical leap, and wing span are all very important inside, but position (a knack for being in the right place at the right time) is the most important.
I was just thinking about that earlier today Murf. If a big man is slightly smaller than an opposing teams big man but has better footwork and can position themselves better on both offense and defense, he can, in fact, not only play better but potentially dominate the opposing team's big man.
Good point, one of the most dominating defensive big men in the league isn't 7' 6" Yao its
6' 9" Ben Wallace...
Quote from: Murffieus on September 04, 2007, 08:26:07 PM
Size, vertical leap, and wing span are all very important inside, but position (a knack for being in the right place at the right time) is the most important.
Murf,
Its rare that I agree with you completely... but in this case I do.
I will also take it a step further to say that having "a knack for being in the right place at the right time" is part of being a good ballplayer.
Harrison,
Physical attributes are important (size, length, reach, quickness, strength, hand eye coordination, etc.), but they don't exist in their own space. It takes a combination of those factors as well as experience, basketball IQ, good coaching, good physical condition, good mental approach, etc. to make a good player.
You can't take one factor (height) and break it off that this isn't a kid we should recruit or sign because he's not 6' 9".
If the kid can play, he can play. Size is merely one factor.
As far as the "all things being equal" bit, I guess that's true in theory, but it's not like there are 2 players out there who are exactly the same but are 2 inches apart.
The kid appears to be a good player who is within our wheelhouse for recruiting (midwest), so MU should recruit him, and should sign him if they think that MU is a good fit for him.
Quote from: 2002mualum on September 05, 2007, 08:57:01 AM
Quote from: Murffieus on September 04, 2007, 08:26:07 PM
Size, vertical leap, and wing span are all very important inside, but position (a knack for being in the right place at the right time) is the most important.
Murf,
Its rare that I agree with you completely... but in this case I do.
I will also take it a step further to say that having "a knack for being in the right place at the right time" is part of being a good ballplayer.
Again, physical attributes are important (size, length, reach, quickness, strength, hand eye coordination, etc.), but they don't exist in their own space. It takes a combination of those factors as well as experience, basketball IQ, good coaching, good physical condition, good mental approach, etc. to make a good player.
You can't take one factor (height) and break it off that this isn't a kid we should recruit or sign because he's not 6' 9".
If the kid can play, he can play. Size is merely one factor.
As far as the "all things being equal" bit, I guess that's true in theory, but it's not like there are 2 players out there who are exactly the same but are 2 inches apart.
The kid appears to be a good player who is within our wheelhouse for recruiting (midwest), so MU should recruit him, and should sign him if they think that MU is a good fit for him.
Charles Barkley was at most 6'6" and routinely schooled players 4-6" talller on both offensive and defensive ends.
David Boone was generously listed at 6'6". He was one of the leading rebounders in the country. A decent leaper, he just worked at it.
Faisal Abraham was like 6'6" too
Quote from: mviale on September 05, 2007, 03:21:49 PM
Faisal Abraham was like 6'6" too
We've got him down as 6'7", but hey, what's an inch ;D
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/faisal_abraham