Heldt or Stone

[Aircraftcarrier]

Who is the better recruit?Most people would say Stone,but in the long run I am not so sure.Heldt is way more versatile than Stone and with what I believe is a better skill set.

[Tugg Speedman]

Stone

[tower912]

Heldt is a reality.  Stone is still a fantasy.   I will take the bird in hand.  

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Stone, absolutely, 100 times out of 100

But as Tower said, a bird in the hand...

[TedBaxter]

Who is the better recruit?Most people would say Stone,but in the long run I am not so sure.Heldt is way more versatile than Stone and with what I believe is a better skill set.

Matt Heldt is a good recruit for Marquette and this is nothing against Matt, but Diamond Stone is an impact player in college as is Henry Ellenson.  As I've said, I believe Diamond and Henry are 2 of the best 3 high school big men (4/5's) I've seen in the state since 1970 along with Joe Wolf.  

[Aircraftcarrier]

Gary Cole was really good.I think Al probably should have taken him.

[Jay Bee]

Who is the better recruit?Most people would say Stone,but in the long run I am not so sure.Heldt is way more versatile than Stone and with what I believe is a better skill set.

Aircraftcarrier cooled on Stone.

Diamond is a gem.

[Dawson Rental]

Who is the better recruit?Most people would say Stone,but in the long run I am not so sure.Heldt is way more versatile than Stone and with what I believe is a better skill set.

Heldt has a better skill set than Diamond Stone?  USA basketball disagrees.  Every HS talent evaluator I've seen rating the 2015 class disagrees.  Heldt is probably a better stretch four, but at the five you want someone to dominate inside, if you can get that.

[Texas Western]

I think from a recruiting perspective , Heldt is a Diamond in the Rough. Diamond on the other hand is a polished Gem.

[mileskishnish72]

Wouldn't it be nice to have Diamond and Henry battling each other in practices at the Al?

[Nukem2]

Yeah, Stone might be better.  But, a one year wonder.  Heldt could be a 4 year cornerstone.

[Galway Eagle]

I think having stone could change the perspective of MU to other recruits while heldt is a great player but the usual range in terms of talent we get. 

[Anti-Dentite]

I heldt my stone when I lost it in a terrible hunting accident.

[Stretchdeltsig]

Held and Henry are better than Stone.

[MUchamp22]

The only thing Heldt might be better for is the long term and that's not because he will ever be better than Stone, cause he won't. Its because he will stay all 4 years. Most likely Stone will be 1 or 2 years in college and then on to the pros. So Heldt could be better long term simply ecause he will be here longer.

[lohaus]

I think the obvious would be Stone.   Then again, I've never watched a top 10 player shoot so many air balls in a game at state.  They were winning by a lot though.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, Stone might be better.  But, a one year wonder.  Heldt could be a 4 year cornerstone.

Heldt won't be a major impact player probably until his junior year, which is fine...and normal.  Stone would be a major impact player right out of the gate, but to your point you get 4 years instead of one.  That's not to say Heldt won't contribute his freshman year, but one would surmise a freshman Stone would do more than a freshman Heldt.

Taking guys that will be here for four years, no issue at all.  A few other high profile teams are starting to learn that lesson as well.  Its what puts a team in the NCAA title game one year, and not invited the next year.  Too much turnover.

[Jay Bee]

Heldt won't be a major impact player probably until his junior year, which is fine...and normal.  Stone would be a major impact player right out of the gate, but to your point you get 4 years instead of one.  That's not to say Heldt won't contribute his freshman year, but one would surmise a freshman Stone would do more than a freshman Heldt.

Taking guys that will be here for four years, no issue at all.  A few other high profile teams are starting to learn that lesson as well.  Its what puts a team in the NCAA title game one year, and not invited the next year.  Too much turnover.

Pffft. There's turnover all over the place in college basketball and it's not just the one-and-done players (who are few and far between).

Counting on a guy to be in your program for 4 years of competition is dangerous.

Anyway, it's still a silly topic. Diamond is top notch.

[GGGG]

Yeah if someone would have made the statement "I think Heldt is better than Stone" a couple months ago, before the former committed to MU and the latter looked like he might go to UW, I think he would have been pretty roundly criticized.

[real chili 83]

I will take them all.  Together. 

Those are the kind of problems you like to have. 

[bilsu]

Heldt is a four year player. People were saying Stone is a one and done and I have seen some talk now of being two and done. Kentucky is not recruiting him hard and I am going to take that as a judgement by Calipari(sp) that he is a two and done, which is a bad recruit for Kentucky. Basically the next two years Stone is the better recruit and Heldt is the better recruit the next two years.

[tower912]

Stone is a stud.   You never say no to a 5 star big.   But with Fischer and Heldt (and hopefully Ellenson), unless Stone goes to Wiscy, I am not going to wish the big fella ill.  

[Lennys Tap]

Heldt won't be a major impact player probably until his junior year, which is fine...and normal.  Stone would be a major impact player right out of the gate, but to your point you get 4 years instead of one.  That's not to say Heldt won't contribute his freshman year, but one would surmise a freshman Stone would do more than a freshman Heldt.

Taking guys that will be here for four years, no issue at all.  A few other high profile teams are starting to learn that lesson as well.  Its what puts a team in the NCAA title game one year, and not invited the next year.  Too much turnover.

This is beyond silly. Nobody knows if Heldt will ever be an impact player or whether he'll even be here as a junior. The same is true for Stone. The only thing we know is that the scouts and coaches who have seen both play consider Stone to be a much better player. Top 10 player or the 130th ranked guy who plays the same position? If you're trying to have a team that's good at playing basketball it's no contest. In another news flash, we'd rather have Henry Ellenson than the 25th rated power forward and Nick Noskowiak over the 25th rated point guard in the 2015 class. I don't see any of the big boys eschewing top 10 players to go after guys in the 100-150 range. To suggest it is farcical.

[4everwarriors]

Lotta recruits dig Bo's schtick. Just sayin'

[Jay Bee]

Lotta recruits dig Bo's schtick. Just sayin'

Anyone can find people to buy their schtick, no matter how crazy it may be.