HS Class of 2014 Updates

[RUBillsFan]

I watched CBC and FBJT at chaminade. Good stuff!!! I lost a trivia night.

It sounds like Roy Williams (UNC), Frank Haith (Mizzou), and Steve Wojceichowski (Duke) all watched FBTJ in person as well. I saw some reports that SLU was there, but I'm not sure who.

[cheeseman]

I hesitate to even respond to this because inevitably it will sound like I'm down on our recruits and I'm not trying to be, but there are holes in what you just posted.

For example, despite what verbal commits website might say, I highly doubt Bartley still had an offer from OSU when he committed to SLU. You simply don't have a list of MVC teams, Creighton, SLU and then a school like OSU.

Playing on good highschool or AAU teams means little. Its nice to have good teammates and play difficult competition but there are advantages to being the best player on your team too. Facing the other team's best defender, getting double teamed, taking the last shot in every game, those are nice qualities too. We all loved the fact that Crawford dominated his highschool season last year. How do I compare the 30 he averaged in small town ball to the 8.2 Roby is averaging for a really good Memphis team? I don't know that one is necessarily better than the other.

I watched Reynolds last night. I saw a very smooth and athletic player that got most of his points driving to the basket or at the FT line. He did hit 2 threes but they were wide open (the type of wide open you never get in college) and he missed a bunch of others. Based on my one game of GOSEETHEKIDPLAY I'd say his strengths are his size, athleticism and smoothness while his current weaknesses are shooting and defense.

As to your last sentence: the players that can shoot, are athletic, play good defense and are sufficiently tall are typically ranked in the top 100 or so. Our recruits are not and seldom have been top 100 quality. There are going to be weaknesses in each of these guys and since height is not one of them, its probably fair to ask what are those weaknesses. Hopefully that doesn't offend those that want to believe every recruit we've signed is perfect.

I watched Reynolds also last night and thought the same thing you noted about him. It also helped that Paul B was there to give us some talk time that we would not have gotten if he had not been there. They even showed some highlight plays from the game focusing on Reynolds.

[cheeseman]

It sounds like Roy Williams (UNC), Frank Haith (Mizzou), and Steve Wojceichowski (Duke) all watched FBTJ in person as well. I saw some reports that SLU was there, but I'm not sure who.

Well Channel 5 news made sure they showed those two and made no mention of us - I would tend to believe you over those knuckleheads.

[RUBillsFan]

Well Channel 5 news made sure they showed those two and made no mention of us - I would tend to believe you over those knuckleheads.

I'm basing it off this tweet by a PD HS sports guy:

David Kvidahl ✒️☎️ ‏@DavidSTLhss15h

rumor has it unc, duke, ku, slu and others are in to see jayson tatum (@Im_that_dude22). no pressure kids. #stlpreps #stlhoops

[Billikenswin]

I hesitate to even respond to this because inevitably it will sound like I'm down on our recruits and I'm not trying to be, but there are holes in what you just posted.

For example, despite what verbal commits website might say, I highly doubt Bartley still had an offer from OSU when he committed to SLU. You simply don't have a list of MVC teams, Creighton, SLU and then a school like OSU.

Playing on good highschool or AAU teams means little. Its nice to have good teammates and play difficult competition but there are advantages to being the best player on your team too. Facing the other team's best defender, getting double teamed, taking the last shot in every game, those are nice qualities too. We all loved the fact that Crawford dominated his highschool season last year. How do I compare the 30 he averaged in small town ball to the 8.2 Roby is averaging for a really good Memphis team? I don't know that one is necessarily better than the other.

I watched Reynolds last night. I saw a very smooth and athletic player that got most of his points driving to the basket or at the FT line. He did hit 2 threes but they were wide open (the type of wide open you never get in college) and he missed a bunch of others. Based on my one game of GOSEETHEKIDPLAY I'd say his strengths are his size, athleticism and smoothness while his current weaknesses are shooting and defense.

As to your last sentence: the players that can shoot, are athletic, play good defense and are sufficiently tall are typically ranked in the top 100 or so. Our recruits are not and seldom have been top 100 quality. There are going to be weaknesses in each of these guys and since height is not one of them, its probably fair to ask what are those weaknesses. Hopefully that doesn't offend those that want to believe every recruit we've signed is perfect.

We can agree to disagree on this topic. I do think you are unreasonably negative beacuse you are caught up in the so called rankings which we all know when you get beyond the top 25 or so players are a complete joke. Your statement that our players are not of top 100 quality is subjective and has not played out on the court. We were up to 13th in the nation and over the past two years these players have demonstated they can play with, compete with, and beat teams with higher ranked recruits--not better recruits. No single player, particularly those outside of the top25 recruits does not have some weaknesses. I have spoken to a lot of folks who know a great deal about hs basketball in the midwest and they have great things to say about all three of our guard recruits--saying basicly that they are excellent players who compare favorably with players who are "ranked". Why not just be happy that we have these excellent players rather than post negative things about them on a Billikens board?

[RiseAndGrind]

We can agree to disagree on this topic. I do think you are unreasonably negative beacuse you are caught up in the so called rankings which we all know when you get beyond the top 25 or so players are a complete joke. Your statement that our players are not of top 100 quality is subjective and has not played out on the court. We were up to 13th in the nation and over the past two years these players have demonstated they can play with, compete with, and beat teams with higher ranked recruits--not better recruits. No single player, particularly those outside of the top25 recruits does not have some weaknesses. I have spoken to a lot of folks who know a great deal about hs basketball in the midwest and they have great things to say about all three of our guard recruits--saying basicly that they are excellent players who compare favorably with players who are "ranked". Why not just be happy that we have these excellent players rather than post negative things about them on a Billikens board?

I like having Billikan back on the board.

[TheChosenOne]

We can agree to disagree on this topic. I do think you are unreasonably negative beacuse you are caught up in the so called rankings which we all know when you get beyond the top 25 or so players are a complete joke. Your statement that our players are not of top 100 quality is subjective and has not played out on the court. We were up to 13th in the nation and over the past two years these players have demonstated they can play with, compete with, and beat teams with higher ranked recruits--not better recruits. No single player, particularly those outside of the top25 recruits does not have some weaknesses. I have spoken to a lot of folks who know a great deal about hs basketball in the midwest and they have great things to say about all three of our guard recruits--saying basicly that they are excellent players who compare favorably with players who are "ranked". Why not just be happy that we have these excellent players rather than post negative things about them on a Billikens board?

I tend to agree more with kshoe on this, but why can't someone express some hesitation on our recruits without getting killed on this board? I find it interesting how overly optimistic posters on this board are regarding recruits. I don't want to continue the argument, but we did as far as I can tell miss on all of our known primary targets heading into the spring and a number of those guys were fairly highly regarded recruits that we were all excited about possibly signing.

Overall I am pleased that we signed a full class of solid recruits.

[JMM28]

I could care less about the rankings of the recruit. If they fit the system that Crews wants to run, great. Rick was great at identifying those types, and my hope is that Crews will be the same.

[ACE]

I tend to agree more with kshoe on this, but why can't someone express some hesitation on our recruits without getting killed on this board? I find it interesting how overly optimistic posters on this board are regarding recruits. I don't want to continue the argument, but we did as far as I can tell miss on all of our known primary targets heading into the spring and a number of those guys were fairly highly regarded recruits that we were all excited about possibly signing.

Overall I am pleased that we signed a full class of solid recruits.

All college sports fans tend to be overly optimistic about their recruits. This is not unique to SLU fans. Just curious, who were the "known primary targets heading into the spring" that we missed on? You don't think Reggie was a prime target? Sure we missed a few, but every program does.

[kshoe]

All college sports fans tend to be overly optimistic about their recruits. This is not unique to SLU fans. Just curious, who were the "known primary targets heading into the spring" that we missed on? You don't think Reggie was a prime target? Sure we missed a few, but every program does.

I think he was talking about the 2014 class that we were aware of in the spring. I suspect if one were to look at the list that Pistol originally put together in the Recruiting 2014 list it would include names like Jordan Barnett, Larry Austin, JP Macura, Sean O'Mara, Kelan Martin, etc.

Our recruiting this fall has been fine but we shouldn't be acting like these guys are just taller versions of Kwamain. There is a name for guys like that: NBA players.

[For-DaLove]

I think he was talking about the 2014 class that we were aware of in the spring. I suspect if one were to look at the list that Pistol originally put together in the Recruiting 2014 list it would include names like Jordan Barnett, Larry Austin, JP Macura, Sean O'Mara, Kelan Martin, etc.

Our recruiting this fall has been fine but we shouldn't be acting like these guys are just taller versions of Kwamain. There is a name for guys like that: NBA players.

If you don't want others to jump to conclusions that the recruits will be great then don't do the opposite and act like we know they won't be. It's not like we knew when Kwamain came in he would be a great as he was. One of our recruits could end up being a taller Kwamain, we really have no idea. That's the beauty of this whole thing.

[SShoe]

If you don't want others to jump to conclusions that the recruits will be great then don't do the opposite and act like we know they won't be. It's not like we knew when Kwamain came in he would be a great as he was. One of our recruits could end up being a taller Kwamain, we really have no idea. That's the beauty of this whole thing.

All he's saying is don't get a boner over these guys' additional height.

Dayton often has tall guards. Dayton often finishes .500 in conference.

[Pistol]

It seems like people look up a recruit and either get really hyped about him or assume he's not that good. I don't know why there can't be any nuance to an evaluation of these guys. There are only a few guys in the nation that are unquestionably incredible talents that will have no trouble being stars at the college level, however brief. Everyone else carries at least one, if not multiple, question marks. And the further down the lists you go, the more question marks there are.

I'd hope that we can look at the 5 guys we have coming in as more than either future hall of famers or deadbeat stiffs who won't see the floor. It's okay to question what they bring, wonder how they fit in, wonder how high their ceilings are, but it's also good to be excited about them. It's cool to feel both ways at once, keeping in mind that Crews and his staff offered them all for a reason.

Also, TheChosenOne has made this point a few times and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. We offered and were very high on a lot of players that didn't commit to SLU:

Jordan Barnett (Texas)

Larry Austin, Jr. (Tennessee)

Ore Arogundade (Drake)

C.J. Rivers (Drake)

J.P. Macura (Xavier)

Sean O'Mara (Xavier)

Kelan Martin (Butler)

Mack Mercer (Belmont)

Jalyn Patterson (LSU)

Therence Mayimba (George Mason)

David Wacker (Boise State)

Darius Austin (UMKC)

And plenty of others that we chased, however briefly- Ben Lammers, Brady Ellingson, Bryant McIntosh, Riley LaChance, Shavar Newkirk, and on and on. Not all of these guys had fresh offers by the time they committed, but some of them we were pursuing very, very hard.

He's not knocking Crews or the staff or our program when he suggests than not every one of our five incoming players was a first choice guy. It's a fact, however painful in some cases.

Which is also not to say that the guys we have are all third choices; some became high priorities much later than we were pursuing others, and not because they're necessarily lower-tier options. But if the staff had their first choices early in the period, we'd have a class that would have guys like Barnett, Martin, Macura, and O'Mara.

[Bizziken]

Pointing out which skills a recruit needs to improve on and being excited about said recruit coming to SLU are not mutually exclusive ideas. Even Top 100 recruits have faults in their games

[cheeseman]

Pointing out which skills a recruit needs to improve on and being excited about said recruit coming to SLU are not mutually exclusive ideas. Even Top 100 recruits have faults in their games

Good point - Oakofar (sp) who is ranked #1 looked out of shape and unwilling to run the floor. That being said - would that keep me from taking him - of course not but I think Coach K better have a conditioning program in place for him or he will not see the floor much at all. From what I saw (admittedly only one game) - Reynolds looked weak on defense - he did not move his feet well and looked only interested in taking a 3pt shot if he was wide open. I am sure some of that had to do with the game situation - they were ahead and wanted to run some clock at some point. I do like his length and active hands.

[JettFlight5]

Good point - Oakofar (sp) who is ranked #1 looked out of shape and unwilling to run the floor. That being said - would that keep me from taking him - of course not but I think Coach K better have a conditioning program in place for him or he will not see the floor much at all. From what I saw (admittedly only one game) - Reynolds looked weak on defense - he did not move his feet well and looked only interested in taking a 3pt shot if he was wide open. I am sure some of that had to do with the game situation - they were ahead and wanted to run some clock at some point. I do like his length and active hands.

I only saw him matched up with Tyus Jones a couple times. Jones will make a lot of people at the high school level look weak on defense. I like Miles' game, but he's got things to improve just like every other recruit. He'll be a very good player.

[JettFlight5]

So does watching game footage or watching the game live on TV count as fulfilling the Prime Directive?

[Billikenswin]

Good point - Oakofar (sp) who is ranked #1 looked out of shape and unwilling to run the floor. That being said - would that keep me from taking him - of course not but I think Coach K better have a conditioning program in place for him or he will not see the floor much at all. From what I saw (admittedly only one game) - Reynolds looked weak on defense - he did not move his feet well and looked only interested in taking a 3pt shot if he was wide open. I am sure some of that had to do with the game situation - they were ahead and wanted to run some clock at some point. I do like his length and active hands.

The bottom line is that virtually every recruit has some strengths and some weaknesses. Almost every high school player need a lot of work on defense, particularly the in your face defense that the Bills play for 40 minutes. But each of these three guards is athletic and they have some height that we have not seen much of over the past few years. One game in a big time atmosphere against a highly touted opponent on national tv cannot give us enough information to judge a player's potential but he did look very good at times and he clearly looks like a player we would love to have to work with our staff. He is also an excellent student. Also, in terms of who we did sign vs who we did not, this recruiting game is always a moving target because as one person drops off because they go to another school or we decide not to pursue them--another player can become a target when we did not think we had the opportunity to get them. The fact that some came to our attention later in the game does not mean they are not as good or even better than some we were pursuing earlier. I am very hopeful that these three young men will be great additions to our team over time and one or two may be significant contributors next year. But no one knows yet one way or the other so why not be positive and hopeful.

[kshoe]

So does watching game footage or watching the game live on TV count as fulfilling the Prime Directive?

Assuming I have the lingo right:

Game footage = highlight video where the player never misses

Game live on tv = opportunity to see the player actually screw something up

Prime Directive = GOSEETHEKIDSPLAY

You've got to watch the game on live tv to say you've accomplished the prime directive at least once.

[Pistol]

Seems like you guys agree with me. Hopefully we'll see less of either:

"These guys don't look good at all."

or

"Crews is killing it!"

And something more tempered in between the two.

[ACE]

It seems like people look up a recruit and either get really hyped about him or assume he's not that good. I don't know why there can't be any nuance to an evaluation of these guys. There are only a few guys in the nation that are unquestionably incredible talents that will have no trouble being stars at the college level, however brief. Everyone else carries at least one, if not multiple, question marks. And the further down the lists you go, the more question marks there are.

I'd hope that we can look at the 5 guys we have coming in as more than either future hall of famers or deadbeat stiffs who won't see the floor. It's okay to question what they bring, wonder how they fit in, wonder how high their ceilings are, but it's also good to be excited about them. It's cool to feel both ways at once, keeping in mind that Crews and his staff offered them all for a reason.

Also, TheChosenOne has made this point a few times and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. We offered and were very high on a lot of players that didn't commit to SLU:

Jordan Barnett (Texas)

Larry Austin, Jr. (Tennessee)

Ore Arogundade (Drake)

C.J. Rivers (Drake)

J.P. Macura (Xavier)

Sean O'Mara (Xavier)

Kelan Martin (Butler)

Mack Mercer (Belmont)

Jalyn Patterson (LSU)

Therence Mayimba (George Mason)

David Wacker (Boise State)

Darius Austin (UMKC)

And plenty of others that we chased, however briefly- Ben Lammers, Brady Ellingson, Bryant McIntosh, Riley LaChance, Shavar Newkirk, and on and on. Not all of these guys had fresh offers by the time they committed, but some of them we were pursuing very, very hard.

He's not knocking Crews or the staff or our program when he suggests than not every one of our five incoming players was a first choice guy. It's a fact, however painful in some cases.

Which is also not to say that the guys we have are all third choices; some became high priorities much later than we were pursuing others, and not because they're necessarily lower-tier options. But if the staff had their first choices early in the period, we'd have a class that would have guys like Barnett, Martin, Macura, and O'Mara.

My point is that it is hard to know in all cases who are our "primary targets". Didn't we quickly land Roby after one visit over the summer and after he had already had some SEC offers? Wouldn't he be considered a "primary target." Just because he snuck up on us and there were not a lot of reports about SLU being interested, does not mean he was not a priority for the staff.

Wasn't Bartley a "primary target." We were involved over the summer and got him to commit quickly after a visit in September. RM missed on his primary targets a LOT. It seems to me the key is having a lot of viable options interested and comparable players ready to sign with you if you miss on some. This is not like the Sodie era when we miss on some main recruiting targets and then are stuck reaching for Obi and Horace or saving scholarships. I feel like this staff has done a nice job of moving right on after a player goes elsewhere and is able to land another good quality player.

Jalyn Patterson commits to LSU, two weeks later we get Reynolds, who also had an offer from LSU. Maybe we had a slight preference to Patterson and of course time will tell about who has a better career, but from what I can gather they seem like pretty comparable players. Besides, from what I could gather, SLU has never really much of a factor with Patteson. For what is worth, Scout give Roby a 78 grade and Patterson a 76. Different type of players, but similar quality guards.

I'm not drinking the kool-aid, but I do think there are some reasons for optimism. Every school is going to miss on recruits and college basketball fans are going to tend to be overly optimistic about the players they sign. This is not unique to SLU. REALITY

[JettFlight5]

Any view is better than apathy.

I think it's good that we've got people talking at all.

Are we going to disagree? Probably. But talking about Billiken basketball is a good thing.

[almaman]

This has been the best off season recruiting year ever IMHO. Of the players we've drafted since end of season + Crawford, 1/2 dozen at least are as good on paper as any but a handful of Billiken players in the modern era. They could all crap out by the time they get down to Compton but it seems quite reasonable to expect a few of them to be good. If we hit on expectations as well as we have with this year's seniors we gonna be watching some good ball next few years. The only reason we were even recruiting and offering to the guys we lost out on is the same as why we were able to get the guys we did, we are desirable now.

If Sodie or Grawer had wasted time trying to get the list of studs we offered and lost out on it would of been a waste of money.

Everyone on top 100 list would be welcomed with open arms if they decided to go to SIUE, but Im guessing they pursued none of them.

The fact that just because you have high talent level doesn't mean you will find success is obvious. Every year it seems that there is a glaring example of a lot of talent yielding little reward. Kentucky was last years. They didn't get in NCAA but I would hope that any coach who made the dance with less talented players would still take 5 top 100 players over his current roster.

[DeSmetBilliken]

Pointing out which skills a recruit needs to improve on and being excited about said recruit coming to SLU are not mutually exclusive ideas. Even Top 100 recruits have faults in their games

Exactly. One player that we'd all be happy to have signed is Kelan Martin. Martin is listed around 100 in 1 or more recruiting rankings. Still, you could probably find people saying that Martin is undersized to play the PF position, which could be seen as a fault in his game.

I think the recruits we have signed each bring something exciting to the table, and I look forward to seeing them on the Chaifetz Arena court. I hope that Crews and the rest of the staff have a similar ability to Majerus in finding gems that some other programs miss. Still, I think it's naive to flat out assume that just because a recruit had an offer from some school, or is tall, or has whatever other positive trait, that they're infallible.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Also, TheChosenOne has made this point a few times and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. We offered and were very high on a lot of players that didn't commit to SLU:

Jordan Barnett (Texas)

Larry Austin, Jr. (Tennessee)

Ore Arogundade (Drake)

C.J. Rivers (Drake)

J.P. Macura (Xavier)

Sean O'Mara (Xavier)

Kelan Martin (Butler)

Mack Mercer (Belmont)

Jalyn Patterson (LSU)

Therence Mayimba (George Mason)

David Wacker (Boise State)

Darius Austin (UMKC)

And plenty of others that we chased, however briefly- Ben Lammers, Brady Ellingson, Bryant McIntosh, Riley LaChance, Shavar Newkirk, and on and on. Not all of these guys had fresh offers by the time they committed, but some of them we were pursuing very, very hard.

He's not knocking Crews or the staff or our program when he suggests than not every one of our five incoming players was a first choice guy. It's a fact, however painful in some cases.

Which is also not to say that the guys we have are all third choices; some became high priorities much later than we were pursuing others, and not because they're necessarily lower-tier options. But if the staff had their first choices early in the period, we'd have a class that would have guys like Barnett, Martin, Macura, and O'Mara.

Why mention all those guys? I thought they were all just screwdrivers, monkey wrenches and c-clamps.