Jump to content


Member Since 30 Nov 1999
Offline Last Active Jul 28 2014 11:50 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: World Cup 23 man roster named. no Donovan

09 June 2014 - 03:20 PM

I've been unimpressed with Zusi at the USMNT level.  He's had a couple of incisive passes here and there, but he's too slow, not creative enough and doesn't provide the service that Davis does (which is why i would choose Davis over Zusi).  


I really like Zusi's game (although I prefer the Beckerman/Bedoya/JJ trio with Bradley and the backs). Zusi is one of our better players in tight spaces, and he competes with Davis for the best service on the team.

In Topic: World Cup 23 man roster named. no Donovan

26 May 2014 - 05:06 AM

I personally love Klinsmann. I also think he is operating under a long-term plan with 2018 as the game-changing year. Regarding the Donovan thing, I think it is simple. Landon's skills (particularly his speed and open field moves) have diminished to the point that he was not a key part of the strategy. While he was probably still among the US's top 20 field players, his presence in a lesser role created downside risk to Jurgen's new vision and philosophy.

In Topic: Recruiting - Past and Present

23 April 2014 - 01:11 PM



4* and 5* are much more likely to be successful than 3* and 2*.

And the top 10 are more likely to be successful than 90-100.  

I wonder if some posters here do not understand that and / or refuse to accept it as a fact.

Again, yes, some 2* and 3* and unranked players blossom into stars. Of course. And coaching / development matters.

But, again, I'll take a few 4* and 5* players here, hell yes.


I guess my ultimate point is that most 4 and 5 stars are legitimate talents reflective of their rankings. For all other rankings, it is relatively meaningless. Go back and look at the recruiting rankings of the success and failures at SLU and its conference rivals. Despite many claims here to the contrary, you will find that there is little to no predictive value between a 2* and 3* ranking (or 2.2*, 3.2*, 2.6* etc.). Once you fall past the top 50 or so, the good coaches--not the for profit recruiting services--are the best judges of a recruits' likelihood of success at a given D1 program. This is why Majerus had no regard for recruiting rankings but relied heavily on a trusted global network of basketball contacts who had a great understanding of what Majerus looked for in his recruits. Most of the guys who brought SLU recent success and went "under the radar" with the recruiting services were referred to Majerus through his network. Don't get me wrong; if we sign a kid who is rated a 3.5 start, I will get excited, but I shouldn't because it doesn't really mean anything. On the other hand, if we land a 5* like Jayson Tatum (or Hughes in his day), it means everything.

In Topic: Recruiting - Past and Present

22 April 2014 - 07:56 PM

Decades of tracking recruits and rankings has taught me that outside of 4 and 5 star (ie top 50) recruits, the rankings don't mean much. Otherwise, there are just too many unreliable variables that factor into a completely subjective (and often slanted) ranking system. What Majerus understood better than most is that every recruit needs to have a base level of athleticism, skills, competitive drive, and coachability to develop and succeed. The majority of coaches fail at recruiting because they fall in love with a kid for one or two of these traits (usually the first one or two).

I guarantee that the athletic and skill set difference between Jett, Loe, McCall, and Evans and their counterparts ranked 50 - 150 was largely inconsequential. I also bet these 4 greatly exceeded most of these counterparts in competitive drive and coachability.

In Topic: Milik Yarbrough Commits

22 April 2014 - 07:56 AM

I am going to close this thread for wandering off topic and getting a bit personal. When Milik officially signs, we can start a new thread and (hopefully) stay on topic.