Brad Beal

[billiken_roy]

Oh I'm just throwing it out there. Hughes is more athletic, and longer. Beal has or will have better court vision and see the floor better and make better decisions than Hughes down the road.

It's a lot more challenging for a kid Beal's height and size, than Hughes' size. However, Beal imo will be a much more polished prospect in a couple of years than Hughes at similar times.

As long as Beal doesn't glide, commits to diet, fitness, and strength, and he has a fire in his belly, he'll do extremely well. He is already talented, a team player, unselfish, smart player, who can do several things well.

you still didnt answer the original question.

[stlsfinest]

Beal was on SLU's campus all weekend for the STL Eagles Nike Invitational. Did anyone go to check him out?? I did.

[courtside]

So a high school soph/junior will be better than a 10-year NBA player? If you say so. I think the competition in the NBA might be slightly better, and the game might move a little faster.

You might be right, but I'll give it a little more time.

No I didn't say that, nor did I say it wasn't possible either. You incorrectly concluded that to me court vision equals all factors necessary to be a 10 year NBA player. I never said that, nor do I think that. Beal has physical disadvantages in comparison to Hughes. Those physical disadvantages won't ever change. Having seen both players at comparable stages of their basketball playing days, in comparable time periods Beal has better court vision and sees the floor better. That doesn't mean he has the same physical attributes as Hughes, nor will he moving forward, among other things.

[courtside]

just a question,

IF beal is the equal of an up and coming larry hugheslike talent:

please tell me the examples in the last couple of rickma decades of head coaching has he even pursued a recruit of that magnitude and which one(s) did he land?

thanks in advance.

I didn't know this question was for me. It was likely an open board question. But I'll take it. Majerus has had a few highly recruited players over the years.(Van Horn, Miller were recruited by higher profile BCS schools in and out of the Pac 10. Donnie Daniels was very good) Not all of his players have been under the radar types of players, nor have all of the kids he's missed out on and tried to get. He also inherited a few good local players too.

Majerus wouldn't pass up an elite, Nationally recruited player, nor would he automatically not recruit one out of competition for the player. It is in SLU's best interest to recruit a worthy local, backyard player to the fullest amount possible, until that kid says he has zero interest in SLU. And, even then, he should still be recruited. It doesn't always have to be an either/or, and it isn't for Majerus. I do not agree with the notion that Majerus is somehow supposed to pass on elite level recruits because the competition is fierce, and they'll never pick SLU. You can do both, recruit hard for a local elite player, and recruit elsewhere.

[kevinfootes]

No I didn't say that, nor did I say it wasn't possible either. You incorrectly concluded that to me court vision equals all factors necessary to be a 10 year NBA player. I never said that, nor do I think that. Beal has physical disadvantages in comparison to Hughes. Those physical disadvantages won't ever change. Having seen both players at comparable stages of their basketball playing days, in comparable time periods Beal has better court vision and sees the floor better. That doesn't mean he has the same physical attributes as Hughes, nor will he moving forward, among other things.

You said that Beal has better "court vision" than Hughes.

"Beal has or will have better court vision and see the floor better and make better decisions than Hughes down the road."

Although after reading it again, by the time you get through all of your "has or will have" and "down the road" I see that you're not saying anything at all.

[courtside]

You said that Beal has better "court vision" than Hughes.

"Beal has or will have better court vision and see the floor better and make better decisions than Hughes down the road."

Although after reading it again, by the time you get through all of your "has or will have" and "down the road" I see that you're not saying anything at all.

My point remains the same. You again believe that because Hughes is a 10 year NBA type of player, that he will do everything better than those who are not or who might not be 10 year NBA players. I don't agree with that.

Beal at this stage of his high school career has better court vision than Hughes did at a similar time. I do not see why that cannot continue moving forward. That doesn't mean that "Beal will be a 10 year pro, 25 year pro, or zero year pro, or even a successful college player. Just because Larry Hughes is in the NBA, doesn't mean that he possesses all of the qualities that non-NBA players do not possess. For example, Larry Hughes is not as good of a jump shooter than tons of guys who do not play in the NBA. That doesn't mean those guy should be in the NBA and he shouldn't.

Beal will be more polished high school prospect in terms of fundamentals. He is not nearly the athlete as Hughes, and he does not have the length, and he does not have the defense at this time.

Comparing Beal overall and Hughes overall is not comparing apples to apples. I also didn't say that Beal would be an NBA prospect while still in high school. I can say without hesitation that he will be a more fundamentally sound high school player when he finishes high school than Hughes was at the same time. That doesn't mean he's going to grow several more inches, that doesn't mean he's going to become more athletic than he is at this time. That doesn't mean that other aspects of his game do not need work. That doesn't mean he'll even be a good college player. He may be, he may not.

You seem to be having so much trouble.

[kevinfootes]

My point remains the same. You again believe that because Hughes is a 10 year NBA type of player, that he will do everything better than those who are not or who might not be 10 year NBA players. I don't agree with that.

Beal at this stage of his high school career has better court vision than Hughes did at a similar time. I do not see why that cannot continue moving forward. That doesn't mean that "Beal will be a 10 year pro, 25 year pro, or zero year pro, or even a successful college player. Just because Larry Hughes is in the NBA, doesn't mean that he possesses all of the qualities that non-NBA players do not possess. For example, Larry Hughes is not as good of a jump shooter than tons of guys who do not play in the NBA. That doesn't mean those guy should be in the NBA and he shouldn't.

Beal will be more polished high school prospect in terms of fundamentals. He is not nearly the athlete as Hughes, and he does not have the length, and he does not have the defense at this time.

Comparing Beal overall and Hughes overall is not comparing apples to apples. I also didn't say that Beal would be an NBA prospect while still in high school. I can say without hesitation that he will be a more fundamentally sound high school player when he finishes high school than Hughes was at the same time. That doesn't mean he's going to grow several more inches, that doesn't mean he's going to become more athletic than he is at this time. That doesn't mean that other aspects of his game do not need work. That doesn't mean he'll even be a good college player. He may be, he may not.

You seem to be having so much trouble.

Maybe he'll be good, maybe he won't. Maybe it will rain, maybe it won't. Please keep the insights coming!

Back to the intial post I made, you said Beal had better "court vision" than Hughes. I replied that I think we should give it some time before we really start comparing high school sophomores to 10-year NBA veterans...especially saying that the sophomore is better.

Now, you've clarified since then to say that you think he might have the potential to be better. Okay. But I still would be cautious about saying that a high school sophomore is a better shooter than an NBA player (unless we're talking about Manute Bol or someone like that). Let's see how good the high school sophomore is against NBA-caliber defense.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Maybe he'll be good, maybe he won't. Maybe it will rain, maybe it won't. Please keep the insights coming!

Back to the intial post I made, you said Beal had better "court vision" than Hughes. I replied that I think we should give it some time before we really start comparing high school sophomores to 10-year NBA veterans...especially saying that the sophomore is better.

Now, you've clarified since then to say that you think he might have the potential to be better. Okay. But I still would be cautious about saying that a high school sophomore is a better shooter than an NBA player (unless we're talking about Manute Bol or someone like that). Let's see how good the high school sophomore is against NBA-caliber defense.

I probably don't need to jump in here, but I will anyway.

Yes, Larry Hughes is an NBA veteran of 10 years. Yes, Hughes was great as a college freshman at SLU, albeit teams with multiple NBA-caliber athletes could shut him down because he didn't have much support. And, in fact, he was tremendous in high school. But, let's rewind the memory back and compare how the 17-year-old Larry Hughes (or the 16- or 15-year-old version) was compared to Bradley Beal, skill by skill.

I haven't seen Beal play, so I can't make a comparison. Moreover, the only times I saw Hughes play while he was in high school was during the playoffs of his senior season (once on TV), while Beal will only be a junior. But maybe Courtside has seen each at that stage. Why isn't it possible for Beal to have superior court vision than what Hughes exhibited when he was 16?

How does one go about measuring court vision?

[kevinfootes]

I probably don't need to jump in here, but I will anyway.

Yes, Larry Hughes is an NBA veteran of 10 years. Yes, Hughes was great as a college freshman at SLU, albeit teams with multiple NBA-caliber athletes could shut him down because he didn't have much support. And, in fact, he was tremendous in high school. But, let's rewind the memory back and compare how the 17-year-old Larry Hughes (or the 16- or 15-year-old version) was compared to Bradley Beal, skill by skill.

I haven't seen Beal play, so I can't make a comparison. Moreover, the only times I saw Hughes play while he was in high school was during the playoffs of his senior season (once on TV), while Beal will only be a junior. But maybe Courtside has seen each at that stage. Why isn't it possible for Beal to have superior court vision than what Hughes exhibited when he was 16?

How does one go about measuring court vision?

Your last question is key here. There's no way that you can measure it. That said, my initial question to courtside was in response to his statement that Beal has better "court vision" than Hughes. He has since clarified the statement to say that he was really comparing the two at the same age.

[Billman]

Maybe he'll be good, maybe he won't. Maybe it will rain, maybe it won't. Please keep the insights coming!

Back to the intial post I made, you said Beal had better "court vision" than Hughes. I replied that I think we should give it some time before we really start comparing high school sophomores to 10-year NBA veterans...especially saying that the sophomore is better.

Now, you've clarified since then to say that you think he might have the potential to be better. Okay. But I still would be cautious about saying that a high school sophomore is a better shooter than an NBA player (unless we're talking about Manute Bol or someone like that). Let's see how good the high school sophomore is against NBA-caliber defense.

He didn't say a HS soph was a better shooter than an NBA player. Just like he didn't say Beal was better than Hughes, he said he has better court vision and makes better decisions and he believes that skill set will continue to improve.

[kevinfootes]

He didn't say a HS soph was a better shooter than an NBA player. Just like he didn't say Beal was better than Hughes, he said he has better court vision and makes better decisions and he believes that skill set will continue to improve.

I wasn't clear with my last post. NO, he didn't say the Beal was a better shooter. My point is that, for example, you can't really say any high school shooter is better than an NBA shooter unless you're comparing the guy to Manute Bol or Mark Eaton. The pressure and level of competition is entirely different.

As far as "court vision" goes, there's no way to measure it. However, I'll stand by my point that high school and AAU hoops are a far different game than the NBA. courtside initially did say that Beal had better "court vision" before somewhat modify his statement. Put a high school sophomore into a game at NBA speed and let's see how good his "court vision" is.

I think you'll also find that you can't really compare decision making in a high school game to the NBA.

[billiken_roy]

footes i took courtside's comments to compare beal today to what courside's memory of hughes when hughes was a high school sophomore not the current hughes.

[courtside]

I wasn't clear with my last post. NO, he didn't say the Beal was a better shooter. My point is that, for example, you can't really say any high school shooter is better than an NBA shooter unless you're comparing the guy to Manute Bol or Mark Eaton. The pressure and level of competition is entirely different.

As far as "court vision" goes, there's no way to measure it. However, I'll stand by my point that high school and AAU hoops are a far different game than the NBA. courtside initially did say that Beal had better "court vision" before somewhat modify his statement. Put a high school sophomore into a game at NBA speed and let's see how good his "court vision" is.

I think you'll also find that you can't really compare decision making in a high school game to the NBA.

I didn't modify anything. You are the only one not getting it.

[Billman]

I wasn't clear with my last post. NO, he didn't say the Beal was a better shooter. My point is that, for example, you can't really say any high school shooter is better than an NBA shooter unless you're comparing the guy to Manute Bol or Mark Eaton. The pressure and level of competition is entirely different.

As far as "court vision" goes, there's no way to measure it. However, I'll stand by my point that high school and AAU hoops are a far different game than the NBA. courtside initially did say that Beal had better "court vision" before somewhat modify his statement. Put a high school sophomore into a game at NBA speed and let's see how good his "court vision" is.

I think you'll also find that you can't really compare decision making in a high school game to the NBA.

I agree with what you say, except for I think you can measure court vision in part by assists and in part with the eyes God gave you. I can watch 2 point guards play a few games (and in some instances 1 game) and tell you which has the better court vision.

[brianstl]

I probably don't need to jump in here, but I will anyway.

Yes, Larry Hughes is an NBA veteran of 10 years. Yes, Hughes was great as a college freshman at SLU, albeit teams with multiple NBA-caliber athletes could shut him down because he didn't have much support. And, in fact, he was tremendous in high school. But, let's rewind the memory back and compare how the 17-year-old Larry Hughes (or the 16- or 15-year-old version) was compared to Bradley Beal, skill by skill.

I haven't seen Beal play, so I can't make a comparison. Moreover, the only times I saw Hughes play while he was in high school was during the playoffs of his senior season (once on TV), while Beal will only be a junior. But maybe Courtside has seen each at that stage. Why isn't it possible for Beal to have superior court vision than what Hughes exhibited when he was 16?

How does one go about measuring court vision?

With the exception of Cincinnati, Larry put up some big numbers against those types of teams. Look at the numbers he put up against teams like Marquette, Cuse, Louisville, Arkansas, etc. He put up double digits in every game but the first one he played against Cincy.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/sa...ghes/game_stats

[kevinfootes]

I didn't modify anything. You are the only one not getting it.

I went back and re-read all of your posts in this thread. In your fourth post, you stated "Beal has or will have better court vision and see the floor better and make better decisions than Hughes down the road". You stated "Beal has better court vision" in the present tense. The way a normal person would interpret this is that you're talking about right now...and that his "better court vision" will help make better decisions down the road.

In your next post, you stated: "Having seen both players at comparable stages of their basketball playing days, in comparable time periods Beal has better court vision and sees the floor better". This is the point where you made a clarification. A couple of posts later, you made another clarification: "Beal at this stage of his high school career has better court vision than Hughes did at a similar time". Finally, you stated: "I didn't modify anything. You are the only one not getting it." You obviously modified/clarified your point here. Your own words contradict this post.

[kevinfootes]

I agree with what you say, except for I think you can measure court vision in part by assists and in part with the eyes God gave you. I can watch 2 point guards play a few games (and in some instances 1 game) and tell you which has the better court vision.

Typically you'd like to use statistics that are based on a sample size greater than one.

[GoBills]

With the exception of Cincinnati, Larry put up some big numbers against those types of teams. Look at the numbers he put up against teams like Marquette, Cuse, Louisville, Arkansas, etc. He put up double digits in every game but the first one he played against Cincy.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/sa...ghes/game_stats

That is a great website. Thanks for sharing. The battle between Larry and Baron Davis was interesting. They had almost identical stat lines. Future NBA player Earl Watson was also a part of that UCLA backcourt. The Bills had a chance to win that game at Pauley. Larry really put the hurt to Marquette and SIU. The Bills beat Illinois in spite of a very mediocre game from Larry. Cincinnati was very good at just beating people up who they wanted to shut down.

[Billman]

Typically you'd like to use statistics that are based on a sample size greater than one.

sometimes it's so obvious one will do.

[courtside]

That is a great website. Thanks for sharing. The battle between Larry and Baron Davis was interesting. They had almost identical stat lines. Future NBA player Earl Watson was also a part of that UCLA backcourt. The Bills had a chance to win that game at Pauley. Larry really put the hurt to Marquette and SIU. The Bills beat Illinois in spite of a very mediocre game from Larry. Cincinnati was very good at just beating people up who they wanted to shut down.

The value is Hughes did most of his damage to teams that did not have the length, lateral quickness and athleticism on the wing, or at the 2, 3 and 4. Toby Bailey is the forgotten player in your post for UCLA. Hughes' length, lateral quickness and athleticism gave him great matchups against many opponents. The teams that could counter this did better. In those two Marquette games, both close games, no other player scored double digits for SLU except Hughes. If Hughes doesn't light it up for 67 combined in two games, SLU doesn't win. Marquette didn't have an athletic wing with length to guard Hughes. And, it's interesting to note that after the next season Marquette's coach lost his job.

The NBA is a different animal. Hughes wasn't a great shooter, and he's never averaged more than 4.7 assists per game in his NBA career. However, he uses his length, quickness, and lateral movement at both ends, and has been able to have a ten year NBA career.

[kevinfootes]

sometimes it's so obvious one will do.

Of course when we're talking about something intangbile like court vision and we're talking about two guys who played 10 or 11 years apart one person's opinion is obviously enough. I couldn't agree more!

[GoBills]

The value is Hughes did most of his damage to teams that did not have the length, lateral quickness and athleticism on the wing, or at the 2, 3 and 4. Toby Bailey is the forgotten player in your post for UCLA. Hughes' length, lateral quickness and athleticism gave him great matchups against many opponents. The teams that could counter this did better. In those two Marquette games, both close games, no other player scored double digits for SLU except Hughes. If Hughes doesn't light it up for 67 combined in two games, SLU doesn't win. Marquette didn't have an athletic wing with length to guard Hughes. And, it's interesting to note that after the next season Marquette's coach lost his job.

The NBA is a different animal. Hughes wasn't a great shooter, and he's never averaged more than 4.7 assists per game in his NBA career. However, he uses his length, quickness, and lateral movement at both ends, and has been able to have a ten year NBA career.

I didn't "forget" Toby Bailey. I am well aware of him. He was a nice player. I just didn't feel the need to mention every player in the game. I could have thrown in JR Henderson for example, but I wasn't planning on breaking down the game in great detail. It also seems pretty obvious that if you took 67 points away from any team over two games, they likely would be looking at two losses.

[courtside]

I didn't "forget" Toby Bailey. I am well aware of him. He was a nice player. I just didn't feel the need to mention every player in the game. I could have thrown in JR Henderson for example, but I wasn't planning on breaking down the game in great detail. It also seems pretty obvious that if you took 67 points away from any team over two games, they likely would be looking at two losses.

Hughes was 4-12 in the UCLA game, and part of that was the length and athleticism of fellow 6'5 guys like Bailey that can help from time to time.

I don't disagree with what you are saying regarding the 67 points. My point is again, the same. Marquette didn't have anyone to match up with Hughes. They tried Mike Bargen for example, but despite having the length, he isn't as quick, athletic, nor does he have the lateral abilities anywhere near Hughes. Hughes took advantage of that length and lateral quickness against teams who didn't have it. However in some of those other games against teams who had, UL, etc..he didn't fare as well every time. He was a good enough player to "get his" in some of those, but there is a definite pattern to his stats and play.

Beal does not, nor likely will not have Hughes length and lateral quickness. However, he has at comparable times, and will likely have at comparable times moving forward, different assets and in some instances those assets are at comparable times better than Hughes.

[Billman]

Of course when we're talking about something intangbile like court vision and we're talking about two guys who played 10 or 11 years apart one person's opinion is obviously enough. I couldn't agree more!

what?

I didn't say I or anyone could watch one game involving Beal and Hughes and discern who had better court vision. You said it wasn't measurable, I say it is. Just watch the game.

[slulefty]

High school kids can and do change their mind all the time. Many recruits have a different "leader" every week. Some kids are consistent with one or a handful of schools, others aren't. And even in the cases of a kid only focused on one school, a new school he had never heard from before or thought of attending could swoop in and be a major factor.

As for a general Beal type player, Hawk said "Worth the risk." What do you mean by that? Worth the risk as in doing due diligence, while not sacrificing other recruiting in the process, okay. That's fine. And considering this type of once ever several years ability, I'd even be willing to go farther in those cases, longer than in other cases, even if there is no perceived interest. If a kid is a guaranteed positive no interest from the start, and it doesn't look likely to change, you still keep in touch with him and recruit him, but that kid is an added bonus down the road if he shows interest. You have to have a good balance and medium. I don't believe going one way or the other is the most beneficial approach in these types of situations. You don't make someone like that a #1 priority, and you don't move on entirely either.

Its down between KU and Florida. No SLU