Jrberendzen Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 martin would be a big get for slu already have 3 good recruits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HusakAttack Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 No need to save a spot if you can get top talent now. McCaw, Martin/Mayimba, Glass gives us a great recruiting class with good balance. Get em all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I don't see McCaw being a redundancy after Bartley and Roby. McCaw is a little taller than each and has a bigger frame than Bartley for sure. And he's not a PG type, but big shooting guard/wing. Spot-up shooter, scorer. Man, would I love to land either Mayimba or Martin, though. We're definitely in the running for both. When I read your write up about McCaw (in the recruit listings) especially what you say what the scouts say about him, I could substitute Bartley's name where McCaw's name appears and it would still be correct. Only difference I see is 1 " of height. Again I like McCaw and would have no issue with us recruiting him if this coaching staff feels that is the way to go, I just don't know that we don't have other needs at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 For no other reason than to stick it to Butler, I'd vote for Martin. Do we still need the McCaw kid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 No need to save a spot if you can get top talent now. McCaw, Martin/Mayimba, Glass gives us a great recruiting class with good balance. Get em all! Agreed, as long as one of our 2014 signees is a JUCO, to help balance the classes. Of course the possibility of redshirting Gillmann would also help with class balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 When I read your write up about McCaw (in the recruit listings) especially what you say what the scouts say about him, I could substitute Bartley's name where McCaw's name appears and it would still be correct. Only difference I see is 1 " of height. Again I like McCaw and would have no issue with us recruiting him if this coaching staff feels that is the way to go, I just don't know that we don't have other needs at this point. The way I read it, they are completely different. MB is a drive and pass or drive and finish pg who can shoot a little from the outside. McCaw is a pure perimiter shooter. I want McCaw if the write up is correct as much as I want anyone on the list. Great 3 pt shooters can change the game quicker than any other player on the court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 We need a 3 point shooter. We finished 11th in the A10 in 3 pt % last year and still won the conference. Imagine what we could do if we had a knock down shooter or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 The way I read it, they are completely different. MB is a drive and pass or drive and finish pg who can shoot a little from the outside. McCaw is a pure perimiter shooter. I want McCaw if the write up is correct as much as I want anyone on the list. Great 3 pt shooters can change the game quicker than any other player on the court Mccaw would also be SLU's top 100 recruit since??? ( Don't even say Thompson) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlebill Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Mccaw would also be SLU's top 100 recruit since??? ( Don't even say Thompson) Thompson was 140ish. Does Ash count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 The way I read it, they are completely different. MB is a drive and pass or drive and finish pg who can shoot a little from the outside. McCaw is a pure perimiter shooter. I want McCaw if the write up is correct as much as I want anyone on the list. Great 3 pt shooters can change the game quicker than any other player on the court Skip, I guess we will just have to wait to see each of them play, but after watching Bartley's tape it seems like he is quite a bit better than being able to "shoot a little from the outside." He looks to have the whole package of skills. With regard to McCaw, the writeup seems to describe him much the same way-he can score in a variety of ways, is strong on the break and can take guys off the dribble. That whole sentence describes what I see when I watch Bartley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Martin was 143 in the last top 150 from Rivals. I think Mayimba would be ranked, too, if he were a little bit taller. Late bloomer, came to US in high school- not unexpected that he's not ranked. I think Agbeko will make a lot of top 100 kids look overrated and make bigger programs wonder how they didn't know about this kid sooner. I don't mind not having a highly touted class if they're all nice gets and fit the program well. Look at this year's senior class. I think a lot of schools who got top 100 kids that year would love to have Jett, McCall, Evans, or Loe on their roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Mccaw would also be SLU's top 100 recruit since??? ( Don't even say Thompson) Since Thompson. How'd that work out? So much for trying to rank players from across the country who never play each other. You might as well put 500 names on the board and throw darts to come up with the top 100. You might be able to say 1-5 are better than 105-150, but good luck trying to justify ranking one guy 86 and the other guy 174. It's just meaningless cr@% from guys trying to make a buck off of us fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Martin was 143 in the last top 150 from Rivals. I think Mayimba would be ranked, too, if he were a little bit taller. Late bloomer, came to US in high school- not unexpected that he's not ranked. I think Agbeko will make a lot of top 100 kids look overrated and make bigger programs wonder how they didn't know about this kid sooner. I don't mind not having a highly touted class if they're all nice gets and fit the program well. Look at this year's senior class. I think a lot of schools who got top 100 kids that year would love to have Jett, McCall, Evans, or Loe on their roster. Especially KY, who don't got no top 100 seniors left on their team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Since Thompson. How'd that work out? So much for trying to rank players from across the country who never play each other. You might as well put 500 names on the board and throw darts to come up with the top 100. You might be able to say 1-5 are better than 105-150, but good luck trying to justify ranking one guy 86 and the other guy 174. It's just meaningless cr@% from guys trying to make a buck off of us fans. This is a silly argument. The likelihood that a player ranked in the top 100 is a successful college player is far higher than for one who is not. Yes there are plenty of exceptions, but to act like there is no correlational effect between the two is silly. We should be thrilled anytime we land a top 150 recruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlebill Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 This is a silly argument. The likelihood that a player ranked in the top 100 is a successful college player is far higher than for one who is not. Yes there are plenty of exceptions, but to act like there is no correlational effect between the two is silly. We should be thrilled anytime we land a top 150 recruit. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 This is a silly argument. The likelihood that a player ranked in the top 100 is a successful college player is far higher than for one who is not. Yes there are plenty of exceptions, but to act like there is no correlational effect between the two is silly. We should be thrilled anytime we land a top 150 recruit. SI did a study that on avg 34% of top 100 's transfer. I'd be thrilled but would keep my fingers crossed we could keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'd say the ratings are accurate from 1-35. Beyond that up thru 150 is probably a guessing game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'd say the ratings are accurate from 1-35. Beyond that up thru 150 is probably a guessing game. You just guessing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 This is a silly argument. The likelihood that a player ranked in the top 100 is a successful college player is far higher than for one who is not. Yes there are plenty of exceptions, but to act like there is no correlational effect between the two is silly. We should be thrilled anytime we land a top 150 recruit. This is anything but a "silly argument." I submit that you couldn't accurately list the top 150 PG (for example) in Div. 1 basketball and you have much more information available to you in trying to do this listing than the recruiting "services" do on HS players spread throughout the country, the GREAT MAJORITY of whom these 'services" have never even seen play. As I said in my initial post on this, all of us could probably agree that the top X number of players (maybe top 25 or so) are clearly better than players number 175-200. However, there is no recruiting expert out there willing to take your money who can make a valid case that number 89 is better than number 147. They have no clue about this level of detail. Additionally, even for those that have seen some of the kids play, WHEN they saw them play is also critical. They can't even get factual items correct let alone subjective items. Just look at the inability of the "services" to even get the weight of Marcus Bartley correct-is he 140 or 145 or 160 or 175? If they can't get this right, how can they have the ability to make the fine distinction between PG number 43 vs PG number 78? If you think otherwise then feel free to spend your $$$ on any or all of the recruiting "services." I'd rather waste mine on an overpriced beer at the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 No need to save a spot if you can get top talent now. McCaw, Martin/Mayimba, Glass gives us a great recruiting class with good balance. Get em all! i think i want mccaw and mayimba the most. martin looks like he could go newborne on somebody pretty easily... and mccaw's highlight tape has the HAWTEST jamz i ever heard. it's usually pissed out, in the red, BS RAPTRAX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 bauman, it's an imperfect system but there is certainly some value in it and it's getting easier every year. More information is flying around, more kids are playing basketball year-round, and more of them are traveling to play against one another. As for things like height and weight, any given scout for any given service is only going to see any given recruit X number of times. Bartley may have been 6-2, 140 when Scout's writer saw him, and was 6-4, 170 more recently when another guy saw him. There are something like 25,000 high schools in the US and a lot of kids trying to play at the next level. They're doing a better and better job of providing comprehensive information, highlights, and scouting reports on players. My best stab at why there are so many gems outside the top 100 and so many busts within it is this: some guys peak early, some are late bloomers physically; some guys go to programs that don't suit their skill set or personality; and the talent pool is getting deeper and wider as kids are getting better year-round basketball instruction (not to mention are on average larger than they were in previous generations). I agree that we shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that we're still not getting many top 100 commitments, but I still see the value in the evaluation system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 You just guessing here? Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doowop Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 David Wacker now has a top 5. It's on Scout (premium). Don't forget that Elliott Welmer starts his SLU visit this weekend. Pistol, do you have a number that I can call to reach Ben Wex? I want to subscribe to Scout but I don't want to use my card on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Pistol, do you have a number that I can call to reach Ben Wex? I want to subscribe to Scout but I don't want to use my card on the internet. Man, I don't even know my mom's phone number. You can find him on Twitter: @BWeixScout. LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/benweixlmann Or use this: https://secure.scout.com/a.z?s=437&p=5&c=18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HusakAttack Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Pistol, do you have a number that I can call to reach Ben Wex? I want to subscribe to Scout but I don't want to use my card on the internet. You could always mail him a bearer bond via the pony express. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.