Recruiting - 2019

[slu72]

Robinson's story was fun to hear, and the message should be clear; life's tough because you never know when someone better is gonna come along and knock you down. It's called competition. In sports it's magnified. 

Why do the Patriots win year after year when the system is supposed to prevent that kind of dominance? Primarily it's because Belichek only cares about who can do the best job for the team. He doesn't give a hoot about releasing or trading a fan favorite if someone better comes along. D1 sports is no different. There's no crying in big time sports these days.

[Cincybill]

In this day in age you can't ever bank on long term because you never know who is going to stay/not pan out. You can think you are doing the right thing with development and playing time etc and they can leave anyway. If you pass on better players because of the potential of another, you run the rush of losing both. 

 

Get the best players you can and try to win now. 

[slu72]

13 minutes ago, NYBilliken said:

Good discussion. With increased transfer rate, it sounds like a coach should look to play a deep rotation to develop the entire roster, keep younger players from looking elsewhere and encourage recruits. This allows for fast paced offense and aggressive defense because regulars players would get more rest. Which is good because it increases opportunities to score - another factor players care about. Under this theory, a restricted rotation and slow paced games in this era might contribute to increased player turnover.  I have read here that Coach Ford historically has played a limited number of players even when he has more available - maybe he should change this ways to adapt to current era?

I think Ford may be forced to take your advice next year with as many first year players we're going to have. 

[kmbilliken]

Recruit the best players you can get. Play the players that give you the best chance to win. If a player on the bench isn't satisfied with his playing time, he needs to become one of those players that give the team the best chance to win. If he can't do that or doesn't want to do that, he can move on or ride out his career on the bench. 

[Coach314]

1 minute ago, kmbilliken said:

Recruit the best players you can get. Play the players that give you the best chance to win. If a player on the bench isn't satisfied with his playing time, he needs to become one of those players that give the team the best chance to win. If he can't do that or doesn't want to do that, he can move on or ride out his career on the bench. 

I think we're getting off topic slightly.  Obviously we want kids that are going to want to come in and compete but it's not going to be a starting 5 and bench full of 5* players either.  We're talking about roster construction and building a program for long term success.  Let's say Ford plays a 8-10 man rotation next year.  Do Hargrove, Perkins, Jimerson, Collins become a part of that rotation or does Ford bring in Grad transfers and risk losing out (by transfer) on a player or two because they weren't given the opportunity for playing time they were told would be available.  Recruiting for exiting players by graduating and transfer can be hard on any program especially without achieving a level of success while doing so.

[3star_recruit]

16 minutes ago, Cincybill said:

In this day in age you can't ever bank on long term because you never know who is going to stay/not pan out. You can think you are doing the right thing with development and playing time etc and they can leave anyway. If you pass on better players because of the potential of another, you run the rush of losing both. 

 

Get the best players you can and try to win now. 

We're already bringing in a top 3 recruiting class every year. Talent is not a problem. Retention is. VCU and Davidson don't have this issue. Guess who's at the top of the standings this year and will likely be ranked next year?

[bauman]

Just a few random thoughts about our next recruiting class:

If TF had not gone out and signed 2 GTs for this year then our available roster for the past 4-6 games would have been 5-yes 5- players. (Sorry Roy;  HF, DJF, JB, JG and FT).  I'm not going to go back to old threads to get exact dates, but I don't think Johnson's departure was because of TF adding TI and DW to the team.  JJ didn't play the same position as TI and if he was concerned about Wiley taking any of his SF (#3) minutes then he was missing the competitive nature needed to succeed at SLU.  The remaining losses from our full 13 player roster at the start of the year, had nothing to do with adding our 2 GTs---Welmer, Gordon, Santos, Thor, KCH and Jacobs, the last two unavailable due to injuries the last part of the season, would have all happened independent of adding TI and DW.

While not a big fan of TI due to his frustrating Hines-like turnovers and forced shots, the fact remains that without him we would have a few more losses than we do now and the case can be made that Wiley had a big impact in a couple of our wins.  My point is, for those of you arguing against the concept of GTs just be glad we had them this year.  Having said that, I think current circumstances -4 excellent incoming FR- make me want to add an Anthony+ type GT big, and a JUCO or regular transfer, leaving the 13th scholarship open (Sorry Willie) or give it to another GT or current roster walk-on.  This will go a long way to better balancing our roster classes, while not anticipating, make that NEEDING any roster losses to do that.  I know a few good posters say add as many FR to this class (3 as of now) and just know that only the strongest will survive.  I just don't want to bank on that possibility.  I think it is critical to have at least 2 known open scholarship available for the next recruiting class, which includes, just on the local level, Love, Kasubke (sp?) and Bradford, the Mehlville big. I think it is really important to be able to add Bradford, or another player of his type, in the 2020 class to be prepared for the next year when HF is gone.

[willie]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

yeah that 40 footer was something to remember.  pure shooter.

You got a chuckle out of me. 

[HoosierPal]

33 minutes ago, bauman said:

Just a few random thoughts about our next recruiting class:

If TF had not gone out and signed 2 GTs for this year then our available roster for the past 4-6 games would have been 5-yes 5- players. (Sorry Roy;  HF, DJF, JB, JG and FT).  I'm not going to go back to old threads to get exact dates, but I don't think Johnson's departure was because of TF adding TI and DW to the team.  JJ didn't play the same position as TI and if he was concerned about Wiley taking any of his SF (#3) minutes then he was missing the competitive nature needed to succeed at SLU.  The remaining losses from our full 13 player roster at the start of the year, had nothing to do with adding our 2 GTs---Welmer, Gordon, Santos, Thor, KCH and Jacobs, the last two unavailable due to injuries the last part of the season, would have all happened independent of adding TI and DW.

While not a big fan of TI due to his frustrating Hines-like turnovers and forced shots, the fact remains that without him we would have a few more losses than we do now and the case can be made that Wiley had a big impact in a couple of our wins.  My point is, for those of you arguing against the concept of GTs just be glad we had them this year.  Having said that, I think current circumstances -4 excellent incoming FR- make me want to add an Anthony+ type GT big, and a JUCO or regular transfer, leaving the 13th scholarship open (Sorry Willie) or give it to another GT or current roster walk-on.  This will go a long way to better balancing our roster classes, while not anticipating, make that NEEDING any roster losses to do that.  I know a few good posters say add as many FR to this class (3 as of now) and just know that only the strongest will survive.  I just don't want to bank on that possibility.  I think it is critical to have at least 2 known open scholarship available for the next recruiting class, which includes, just on the local level, Love, Kasubke (sp?) and Bradford, the Mehlville big. I think it is really important to be able to add Bradford, or another player of his type, in the 2020 class to be prepared for the next year when HF is gone.

A lot of good comments.  If Ford hadn't brought in 2 GT's, he would have brought in two more eligible players.  He wouldn't have gone into the season with 2 open scholarships. 

I have trouble being concerned about our 20-21 roster at this date in March, 2019.  If all of our players stay, and if we have no available scholarships, who's to say that is bad?   If we have a great run in 19-20, I think that retaining an experienced roster has a lot of advantages.  And the 21-22 roster, after French and Goodwin graduate, man that is waaay to far for me.  Over the past 10 seasons (teams) we have averaged 2.5 departures per year.  I want to win a ton of games between now and then and let the coaching staff figure that roster stuff out. 

RE Isabell, listen to the 10 minute interview he did yesterday on 101.1.  It won't change your opinion of his turnovers, but he certainly impressed me during the interview.

[billiken_roy]

1 hour ago, NYBilliken said:

Good discussion. With increased transfer rate, it sounds like a coach should look to play a deep rotation to develop the entire roster, keep younger players from looking elsewhere and encourage recruits. This allows for fast paced offense and aggressive defense because regulars players would get more rest. Which is good because it increases opportunities to score - another factor players care about. Under this theory, a restricted rotation and slow paced games in this era might contribute to increased player turnover.  I have read here that Coach Ford historically has played a limited number of players even when he has more available - maybe he should change this ways to adapt to current era?

if you look at the majority of the good D1 schools, they do not use a "deep rotation".   the likes of Virginia, duke, Marquette, Michigan, Michigan St, Texas Tech, k state, Nevada washington and tennessee all only have either 7 or 8 players with an average of 10 minutes played per game or more.   thats a lot of really good teams that dont play a deep rotation.  

way too much is made imo of the players playing big minutes.   they exert far more energy in most cases at a 2-3 hour practice than their 20-35 mpg.   add to the fact they are in their physical primes and in most cases superior physical condition, i have never bought the tired, burned out excuse for a college D1 player.   

[Cincybill]

40 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

We're already bringing in a top 3 recruiting class every year. Talent is not a problem. Retention is. VCU and Davidson don't have this issue. Guess who's at the top of the standings this year and will likely be ranked next year?

We lost our best prospect this year and he was starting. We lost our transfer center who had been at SLU for a full year. The point has nothing to do with talent at all. Kids leave for reasons more than just playing time sometimes. Coaches have to plan on losing an average of 2 non seniors per year nowadays. It's not ideal but it's the new reality.

[slu72]

1 minute ago, Cincybill said:

We lost our best prospect this year and he was starting. We lost our transfer center who had been at SLU for a full year. The point has nothing to do with talent at all. Kids leave for reasons more than just playing time sometimes. Coaches have to plan on losing an average of 2 non seniors per year nowadays. It's not ideal but it's the new reality.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading last year that there were 700+ players looking to transfer after last season. There are 352 D1 teams that comes to about 2 per team. So, we don't look too bad when measured against the rest of the nation. Again, correct me if my stats are not correct. Also, that 700 may include D2 or D3 kids looking to move up. Speaking of which, I'll wager there are some gold nuggets/gems in the rough among those D2 and D3 players looking to step up a level. Are they subject to the 1 year sit rule, or do they become immediately eligible?

[billikenbill]

33 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading last year that there were 700+ players looking to transfer after last season. There are 352 D1 teams that comes to about 2 per team. So, we don't look too bad when measured against the rest of the nation. Again, correct me if my stats are not correct. Also, that 700 may include D2 or D3 kids looking to move up. Speaking of which, I'll wager there are some gold nuggets/gems in the rough among those D2 and D3 players looking to step up a level. Are they subject to the 1 year sit rule, or do they become immediately eligible?

 Moving up you have to sit out a year, moving down you can play immediately.

[RiseAndGrind]

So... any new recruiting updates?

[Cincybill]

39 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading last year that there were 700+ players looking to transfer after last season. There are 352 D1 teams that comes to about 2 per team. So, we don't look too bad when measured against the rest of the nation. Again, correct me if my stats are not correct. Also, that 700 may include D2 or D3 kids looking to move up. Speaking of which, I'll wager there are some gold nuggets/gems in the rough among those D2 and D3 players looking to step up a level. Are they subject to the 1 year sit rule, or do they become immediately eligible?

The 700+ is only division 1 players. And it goes up every year. I'd say these last two years we kinda do look worse than most of the country when it comes to attrition but I don't think the situations we've had will be the norm. I think we move back to around the 2 per team average going forward. And I don't think the coaches will freak out about losing a few per year. It's part of the business and they understand how all of this works.

[cheeseman]

2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

We're already bringing in a top 3 recruiting class every year. Talent is not a problem. Retention is. VCU and Davidson don't have this issue. Guess who's at the top of the standings this year and will likely be ranked next year?

Why do you think they do not have this problem?

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

if you look at the majority of the good D1 schools, they do not use a "deep rotation".   the likes of Virginia, duke, Marquette, Michigan, Michigan St, Texas Tech, k state, Nevada washington and tennessee all only have either 7 or 8 players with an average of 10 minutes played per game or more.   thats a lot of really good teams that dont play a deep rotation.  

way too much is made imo of the players playing big minutes.   they exert far more energy in most cases at a 2-3 hour practice than their 20-35 mpg.   add to the fact they are in their physical primes and in most cases superior physical condition, i have never bought the tired, burned out excuse for a college D1 player.   

Roy,  actually out of the current AP top 25 there are a lot of teams that go pretty deep.  I think 10 mpg is a little high to make the cut on what is a rotation player.  Just using Conference games (when teams have set their rotations) and using 8 mpg, you get a bunch of teams that go 9 or more deep.  Wooford goes ten deep (9 of them at 12+ mpg),  UCF does 9 deep, Kansas goes ten deep all at over 10 mpg (it would have been 11 deep if Azubuike wouldn't have got hurt) FSU goes goes 10 deep (9 at over 11 mpg),  UK goes 9 deep, Gonzaga goes 9 deep, Purdue goes 10 deep, Houston goes 10 deep (all over 11 minutes), KSU goes 9 deep, Buffalo goes nine deep and Cincy goes 9 deep.

[moytoy12]

45 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Roy,  actually out of the current AP top 25 there are a lot of teams that go pretty deep.  I think 10 mpg is a little high to make the cut on what is a rotation player.  Just using Conference games (when teams have set their rotations) and using 8 mpg, you get a bunch of teams that go 9 or more deep.  Wooford goes ten deep (9 of them at 12+ mpg),  UCF does 9 deep, Kansas goes ten deep all at over 10 mpg (it would have been 11 deep if Azubuike wouldn't have got hurt) FSU goes goes 10 deep (9 at over 11 mpg),  UK goes 9 deep, Gonzaga goes 9 deep, Purdue goes 10 deep, Houston goes 10 deep (all over 11 minutes), KSU goes 9 deep, Buffalo goes nine deep and Cincy goes 9 deep.

And Mich St would be around 10 deep if not for injuries.  

[Littlebill]

17 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

And Mich St would be around 10 deep if not for injuries.  

And their best player playing for us 

[cgeldmacher]

15 hours ago, Coach314 said:

Hypothetically,  let's say Ford recruited Jimerson, Perkins, Hargrove and Collins with the promise of playing time being available.  They sign and Coach then brings in Grad Transfers that take those available minutes.  What are your thoughts on that?  Just curious 

My thought is how's that any different than if he brings in another freshmen who takes time away from them.  The guys named above will know that a GT will be gone in one year.  Two more freshmen will be competing with them, possibly, for all four years.

[Clock_Tower]

15 hours ago, Coach314 said:

Hypothetically,  let's say Ford recruited Jimerson, Perkins, Hargrove and Collins with the promise of playing time being available.  They sign and Coach then brings in Grad Transfers that take those available minutes.  What are your thoughts on that?  Just curious 

Coach 314

Good question.  My answer:  Probably they wouldn't feel the best, but Coach Ford could certainly them the truth -- that 3 guys were unexpectedly let go by Dr. P/SLU, that 3 more quit on the team this year and that a GT was brought in as a one (1) year stop gap to help the team from Day 1, that Ford still is counting on them to be the starter once they prove they are ready, that each of the incoming Frosh can beat out the GTs, and that if an incoming Freshman plays equal to (and of better than) the GTs, then Ford will play the Freshman over the GT.

My question to you. What are your thoughts if Ford signs Robert Carpenter and he turns out to be our starting 3 and Coach Ford's favorite player?

 

[kshoe]

So for those opposed to a grad transfer in this class, are you suggesting we hold a scholly or put all of them into freshmen or traditional transfers? Assuming you don't want to hold the scholly (why not take a grad transfer at that point), we will then have no seniors.

Are you then comfortable with us signing 1 or 2 players in the fall, knowing that the only way have a scholarship for them is if people leave. It's one thing to say there will be turnover and thus you need to keep recruiting. It's another to oversubscribe with signed LOIs which guarantees that people will have to leave. To date, I don't believe we've ever had more signed LOIs than schollys to give.

And finally, if you don't want to oversubscribe are you comfortable with no fall commitments next year?

[Taj79]

I don't like mercenaries ...... my mantra has always been about sustainability.  Someone made the analogy that Ford went the transfer route with Foreman, Bess, Henriquez and Graves as maybe a quick(er) fix than the full freshman route.  I got that.  Then S2 derailed that program and he had to get even riskier with the GT route.  I get that too.  But what I did also like was his attention to sustainment with the Thatch and Gordon signings .... augment with youth for development while the GTs hold sway.  This year's two GTs were different than last year's one.  Last year's was to provide cannon fodder and practice time.  And then Santos was also in the wings.  Then Santos gets booted, Gordon up and leaves, Thor sails home, Jacobs is an unknown and here we are.

We cannot have eight guys in the freshman class next year.  And I don't believe we bank a scholly either.  I am willing to drop my mercenary attitude and accept players as one-and-dones ...... I don't think we will need the Isabells and Wileys of the world to in essence "carry" us, but rather have guys who can give us a few minutes a game, decent competition in practice and help the team that way.  I want to see Goodwin, French, Thatch, Jacobs, Hankton, Perkins, Hargrove,. Bell, Collins and Jimerson be the Top Ten and develop, but if we need help, go get it from wherever.  I'll take Carpenter in a heartbeat.  I'd also take an Anthony with the group as well.  Having a serviceable somebody on the bench is always better than a Raboin, a Hightower or a Courtney.  I'm not asking for much ... nothing even as high as Bryce Husak in his prime at 5.5 ppg.  But something. 

[HoosierPal]

It doesn't matter how you slice up this recruiting class.  Get GT's, get normal transfers, or get all freshman.  One to three of the group of potential returning players will depart at the end of the season.  We have three departures this season and who knows if there will be more.  The last season we had 0 early departures (transfers, removals, pro league aspirations, etc.) was 2013-2014.  It may never happen again. 

[3star_recruit]

2 hours ago, kshoe said:

So for those opposed to a grad transfer in this class, are you suggesting we hold a scholly or put all of them into freshmen or traditional transfers? Assuming you don't want to hold the scholly (why not take a grad transfer at that point), we will then have no seniors.

Are you then comfortable with us signing 1 or 2 players in the fall, knowing that the only way have a scholarship for them is if people leave. It's one thing to say there will be turnover and thus you need to keep recruiting. It's another to oversubscribe with signed LOIs which guarantees that people will have to leave. To date, I don't believe we've ever had more signed LOIs than schollys to give.

And finally, if you don't want to oversubscribe are you comfortable with no fall commitments next year?

Get a high school big, a grad transfer big, a redshirt transfer and bank the last scholarship for 2020. We won't have any seniors next year but we'll have three the following year and two juniors. 

Attrition is gonna happen but as long as you keep the best players in this class we'll be fine.