Recruiting - 2020 Class (Optimal Vision Class)

[Clock_Tower]

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

I think what gobillsgo is saying is that a big body to give our legitimate bigs a blow is better than no big body.  My counter to that is I rather have an undersized athletic forward  playing that role than Gillmann - basically your 6'6 jumping jack forward that goes D-2 out of McCluer North or Hazelwood Central every year.  At least you wouldn't be playing 4 on 5.

So GoBills is suggesting we recruits some guys to be contributors and others to be role players?  So maybe we use our next 4 recruits to land 2 contributors and 2 Gillmans ??  That’s why I said Thatch before. Even the best coaches have misses on their recruits. I would rather have our misses be the role players and keep striving for the best contributors possible. 

[3star_recruit]

25 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

So GoBills is suggesting we recruits some guys to be contributors and others to be role players?  So maybe we use our next 4 recruits to land 2 contributors and 2 Gillmans ??  That’s why I said Thatch before. Even the best coaches have misses on their recruits. I would rather have our misses be the role players and keep striving for the best contributors possible. 

I'm not against the idea of recruiting a role player. I'm just challenging the purpose of said role player.  That guy should be really good at something tangible - rebounding, lockdown defender, marksman. Just giving another guy a blow isn't good enough. We need to play 5 on 5 at all times.

[billiken_roy]

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

I'm not against the idea of recruiting a role player. I'm just challenging the purpose of said role player.  That guy should be really good at something tangible - rebounding, lockdown defender, marksman. Just giving another guy a blow isn't good enough. We need to play 5 on 5 at all times.

if the player recruited isnt someone that can be a 20+ minute guy, i would just as soon not use a 4 year player scholarship for someone that will sit at the end of the bench with the walkons.   i.e. give me a grad transfer like anthony.   however if that player at least has the potential to be a starter in a year or two, then fine sign the kid.   but we dont need to be signing the likes of thor that really showed no potential to leap ahead of thatch or even jacobs for a spot down the road.   that is a spot that might turn out to be a 4 year wasted scholarship and i would prefer not to tie up a scholarship for 4 years for that example.   

[gobillsgo]

6 hours ago, CBFan said:

No you’re way off.

Gillman quit basketball and like Jolly were not division 1 players.

Nuefeld is the only player that could have helped out for a few minutes a game however Neufeld was the lesser of the 3 evils and none of them should have been offered a scholarship.

This argument is so silly and shows how desperate some fans have become since the season has not turned out like we all hoped.  I would rather have a GT like Rashed Anthony because you have them for 1year and fills a void another Gillman, Jolly, or Neufeld takes up a scholarship for years and we ask ourselves why did we recruit that guy?

I’m enjoying what we have hope for 9 players to be healthy for the A10 tournament run that get us an automatic bid.  Our team never surrenders and can beat the top teams in the A10 if they have 9 players.

sometimes role players are needed for depth purposes. We’ve had seven or eight healthy players for like three years now. Don’t you ever get tired of that. NOWHERE did I ever insinuate I would take Gillmann over Thatch so I don’t know where that accusation even came from. That’s pure stupidity. I’m just saying there’s room on the roster for one or two guys who are simply just role players.  I don’t want Gillman getting significant minutes on the team. But five to eight minutes a game with the talent already on the roster would help.  You don’t think Gillmann wouldn’t have looked at least a little better if he was out there on the floor with French, Goodwin, Isabell, and Bess rather than Crawford, Agbeko, Aaron Hines, and Ash Yacoubou?

Jim Crews ruined role players for all of you. His biggest issue was that he recruited role players to be starters. Crawford, Yacoubou, Agbeko, etc. all would have been very serviceable playing alongside our current roster for ten minutes a game. It’s expecting them to be 30 minute per game guys that really bring out their inadequacies as players. 

Bringing up Jolly is just stupid. That guy wouldn’t have made the average intramural team. No one is advocating bringing back Brett Jolly. 

Did having McBroom and John Manning at the end of the bench playing 7-10 mpg hurt our team in 2013-14? If anything, I’d argue it helped keep the starters fresh for March. But the next year, when they were expected to be starters and 30 mpg guys, we really saw their flaws. 

In summary: you can’t fill a roster with role players, but there’s room for a couple on the team.  I’m tired of having 8 players every year. It’s wearing the team down and it’s easy to see if you’re not in denial. 

[Box and Won]

It was totally worth bringing up Jolly, if for no other reason than it gave Brian an excuse to post that gif of him clanking a shot off the top of the backboard.

[almaman]

We got 6-9 players who are role players already. From there down the bench anyone without a boot that game can do just as good filling your 7-10 mpg as Gilliam, better imo. Raboin has got to be for sure.

[Billiken4life5]

Interesting discussion but the spark that started it isn't true.  The kid from Trinity is nothing like Gillman.  Gillman's numbers were good but not great at Oakville going against very average competition.  The kid from Trinity has played well against the likes of Vashon, Chaminade, McCluer North, and Alton.  He moves better so gets a lot more done in transition.  One of the best shot blockers St. Louis has seen in a while with his timing and length.  He's got to put on muscle and refine his low post game but you can't teach tall. 

[billiken_roy]

17 minutes ago, gobillsgo said:

sometimes role players are needed for depth purposes. We’ve had seven or eight healthy players for like three years now. Don’t you ever get tired of that. NOWHERE did I ever insinuate I would take Gillmann over Thatch so I don’t know where that accusation even came from. That’s pure stupidity. I’m just saying there’s room on the roster for one or two guys who are simply just role players.  I don’t want Gillman getting significant minutes on the team. But five to eight minutes a game with the talent already on the roster would help.  You don’t think Gillmann wouldn’t have looked at least a little better if he was out there on the floor with French, Goodwin, Isabell, and Bess rather than Crawford, Agbeko, Aaron Hines, and Ash Yacoubou?

Jim Crews ruined role players for all of you. His biggest issue was that he recruited role players to be starters. Crawford, Yacoubou, Agbeko, etc. all would have been very serviceable playing alongside our current roster for ten minutes a game. It’s expecting them to be 30 minute per game guys that really bring out their inadequacies as players. 

Bringing up Jolly is just stupid. That guy wouldn’t have made the average intramural team. No one is advocating bringing back Brett Jolly. 

Did having McBroom and John Manning at the end of the bench playing 7-10 mpg hurt our team in 2013-14? If anything, I’d argue it helped keep the starters fresh for March. But the next year, when they were expected to be starters and 30 mpg guys, we really saw their flaws. 

In summary: you can’t fill a roster with role players, but there’s room for a couple on the team.  I’m tired of having 8 players every year. It’s wearing the team down and it’s easy to see if you’re not in denial. 

the wrong in your above post is giving gillmann any credit.  jolly was likely more serviceable than gillman.  but that is like asking do you want to be poked in the eye with a stick or hit upside the head with a brick.  they both should have never wore a billiken.   

[cgeldmacher]

Here's where I agree with 05's original point on this.  Right now, every guy Ford signs is a guy who thinks he's going to be playing immediately.  When that doesn't happen, the guys we bring in are not prepared to develop into roll players, but would rather transfer.  We already lost Ingvi this season for, presumably, lack of perceived present and future playing time.  I'm worried that we are going to lose Jacobs as well.  Who knows, maybe Hankton see the guys coming in and says it's time for him to leave too.  This strategy leaves us short handed every year.

I would rather that Ford look at two star recruits that he knows can be solid role players and that will be loyal to the program and stay here for four years, than bring in a three star guy that will transfer as soon as he thinks he's being recruited over.  Every coach on every team tries to recruit over their current players.  It's how college basketball works.  If the the three star guys you bring in are going to be offended by that and leave, then I'd rather consider bringing in one solid two star player ever year that you know will stick around and contribute at some point from the bench.

I am not saying that you bypass anyone who the coach thinks can turn into a star or starter.  I am saying that we should pass on guys that aren't that for guys that will be loyal.

 

[billiken_roy]

4 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Here's where I agree with 05's original point on this.  Right now, every guy Ford signs is a guy who thinks he's going to be playing immediately.  When that doesn't happen, the guys we bring in are not prepared to develop into roll players, but would rather transfer.  We already lost Ingvi this season for, presumably, lack of perceived present and future playing time.  I'm worried that we are going to lose Jacobs as well.  Who knows, maybe Hankton see the guys coming in and says it's time for him to leave too.  This strategy leaves us short handed every year.

I would rather that Ford look at two star recruits that he knows can be solid role players and that will be loyal to the program and stay here for four years, than bring in a three star guy that will transfer as soon as he thinks he's being recruited over.  Every coach on every team tries to recruit over their current players.  It's how college basketball works.  If the the three star guys you bring in are going to be offended by that and leave, then I'd rather consider bringing in one solid two star player ever year that you know will stick around and contribute at some point from the bench.

I am not saying that you bypass anyone who the coach thinks can turn into a star or starter.  I am saying that we should pass on guys that aren't that for guys that will be loyal.

 

i hate creaming a roster as much as anyone.   it was my biggest b!tch with rickma.   however in this case it seems to be the doing of the players not the coach.   bring in 4-6, keep 2-3 repeat.   not my favorite way to build a roster, but cant deny it worked for rickma.   let it play out.   

[almaman]

Do you think these roll players populate any bench amongst this week's top 25? No coach wants less than the top 13 players on earth if they had their way and we fans should be the same. We've spent decades accepting what we have to. Some how TF has for the last 3 years been a Player when it comes to harvesting studs. If all the bad sh*t with losing players hadn't happened last 2 seasons  our roll players would be past coaches here starters talent wise. 

[johnbj14]

On 2/28/2019 at 9:44 AM, Littlebill said:

Started Mardi Gras festivities early I see? You can't be serious

Gillmann is legitimately the worst Billiken of my lifetime.

I don't have it handy but the Brett Jolly floater over the backboard would like a word about worst Billiken. 

[Littlebill]

2 minutes ago, johnbj14 said:

I don't have it handy but the Brett Jolly floater over the backboard would like a word about worst Billiken. 

This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Gillmann had more opportunity to be terrible, IMO. Showcase his skills, if you will

[cgeldmacher]

10 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i hate creaming a roster as much as anyone.   it was my biggest b!tch with rickma.   however in this case it seems to be the doing of the players not the coach.   bring in 4-6, keep 2-3 repeat.   not my favorite way to build a roster, but cant deny it worked for rickma.   let it play out.   

That's a way to do it.  It might also work.  I'm just saying replace one three star recruit each year with a guy you think is an under recruited two star that will stick around.  The two star guys you bring in may just all turn out better than the last three star guy you get.  If they turn out to be serviceable, they will definitely be a better benefit to the program than a three star guy that transfers after his freshman year.  If you have four of these guys in the program at any moment, you still have plenty to scholarships to give away to guys you think can turn into big stars.  This strategy just provides some stability and roster depthy.

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

Here's where I agree with 05's original point on this.  Right now, every guy Ford signs is a guy who thinks he's going to be playing immediately.  When that doesn't happen, the guys we bring in are not prepared to develop into roll players, but would rather transfer.  We already lost Ingvi this season for, presumably, lack of perceived present and future playing time.  I'm worried that we are going to lose Jacobs as well.  Who knows, maybe Hankton see the guys coming in and says it's time for him to leave too.  This strategy leaves us short handed every year.

I would rather that Ford look at two star recruits that he knows can be solid role players and that will be loyal to the program and stay here for four years, than bring in a three star guy that will transfer as soon as he thinks he's being recruited over.  Every coach on every team tries to recruit over their current players.  It's how college basketball works.  If the the three star guys you bring in are going to be offended by that and leave, then I'd rather consider bringing in one solid two star player ever year that you know will stick around and contribute at some point from the bench.

I am not saying that you bypass anyone who the coach thinks can turn into a star or starter.  I am saying that we should pass on guys that aren't that for guys that will be loyal.

 

I actually agree with this. I think offering Jimmy Bell Jr is a good example. He's like the fifth option on a loaded prep team. And he's a late bloomer. The concept of playing a role is not foreign to him. He won't be discouraged by playing reduced minutes for a couple of years.

But guys who have been the man all their lives -- yeah it's common for them to struggle with being the 10th man in a 9 man rotation. In fact, it's to be expected.

[cgeldmacher]

12 minutes ago, almaman said:

Do you think these roll players populate any bench amongst this week's top 25? No coach wants less than the top 13 players on earth if they had their way and we fans should be the same. We've spent decades accepting what we have to. Some how TF has for the last 3 years been a Player when it comes to harvesting studs. If all the bad sh*t with losing players hadn't happened last 2 seasons  our roll players would be past coaches here starters talent wise. 

I think that top 25 teams have deeper benches than we have full of guys that actually stick around.  I know that is true.  Again, the difference between a three star like Jacobs (who honestly has never showed me anything, including much to get excited about during his AAU time), and an under recruited two star that a coach thinks could become a very solid player is not that much.

[Clock_Tower]

Anyone remember Clyde Duncan and Bill Bidwell’s strategy of using his 1st round draft choice on an obvious non-first round pick (obvious to everyone but Clyde Duncan himself) and then offering him 2nd or 3 round money?  Didnt work - a nearly full year holdout occurred. 

Same flaw here.  2 star, 3 star, etc means nothing.  Many 2 stars do much better than 3 star guys.  The entire premise is flawed from the start.  2 star recruits will not accept “role player” status and be docile, depth filling teammates.  This argument is absurd.

But assuming the argument is valid, who should we not have recruited to make way for these 2 star, short minute, loyal guys?

 

[DirtyRican]

Pistol-any movement on Jayce Catchings?  All I heard is the SEMO offer.

[johnbj14]

Found the best floater of all time. 

 

[thetorch]

7 hours ago, dlarry said:

Gillman and Neufield?

Goodness gracious. This year hasn’t gone as planned but the Bills are still a decent Diviosn 1 college team. There is never a need to bring back players of their caliber.

Why don’t we bring back Jolly too?

Every month or so this gif or the other stepback airball 3 gif needs to be posted along with a proclamation that Jolly is the worst Billiken of all time to remind us of the depths that fell to and where we have come since then.

Ugggh even when the ball is bouncing off the shot clock brace it still looks like Jolly believes it has a chance to go in.

@The House That Rick Built @billikenfan05 can we get Jolly on the pod?  If possible can it be a live show with an audience?  I have a lot of questions to ask him.  I'd let you do the show at my work.

[Pistol]

28 minutes ago, DirtyRican said:

Pistol-any movement on Jayce Catchings?  All I heard is the SEMO offer.

Nothing new that I'm aware of recruiting-wise. He's averaging 26.7 PPG, second in the metro area (Chris Hill from Brentwood averages 27.3), but his season just ended against Ft. Zumwalt South in districts. He scored just 13 in each of Liberty's last two games. He did just pass 1,000 points for his career, though.

SEMO is still the only offer. He should be interesting to monitor this spring/summer AAU season.

[Box and Won]

19 minutes ago, thetorch said:

Every month or so this gif or the other stepback airball 3 gif needs to be posted along with a proclamation that Jolly is the worst Billiken of all time to remind us of the depths that fell to and where we have come since then.

Ugggh even when the ball is bouncing off the shot clock brace it still looks like Jolly believes it has a chance to go in.

@The House That Rick Built @billikenfan05 can we get Jolly on the pod?  If possible can it be a live show with an audience?  I have a lot of questions to ask him.  I'd let you do the show at my work.

[billikenfan05]

22 minutes ago, thetorch said:

Every month or so this gif or the other stepback airball 3 gif needs to be posted along with a proclamation that Jolly is the worst Billiken of all time to remind us of the depths that fell to and where we have come since then.

Ugggh even when the ball is bouncing off the shot clock brace it still looks like Jolly believes it has a chance to go in.

@The House That Rick Built @billikenfan05 can we get Jolly on the pod?  If possible can it be a live show with an audience?  I have a lot of questions to ask him.  I'd let you do the show at my work.

I'll kick the tires on that.

[Pistol]

The hardest thing about that Jolly shot gif is the score. I remember watching that game, being down 30 or so, and then that shot. I was in my kitchen making dinner and considered dumping a pot of almost-done chili on my laptop.

[gobillsgo]

19 minutes ago, Box and Won said:

I like how after the release, he back pedals a few steps like the shot is going in. Still not as good as the hand clap after the over the backboard layup.