Jump to content

Kelly Going to Iowa


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, how do we know who the Plan A recruits are? There are no doubt a few players that we know for a fact were fallback (Dixon, Drejaj), but other than that, how the hell do you know who a Plan A recruit is? I would classify Stemler as a Plan A recruit who got away...that was quite obvious. But YOU'RE plan A and BRAD's plan A could be vastly different.

Secondly, IMO, getting recruits to come as late as possibly on their visit list is a plus. The place you visit most recently is always at the forefront of your mind. I actually like that tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 last year ... TL and KL

2 this year DM and AK

I think all those were plan A recruits

the year before LM and DP were guys we wanted.

Now I don't have any idea why he can't get the top 50 player from San Diego.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly 3star.

or what if kevin lisch, tommie liddell and ian vouyoukas are all involved in a freak accident and miss substantial games. it is hard to blame the coach for that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or played in a league that wasnt destined for only one bid. both of bonner's junior and senior seasons should have been ncaa teams but our conference only dictated one bid then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we missed on either Tatum or Ahearn. Am I wrong or didn't we decide we didn't want them. If that is a miss ... think about how many times a year Coach K misses. Anyone who may have had an interest in Duke ... which is just about every big time player in the country. If Coach K chooses someone else and they turn out better is that a miss? You only have so many to give

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---Hardball, we are not a top 20 team.

agreed. We are not even a top 40 team--yet. though we are knocking on the door.

inch by inch it is a cinch. a few more year, a few more nice recruits-- this team is inching up toward that illustrious top 25.

ps-- name a team or 2 in the past 10-15 years that has broken into the top 20 and remained there, year in and year out? It rarely happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slu72 said, "Remember, it was UB who said a national championship was doable at SLU."

please refresh my memory as to the actual year that Brad promised to win a national championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i totally disagree with stemler being the plan A recruit for this past recruiting season. Maguire was obviously his first choice recruit for last season as he was verballed very early in the summer of 2005. stemler grew on soderberg.

previous to that, there was never any doubt that kevin lisch was his primary recruit for 2004. liddell was his primary recruit for 2003 but he had to wait a year for him. polk and meyer were also obviously primary recruits in 2003 as they verballed very early.

the previous two seasons (coach soderberg's first two years as head coach) is hard to say. if i remember correctly, brandon morris verballed very early. however he was the first casualty of the ncaa's academic rule change on juco transfers. but it was pretty obvious that morris was a primary target for 2002. i would bet that a big was also a target, and i doubt that frericks was his first choice. but as we all know, we rarely know who he is recruiting until after the fact.

the first season he really got the job so late and with the academic defections of jason edwin and randy pulley, he really had to scramble to complete his roster. i would guess that recruiting season was more a matter of taking what experience and size they could find.

that all said, it seems to me that coach soderberg has been pretty consistent about landing a primary target player and not having to use a throw back like romar and spoon often did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed. but your throwing that around makes it appear as though you expect a national championship yesterday when coach soderberg never committed to ever winning a national championship, only saying "why cant we?...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brian,

you can say tatum and ahearn were mistakes. i say they didnt fit with what coach soderberg wanted on the team. i have no problem with the fact we passed on both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you dr b it is a building process.

To answer your question: Gonzaga. It was a slow building process there. But they have now kept the same system in place thru three head coaches. The last two were promoted from within the system. That is the way you build a consistent top 20 program. I believe that SIUC is at the level now. I think Crieghton is also at the level too.

Could you imagine if Altman, before his time at CU, would have been hired here? The same people that whine about Brad, would have had a field day complaining about what a mistake it was hiring somebody who was a failure at K-state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we are not a Top 20 program but BS stated a week ago that is his number one goal. Top 20 programs consistantly get early commits BS rarely does unless of course you count KL and TL for the 1001 time.

For the recored if Knollmeyer was a Plan A recruit BS lost that battle as well. The only reason he is a Billiken is Synder and Mizzou asked him to go to a Prep school for a year and when he refeused both parties went their separte ways. As for McQ being a Plan A. If this is true we defintely need to make a change of leadership. SLU was the only D1 team that offered and he jumped on the offer.

As for as any of the top 3 getting hurt and how that would destroy our season that's what building a program is all about. Top 20 programs have injuries all the time and they have someone ready to step in. Not here we are ONE ,that's right, ONE injuriy away from a disaster of a year.

And as far as the thought of the last school for a recruit to visit being a plus you are totally incorrect. The first visits are always the most important unless you are a Top 100 recruit who can dictate the acceptance offer. Based on our recruits site visit dates they will either committ to another school prior to thier official visit or will be passed on and will become our Plan D,E,F,G.....

We do agree on a couple of things. We missed on Tatum and Ahearn. And we could have had either. Throw Shaw in while you're at it. I may be wrong but I think Shaw would have been a little better option (sarcasism)than Newbourne. I rather have Tatum than Polk. Tatum is taller and every bit as fast as Polk AND he is a better basketball player. Finally, if Ahearn who led the MVC in scoring can only play 15-20 minutes for your offensively challeged Billiken's....I say pass the kool-aid I'm getting thirsty!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They offered Shaw, he chose SIUC. Would you cut in to Kevin's or Tommie's playing time to find the extra minutes for Blake? You can't play him at the point, can't play at pf, and you can't play him at the 5. Tommie and Kevin were both better players at the end of the year than Ahearn. Just like to know where you would find the extra minutes few him? You seem to have all the other answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soderberg did not pick newborne over shaw as your post infers. newborne was plan c after grimes and shaw were gone.

the mistake, which i whole heartily agree was a soderberg mistake, was chasing grimes instead of shaw first. if i had to pick soderberg's biggest recruiting mistake, i would take the grimes/shaw misjudgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no love from me. who was he going to take minutes from last year? lisch, liddell, drejaj? his pt would have been limited to what danny brown and polk would have given him last year. and to be honest, unless it is as a short term zone buster and then out of there, i'd prefer brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an easy question.

I would have played TL at the point and KL on one wing and Ahearn on the other. I would have played JJ or Husak at the four (but would have prefered to have Shaw) and Ian at center. I would have made EVERY post entry pass from the wing thereby nullifing any double team on Ian. No team could double down off of either Ahearn or KL without paying a huge price. If the help came from the opposite side I would skip pass to the opposite wing for a 3 or dump to JJ/Husak for the dunk. Can you imagine how EASY it would be for Ian if teams could not double him. Ian could score at will one on one. Where would the help come from the defense with this line-up? I would also run Ahearn and KL of screens galore using Ian,JJ, or Husak and look for the 3 or if the defense cheats dump the ball inside for Ian.

Finally, as crazy as it sounds I would probably have Ahearn on the floor at the end of the games for his freethrow shooting. I know making freethrows at the end of games is overated but they probably would have help us more than a couple of times over the last couple of years.

Just a couple of random thoughts on how we would use a guy like Ahearn (or any other shooter for that matter).

Now all the kool-aid drinkers might not like these options because we would probably score in the 70's and 80's. The followers would not get to watch the great defensive schemes and game time strategy. Nor would we get to sit through those exciting 30 and 40 point games either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want Tommie being responsible for creating offense for Ahearn. Blake would have trouble creating his own shot in my Y league. Blake has always been a Blake first player. He had problems with his hs coach with his attitude. He is a lousy ball handler, terrible defender, and gives nothing on the boards. He couldn't be on the floor late in close games, his ball handling and his defense would allow it. His free-throw shooting doesn't help you if his man lights him up or if he turns it over. Look, I would like to have him on the team, but he would be coming off the bench. If you have watched him play at all over the past three years, you would know he has major holes in his game. This is the reason why he has been in and out of the starting line-up for MSU all three years he has been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have made it abundantly clear that you do not care for UB, his style of play or the job he has done recruiting. I sincerely do not understand why so much time is spent on this board agonizing over players that did not attend the University, regardless of the reasons why. When Coach speaks of National Championships, a top 25 program and consistent success within the existing framework, I think that his point is that if he doesn't believe it's possible, how in the heck can he convince the kids that are here that it is possible. IMO, progress has been made toward realizing Coach's goals, but perhaps a more appropriate analysis begins with whether the program is in better shape than it was when UB took over. So, again, let's review: we have broken ground on a new on campus arena, we out dueled some upper echelon programs in recruiting TL and KL, we have a all conference center who is likely to receive a great deal of national attention during the course of the season and we have potentially gained some real depth at forward for the next four years. While I find find your constant Miklasz-esque references to "drinking the kool aid" to be tiresome, I understand it reflects your perception of reality. There are, however, absolutely legitimate reasons to be upbeat about the prospects of this program. Of course,while we won't really know until they play the games, it is just as cheap to feel good about things in the here and now. I say, good luck and godspeed, boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want this to be an Ahearn discussion. You asked a question, I answered it and now you don't like the answer. You obviously have a problem with the Ahearn kid which is fine with me regardless of how ridiculous your position is. We as a group of Billiken supporters lose all creditability when the claim is made Ahearn would not have helped us. That is just nonsense. However with that being said....

I never said anything about Ahearn being a full time starter. Your statement was 15-20 minutes. AD started about half the games his junior year but still played almost 28 minutes a game. Clarke who was awful here played nearly 14 minutes.

Who said anything about TL creating offense just for Ahearn (I think KL is a better shooter), although isn't that what a point guard does. I could care less who TL creates for as long as he creates. I am tired of watching games in the 30 and 40's.

I can't really recall asking how good your Y league is but thanks for the useless information. I want another shooter. That's why the Stemler fiasco is still a reason to support change. If we had all the shooters we needed then I could maybe understand the whole wait and see seven evaluation period position but when Stemler had the goods for one of our major weaknesses and we WAIT to offer him that is a HUGE mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...