|
|
Post by playerparentcoach on Feb 26, 2014 13:25:48 GMT -5
Exactly... Hopper is a perfect example. Lavon Long was a 60 and his espn eval does not fit his game... it was done after the one look he got freshman year. There is a process to get the ranking. .. the best way to find out if the player is what you want is to watch them play... some coaches will see the skill in front of their face but wont recruit the kid if he is not ranked high enough... that is my problem with MD coaches and a few others... nothing wrong with the ranking being the reason you look... just need to trust your eyes more than the number next to the kids name is my point
|
|
$cott
Assistant Coach
Posts: 5,099
Dislikes:
|
Post by $cott on Feb 26, 2014 13:52:04 GMT -5
Exactly... Hopper is a perfect example. Lavon Long was a 60 and his espn eval does not fit his game... it was done after the one look he got freshman year. There is a process to get the ranking. .. the best way to find out if the player is what you want is to watch them play... some coaches will see the skill in front of their face but wont recruit the kid if he is not ranked high enough... that is my problem with MD coaches and a few others... nothing wrong with the ranking being the reason you look... just need to trust your eyes more than the number next to the kids name is my point ESPN did change their rating scale between 2011 and 2012 so you can't really compare them. Lavon's 60 would have been a 79 or 80 under the old system (still too low in my opinion but considering the Quinny guys not so bad). I think we can all agree he was a much better recruit than Hopper. |
|
|
|
Post by playerparentcoach on Feb 26, 2014 15:08:41 GMT -5
Exactly... Hopper is a perfect example. Lavon Long was a 60 and his espn eval does not fit his game... it was done after the one look he got freshman year. There is a process to get the ranking. .. the best way to find out if the player is what you want is to watch them play... some coaches will see the skill in front of their face but wont recruit the kid if he is not ranked high enough... that is my problem with MD coaches and a few others... nothing wrong with the ranking being the reason you look... just need to trust your eyes more than the number next to the kids name is my point ESPN did change their rating scale between 2011 and 2012 so you can't really compare them. Lavon's 60 would have been a 79 or 80 under the old system (still too low in my opinion but considering the Quinny guys not so bad). I think we can all agree he was a much better recruit than Hopper. And the fact that they never came back to change Lavon's is why I feel as I do...I am sure there are many more like him...and you wont get HM looks rated that low.. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 16:23:19 GMT -5
Tony great post. very interesting. What site can I go on to look up some MAAC players. interested in QPACS frontcourt players and how they wound up in NEC. I would imagine any MAAC team would love to have Drame, Azotam and Hearst. I agree the rankings are for the most part accurate and tell you where a player stands. I think I posted this earlier but heard Brad Winton from JUCO recruiting and he said a player is what his offers are. very few fall between the cracks which I agree with Drame was a 78, Azotam a 75, and Hearst a 79. Breeden (83), Brookins (90), Burdine (87), Silas (88), and Gomis (84) were all well ahead of them. They were well ahead of Poole as well who was only an 80. Hell Hopper was a 79. A lot of these ratings are crap but yes, in the overall picture you are more likely to be successful the higher rated you are. Doesn't mean there aren't a ton of highly rated guys that stink and lowly rated guys that turn into stars. have to look at whole picture Hopper had no scholarships offers in June- And ESPN was only one ranked him that high Breedan Brookins and Burdine numbers were from old ranking system - so dont confuse their numbers,,Breeden was rather low Brookins ranking was good as was Burdine |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 16:27:40 GMT -5
Exactly... Hopper is a perfect example. Lavon Long was a 60 and his espn eval does not fit his game... it was done after the one look he got freshman year. There is a process to get the ranking. .. the best way to find out if the player is what you want is to watch them play... some coaches will see the skill in front of their face but wont recruit the kid if he is not ranked high enough... that is my problem with MD coaches and a few others... nothing wrong with the ranking being the reason you look... just need to trust your eyes more than the number next to the kids name is my point Hopper had no D1 offers in June-- end of story on him..everyone but ESPN had him a D2 player-- As for MD coaches--- problem with them- they are not getting enough talent.. they are taking too many low ranked kids and its killing them- Terps do not have as much talent as the rest of ACC Like I said the ranking are far far from perfect... hard to judge a kids work ethic and some kids mature at later date than others- but make no mistake about it the ranking are right far more than wrong and one last thought D1 coaches are by far the best talent elevators- ( their jobs depend on it) as I pointed out all the kids that are going to be all MAAC almost all had multiple offers from some really good programs |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 16:30:15 GMT -5
ESPN did change their rating scale between 2011 and 2012 so you can't really compare them. Lavon's 60 would have been a 79 or 80 under the old system (still too low in my opinion but considering the Quinny guys not so bad). I think we can all agree he was a much better recruit than Hopper. And the fact that they never came back to change Lavon's is why I feel as I do...I am sure there are many more like him...and you wont get HM looks rated that low.. Lavon did not get high major looks because he is not a high major player-- not because of his ranking. Lavon had plenty of exposure. If Lavon was 2 inches taller he'd be a high major player. He has the skill set, not tall enough to play the 4 at BCS level and not quick enough to play 3 at BCS-- not what you want to hear-- but the truth |
|
|
|
Post by playerparentcoach on Feb 26, 2014 16:46:30 GMT -5
And the fact that they never came back to change Lavon's is why I feel as I do...I am sure there are many more like him...and you wont get HM looks rated that low.. Lavon did not get high major looks because he is not a high major player-- not because of his ranking. Lavon had plenty of exposure. If Lavon was 2 inches taller he'd be a high major player. He has the skill set, not tall enough to play the 4 at BCS level and not quick enough to play 3 at BCS-- not what you want to hear-- but the truth The reality is he was not ranked high enough to get the looks to be evaluated. There is a process that goes along with rankings... |
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Feb 26, 2014 16:51:24 GMT -5
Lavon is in a perfect position at Siena. With his skill set he can be a three-time all-MAAC player and score over 1500 points and grab 800 rebounds. He will become a great all-round player. He is the type of player that has made Siena great - BCS skills but not quiet the size to get signed by the blue bloods. I can't wait to see him lead Siena the next three years to many wins AND to the NCAA tournament!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 16:53:12 GMT -5
Lavon did not get high major looks because he is not a high major player-- not because of his ranking. Lavon had plenty of exposure. If Lavon was 2 inches taller he'd be a high major player. He has the skill set, not tall enough to play the 4 at BCS level and not quick enough to play 3 at BCS-- not what you want to hear-- but the truth The reality is he was not ranked high enough to get the looks to be evaluated. There is a process that goes along with rankings... If you can play they will find you-- the ranking on scout or Rivals does not determine what level you play. You have it backwards-- |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 16:54:33 GMT -5
PPC...Sorry but it is just not true Lavon did not get the looks to be evaluated. He played at MSJ which is a highly respected program and with other d-1 players. I understand you feel he was played out of position but the HM coaches are pretty good at what they do and even with Lavon playing the 5 at MSJ, these coaches can still see the skill set and athleticism of these kids and can project where they would fit at the HM level. I am also pretty sure these coaches also attend practices where they also evaluate the kids skills. Throw in the AAU circuit and these kids are evaluated at all kinds of situations and levels. Patsos has brought in a recruiting class with tons of potential, but quite frankly they are all playing at the right level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 16:57:48 GMT -5
Funny how these ESPN rankings didnt stop these kids from signing with ACC teams- how do you explain that- goes back to what I said if you can play- they will find you
VT Tech singed these kids last year
M. Kirby Center Signed 68
D. Wilson Point Guard Signed 64
Notre Dame
A. Torres Power Forward 70
Miami
C. Elder Point Guard Signed 66
J. Kelly Power Forward Signed 40
Clemson
S. Djitte Center Signed 67
I. Djambo Center Signed 40
|
|
$cott
Assistant Coach
Posts: 5,099
Dislikes:
|
Post by $cott on Feb 26, 2014 17:00:26 GMT -5
Drame was a 78, Azotam a 75, and Hearst a 79. Breeden (83), Brookins (90), Burdine (87), Silas (88), and Gomis (84) were all well ahead of them. They were well ahead of Poole as well who was only an 80. Hell Hopper was a 79. A lot of these ratings are crap but yes, in the overall picture you are more likely to be successful the higher rated you are. Doesn't mean there aren't a ton of highly rated guys that stink and lowly rated guys that turn into stars. have to look at whole picture Hopper had no scholarships offers in June- And ESPN was only one ranked him that high Breedan Brookins and Burdine numbers were from old ranking system - so dont confuse their numbers,,Breeden was rather low Brookins ranking was good as was Burdine Rankings were changed between 2011 and 2012 which is why I only used the guys on the old system which also corresponded with the years that the Quinnipiac guys were ranked so low. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 26, 2014 17:01:51 GMT -5
PPC...Sorry but it is just not true Lavon did not get the looks to be evaluated. He played at MSJ which is a highly respected program and with other d-1 players. I understand you feel he was played out of position but the HM coaches are pretty good at what they do and even with Lavon playing the 5 at MSJ, these coaches can still see the skill set and athleticism of these kids and can project where they would fit at the HM level. I am also pretty sure these coaches also attend practices where they also evaluate the kids skills. Throw in the AAU circuit and these kids are evaluated at all kinds of situations and levels. Patsos has brought in a recruiting class with tons of potential, but quite frankly they are all playing at the right level. one slight correction HM coaches are not pretty good at recruiting- they are best in the world- their jobs depend upon it. I agree with Jimmy's class- all solid Mid Major players that can grow and develop into very good players period-- lets face if If Wright had a jump shot now he wouldn't be at Siena - if he develops one watch out. LL if he was 2 inches taller he'd be at a BCS school , if he gets better outside shooter watch out- that's what I mean watch these kids develop- all are at the proper level and all have a good upside that's why I'm so excited about the class |
|
|
|
Post by playerparentcoach on Feb 26, 2014 17:05:31 GMT -5
PPC...Sorry but it is just not true Lavon did not get the looks to be evaluated. He played at MSJ which is a highly respected program and with other d-1 players. I understand you feel he was played out of position but the HM coaches are pretty good at what they do and even with Lavon playing the 5 at MSJ, these coaches can still see the skill set and athleticism of these kids and can project where they would fit at the HM level. I am also pretty sure these coaches also attend practices where they also evaluate the kids skills. Throw in the AAU circuit and these kids are evaluated at all kinds of situations and levels. Patsos has brought in a recruiting class with tons of potential, but quite frankly they are all playing at the right level. you can have your opinion but I know the facts. Lavon's skill set was not on display at MSJ so he was not evaluated corectly...he did not use his senior year nor did he want to prep...Patsos watched him play senior year after he signed with Loyola and saw his complete game on the HS stage. He was evaluated as an undersized post player by scouts and DI coaches prior to that... we had to do more to shake that tag...it is a process.. Lavon received letters from Big ten SEC ACC A10 Big East...etc while at MSJ but they were all waiting for him to grow... the main issue was can he defend on the perimeter... Lavon was never able to prove that due to how he played in HS.... this happens to alot of players...but if you are 6'8 or have a high ranking it will be overlooked and schools like MD will take you and roll the dice on you working out. |
|
|
|
Post by playerparentcoach on Feb 26, 2014 17:09:40 GMT -5
Funny how these ESPN rankings didnt stop these kids from signing with ACC teams- how do you explain that- goes back to what I said if you can play- they will find you VT Tech singed these kids last year M. Kirby Center Signed 68 D. Wilson Point Guard Signed 64 Notre Dame A. Torres Power Forward 70 Miami C. Elder Point Guard Signed 66 J. Kelly Power Forward Signed 40 Clemson S. Djitte Center Signed 67 I. Djambo Center Signed 40 these players either went to the right camps or played for the right HS or AAU teams....its part of the process...each situation is unique.. what we did was best for Lavon and I dont have any regrets...it was always about fit not highest offer... |
|
