2012 Basketball Recruiting Thread

[Greg_Newton]

Okay, he OBVIOUSLY has a bit more on his hops than Zoubek, but to completely ridicule my comparison to Zoubek based off of a highlight video is totally unfair... [snip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-AeS...eature=related


OMG Zoubs is dunking and blocking shots and scoring on crazy post moves on high schoolers!! That must mean he's easily capable of doing that in the ACC . . oh wait, he's playing against high schoolers.

Didn't meant to ridicule you - or beat a dead horse at this point - just meant to make it very clear that even pre-injury Zoubek was not comparable to McGary athletically.

Zoubek got a hand above the rim exactly three times in that highlight video, and his wrists above the rim zero times; he had three dunks that were the drop-the-ball-in-and-pull-the-rim-down-because-you're-not-quite-high-enough-to-throw-it-down kind after he had time to gather himself (and got about 6 inches off the ground), and several below the rim blocks. Again, that's simply not comparable to what McGary has showed.

I do think "rich man's Josh Harrellson" is a decent comparison though. I don't think anyone's expecting him to come in and be an all-american or anything, just to be a very effective, versatile, physical presence around the rim and generally intimidate and bully the other team. As you say, his offensive effectiveness could go either way, but his ability to seek out and finish through contact makes me tend to believe it will translate to the next level.

IMO, he'd be a terrific anchor that would make the rest of our weapons that much better.

[Kedsy]

Maybe another big man the staff is looking at: Adam Woodbury

http://www.zagsblog.com/2011/07/11/a...t-lebron-camp/

Here are some clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjXdwhpZa-E

If anything, this guy reminds me of high school Zoubs. Not alot of athleticism but has some post moves and will block a few shots just by being tall.

Actaully, Z looked a lot more athletic in his video than this kid does. He is tall, though. Having said that, if the staff is after this guy, I trust them to see his potential more than I trust what I see in a highlight video.

[jimsumner]

You people and your videos. Gonna drive me to drink.

[Kedsy]

You people and your videos. Gonna drive me to drink.

Well, here's my take on videos. First of all, you don't get much, if any, feel for the how the kid plays basketball, but you can get a feel for his athletic ceiling. I assume I'm seeing the best the kid has to offer in that department. If he looks amazing, I can't take too much away from that other than he has potential. If he looks pedestrian, on the other hand, I know not to expect very much from an athletic standpoint. If I see a 7 footer who doesn't dunk once in his highlight video against undersized high school kids, then I'm pretty sure he won't be dunking all that much against high major college competition. It's not much, but it's not nothing, either.

[roywhite]

Well, here's my take on videos. First of all, you don't get much, if any, feel for the how the kid plays basketball, but you can get a feel for his athletic ceiling. I assume I'm seeing the best the kid has to offer in that department. If he looks amazing, I can't take too much away from that other than he has potential. If he looks pedestrian, on the other hand, I know not to expect very much from an athletic standpoint. If I see a 7 footer who doesn't dunk once in his highlight video against undersized high school kids, then I'm pretty sure he won't be dunking all that much against high major college competition. It's not much, but it's not nothing, either.

Seems about right to me.

Hey, it's the off-season.
Videos and recruiting talk are morsels which sustain us.

[jimsumner]

Well, here's my take on videos. First of all, you don't get much, if any, feel for the how the kid plays basketball, but you can get a feel for his athletic ceiling. I assume I'm seeing the best the kid has to offer in that department. If he looks amazing, I can't take too much away from that other than he has potential. If he looks pedestrian, on the other hand, I know not to expect very much from an athletic standpoint. If I see a 7 footer who doesn't dunk once in his highlight video against undersized high school kids, then I'm pretty sure he won't be dunking all that much against high major college competition. It's not much, but it's not nothing, either.

Or maybe the seven-footer who doesn't dunk on his highlight video has edited it to show that he has other ways to score, that he doesn't have to dunk to put points on the board. Or maybe he can't dunk. We don't know from a highlights video.

It's not a track team. How excited would we have been over Jon Scheyer based on a highlights video? Or Trajan Langdon? I'm a lot more interested in how a player actually plays the game, how he understands the nuances of what he, his teammates and the opposition are actually doing and will be doing, the variety and depth of his skill set and how he uses it (or doesn't).

I can't tell any of those things from a highly edited ten-second video.

Duke made 1,048 field goals in 2009-10. 86 of those were dunks. Duke's best player that season had none of those dunks. High-flying Olek Czyz had two dunks. Imagine his video.

I've used this example before, so bear with me. David McClure was a valuable defender and rebounder for Duke, a versatile complementary player. But his offense was limited. He made six 3-pointers (out of 18 attempts) in his Duke career. He dunked exactly 17 times in 124 games.

But give a competent editor footage of those 3-pointers and those dunks and some footage of McClure scoring off the dribble, making some foul shots, etc. He/she could make a 30-second video of McClure dunking in transition, burying a 3, scoring off the bounce, calmly burying a freebie or two, dunking off an offensive rebound, hitting another 3.

Voila. A scoring machine. And not even close to the truth.

But no 30-second video could show what McClure actually did bring to the table, his understanding of team defense, his knack for the ball, his intelligence, his contributions to team cohesion.

I liken this to SportsCenter's top-10 plays. Fun and fascinating to look at. But most baskets aren't dunks, most at-bats don't end in home runs or highlight-reel catches, touchdowns are rare not common.

So, pardon my skepticism. Highlight videos don't tell me very much about a prospect, not the things that I want to know, not the things that tell me how much a player can contribute to the totality of Duke basketball.

My two cents.

[Indoor66]

You people and your videos. Gonna drive me to drink.

You deserve many pitchforks for that one! One video is worth 0 words and even less in evaluation perspective.

[House G]

You deserve many pitchforks for that one! One video is worth 0 words and even less in evaluation perspective.

I got your pitchfork:

[gumbomoop]

One video is worth 0 words....

I take no position in this mini-, and altogether civil, debate. But as to the aphorism that "A picture is worth a thousand words," it's always been my view that it very much depends on both the photo [painting, video, holograph, etc.] and the words. Shakespeare wrote some real good words.

[Starter]

So, pardon my skepticism. Highlight videos don't tell me very much about a prospect, not the things that I want to know, not the things that tell me how much a player can contribute to the totality of Duke basketball.

My two cents.

I'm guessing from recent discussions some people wouldn't think this, but I basically agree with this diatribe. What's not to agree with? It's why I go to as many area high school games as I can over the winter, to check out footwork and such and get a feel for how someone actually plays the game.

But then I watch a dreaded highlight video, and Austin Rivers' elbow is above the rim and he's doing windmills, when I've already watched full games and know he's an awesome player to begin with? I think it's okay to be excited about that too.

I'd say if people want to watch a highlight video and get all pumped up about it, it's not a huge issue. Everyone looks at things differently, even if some people remain more grounded -- justifiably in some cases, probably most cases -- than others. Then you watch a guy when he gets to Duke and figure out that hey, maybe Brian Zoubek isn't the second coming of UCLA Bill Walton after all -- at least, until it matters the absolute most. Or hey, maybe the fact that Olek Czyz has springs for legs didn't make his sub-100 ranking a mirage. It's all part of the learning process, and it's not like message board fans get to pick Duke's players anyway -- nor does our staff pick based on highlight videos, thankfully -- so no harm done.

I guess what I'm trying to say, from a guy who doesn't drink, don't let anything drive you to drink. And considering the magic a talented editor can work with McClure, they can edit my highlight video any time. (I measure out at about 5-foot-6 and specialize in one-man full-court defense)

[Kedsy]

Or maybe the seven-footer who doesn't dunk on his highlight video has edited it to show that he has other ways to score, that he doesn't have to dunk to put points on the board. Or maybe he can't dunk. We don't know from a highlights video.

True, we don't know. But in this day and age we can make a pretty good guess.

It's not a track team. How excited would we have been over Jon Scheyer based on a highlights video? Or Trajan Langdon?

Not sure. You ever see the video where Scheyer scored 21 points in 75 seconds?

I'm a lot more interested in how a player actually plays the game, how he understands the nuances of what he, his teammates and the opposition are actually doing and will be doing, the variety and depth of his skill set and how he uses it (or doesn't).

I can't tell any of those things from a highly edited ten-second video.

Well, I agree, and I said as much in my earlier post. But just because you can't see these things doesn't mean you can't see anything.

Duke made 1,048 field goals in 2009-10. 86 of those were dunks. Duke's best player that season had none of those dunks. High-flying Olek Czyz had two dunks. Imagine his video.

I've used this example before, so bear with me. David McClure was a valuable defender and rebounder for Duke, a versatile complementary player. But his offense was limited. He made six 3-pointers (out of 18 attempts) in his Duke career. He dunked exactly 17 times in 124 games.

But give a competent editor footage of those 3-pointers and those dunks and some footage of McClure scoring off the dribble, making some foul shots, etc. He/she could make a 30-second video of McClure dunking in transition, burying a 3, scoring off the bounce, calmly burying a freebie or two, dunking off an offensive rebound, hitting another 3.

Voila. A scoring machine. And not even close to the truth.

Yes, and again I said the same thing, albeit with less elegance. If a player looks great in his highlight video, the viewer has every reason to be skeptical. On the other hand, since in general people like their videos to reflect them in the best light, if the player doesn't look very good in his video, or very athletic, or very whatever-it-is-you're-looking for, either he had an incompetent film editor or he's not that good/athletic/whatever. The absence of certain plays is telling.

Put another way, if a ballhandler makes a defender fall over in his video, it doesn't tell us anything because we don't know the situation, don't know how often he did it, etc. But if he doesn't break any ankles in his highlight video, he probably doesn't have a killer crossover. Doesn't mean he can't handle the ball, but it gives us some small idea of his limitations, suggests he may not get to the hoop as easily in college as perhaps he did in high school.

But no 30-second video could show what McClure actually did bring to the table, his understanding of team defense, his knack for the ball, his intelligence, his contributions to team cohesion.

I liken this to SportsCenter's top-10 plays. Fun and fascinating to look at. But most baskets aren't dunks, most at-bats don't end in home runs or highlight-reel catches, touchdowns are rare not common.

So, pardon my skepticism. Highlight videos don't tell me very much about a prospect, not the things that I want to know, not the things that tell me how much a player can contribute to the totality of Duke basketball.

My two cents.

No question, but in many cases it's all we have.

It's ironic you and I are having this disagreement because (a) I almost always agree with you; and (b) I rarely look at highlight videos and I never make judgments about how well a guy plays basketball based on those videos.

But, again, just because a highlight video doesn't tell you the things you want to know doesn't mean it tells you nothing at all.

[jimsumner]

True, we don't know. But in this day and age we can make a pretty good guess.



Not sure. You ever see the video where Scheyer scored 21 points in 75 seconds?



Well, I agree, and I said as much in my earlier post. But just because you can't see these things doesn't mean you can't see anything.



Yes, and again I said the same thing, albeit with less elegance. If a player looks great in his highlight video, the viewer has every reason to be skeptical. On the other hand, since in general people like their videos to reflect them in the best light, if the player doesn't look very good in his video, or very athletic, or very whatever-it-is-you're-looking for, either he had an incompetent film editor or he's not that good/athletic/whatever. The absence of certain plays is telling.

Put another way, if a ballhandler makes a defender fall over in his video, it doesn't tell us anything because we don't know the situation, don't know how often he did it, etc. But if he doesn't break any ankles in his highlight video, he probably doesn't have a killer crossover. Doesn't mean he can't handle the ball, but it gives us some small idea of his limitations, suggests he may not get to the hoop as easily in college as perhaps he did in high school.



No question, but in many cases it's all we have.

It's ironic you and I are having this disagreement because (a) I almost always agree with you; and (b) I rarely look at highlight videos and I never make judgments about how well a guy plays basketball based on those videos.

But, again, just because a highlight video doesn't tell you the things you want to know doesn't mean it tells you nothing at all.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as defining points of emphases. As roywhite notes, it's summer. Some people look at videos, some people make absurdly long posts on message boards.

My screed wasn't so much directed at anyone on this board as towards the entire culture that celebrates style over substance. Zoubek's lay-ups were worth the same two points as someone else's dunks. I've read posts on other Duke boards in which posters have pronounced that McGary now should be Duke's top post priority over Tony Parker on the basis of nothing more than a few seconds of highlight videos.

And yes, I have seen the video of Scheyer scoring 21 points in 75 seconds. I don't recall any of those points being dunks. Horrors!

[Kedsy]

And yes, I have seen the video of Scheyer scoring 21 points in 75 seconds. I don't recall any of those points being dunks. Horrors!

Still, it did seem pretty exciting.

[dukeballboy88]

I may be on an island here but I aint feeling McGary just yet. Im skeptical about the guys that come out of nowhere and are now on everyones radar. I need to see more of him against top level comp!

[airowe]

I may be on an island here but I aint feeling McGary just yet. Im skeptical about the guys that come out of nowhere and are now on everyones radar. I need to see more of him against top level comp!

Yes, John Wall, Anthony Davis, Kyrie Irving are players we should all be weary of.

Derrick Williams as well.

[yancem]

Yes, John Wall, Anthony Davis, Kyrie Irving are players we should all be weary of.

Derrick Williams as well.

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm usually more excited about the recruit that sky rockets up the rankings late junior year early senior year than I am about the guys that start out ranked at the top in 8th grade. It seems like often the guys that are lighting it up as freshman often peak early while other catch up but they don't always drop in the rankings because the recruiting gurus either get lazy or don't want to admit that they misjudged.

Chris Burgess vs Elton Brand is an excellent example. Burgess was the top dog as a sophomore but seemed to peak but only dropped to 5-10 range while Brand wasn't so highly ranked early but really got noticed his senior year. While Burgess stopped progressing Brand was just beginning to tap into his potential. Knight vs Irving is another good example.

Now I'm not saying that an early high ranking is necessarily bad (Rivers and Gilchrist were early studs and I think they will continue to shine) I usually like the guy that is on the rise more than the guy who may be sitting on his laurels.

[DUKIE V(A)]

Actaully, Z looked a lot more athletic in his video than this kid does. He is tall, though. Having said that, if the staff is after this guy, I trust them to see his potential more than I trust what I see in a highlight video.

Agree with your assessment and about trusting the staff to make the right call. Looks like a very solid player with potential, but I am much more excited about McGary.

[DUKIE V(A)]

I may be on an island here but I aint feeling McGary just yet. Im skeptical about the guys that come out of nowhere and are now on everyones radar. I need to see more of him against top level comp!

Me thinks there is a reason he is on everyone's radar. There are very, very few guys that big and that skilled with his motor and attitude. He would be a huge get for any school.

[Faison1]

I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as defining points of emphases. As roywhite notes, it's summer. Some people look at videos, some people make absurdly long posts on message boards.

Jim...you could write 10,000 words on this forum, and I would read every single one of them. In fact, I wish your posts were longer! And more frequent!

[-bdbd]

I may be on an island here but I aint feeling McGary just yet. Im skeptical about the guys that come out of nowhere and are now on everyones radar. I need to see more of him against top level comp!

Whatever. Did you see the DBR frontpage link article? http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/...07024?sac=Home
The biggest thing about McG, and which draws the Hansborough caparisons, is his "boundless energy" - which is impossible tosee on a highlight video. A guy named Christian L. was someone like this who, though only ranked around 10th in his HS class, had tremendous competitiveness which drove him (and his teammatres) to fairly respectable heights in college... I never thought Hans-blah was always the most physically gifted kid on the floor (something definitely being borne out now in the NBA), but BOY did he have a motor. And like TH, McG doesn't seem the least bit affraid to do the dirty work under the basket. Gotta love the scrapper mentality. Duke has LOTS of history of success with late-risers like that.

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm usually more excited about the recruit that sky rockets up the rankings late junior year early senior year than I am about the guys that start out ranked at the top in 8th grade. It seems like often the guys that are lighting it up as freshman often peak early while other catch up but they don't always drop in the rankings because the recruiting gurus either get lazy or don't want to admit that they misjudged.

Chris Burgess vs Elton Brand is an excellent example. Burgess was the top dog as a sophomore but seemed to peak but only dropped to 5-10 range while Brand wasn't so highly ranked early but really got noticed his senior year. While Burgess stopped progressing Brand was just beginning to tap into his potential. Knight vs Irving is another good example.

Now I'm not saying that an early high ranking is necessarily bad (Rivers and Gilchrist were early studs and I think they will continue to shine) I usually like the guy that is on the rise more than the guy who may be sitting on his laurels.

Couldn't agree more. I recall when we first offered Kyrie (I think late in his Jr year) - one of our "insider" posters on here, either Mark W. or Airowee, excitedly announced the offer offer on this board - and I recall going over and looking at the Scout rankings at a "top-30" kid (and behind a couple other PG's!) and wondering what all of the fuss was about. K and staff know better about talent evaluation than all those wirters/evaluators put together!

I'm still getting a handle on Parker's fast rise up the rankings over the last year too, though I seem to get the sense he may have hit a plateau? I'd really love to see a couple of bigs in this class. We certainly seem to be looking great for some incredible talent in the 2012 class. Guess this K guy can recruit after all...