DeAndre Daniels recruitment

[Duke: A Dynasty]

The RSCI is a combination of all the major rating services. According to that site, DeAndre is rated #9 by Rivals, unranked by ESPN, #19 by Prep Stars, #34 by Dave Telep, #17 by Hoopmasters, #22 by Rob Harrington, and #29 overall.

Now, those ratings are from last summer, so it's possible DeAndre has moved up. It's also possible he hasn't; we'll have to wait and see what the final ranking looks like when it comes out. However, it would seem both the #9 from Rivals and the unranked from ESPN are outliers. The truth would seem to be in the mid-20s.

Of course I'll be happy if we get him, and I'm waiting to see if the experts think he had a breakthrough in his post-graduate year, but if his ranking stays the same he's not quite as highly regarded as Lance Thomas (#20) was coming out of high school. Which says to me he'll be a good rotation player and possibly a star in his upperclass years, but is not a true threat to start as a freshman.

So, we'll see. First he has to commit to Duke, then we'll see whether the experts think he's a lot better now than he was a year ago. Then we can talk about the rest of it.

Lol ok I just realized something and it may change your mind and others as well on how he is rated. I thought that his ratings were a little off so I checked out how they ranked the guys and I came across this:

"Some experts include 5th year and prep school players in their top 100 lists and other don't. This means that a really great 5th year player might be ranked #10 by one expert and not listed at all by the others, thereby dropping his RSCI ranking dramatically. In other words, RSCI rankings of 5th year players aren't worth much."

In case someone does not understand Daniels fits that description being a 5th year senior at IMG. More incredibly is that he is still ranked 29th by RSCI with espn being excluded.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

I don't think you can make ironclad judgments about that based on recruiting rankings.

As noted above, if you look at Daniels' rankings based on the 5 of 6 RSCI components that were allowed to rank him, he comes out around 20th in the class.

Here's some of the guys ranked in that range in the last two classes who turned out to be impact players, even in their freshman/sophmore years (even if not "stars" yet):

2010
18 Josh Smith, UCLA
19 Patric Young, Florida
22 Ryan Harrow, NC State
24 Jereme Richmond, Illinois
25 Kendall Marshall, North Carolina
26 Doron Lamb, Kentucky
27 Adreian Payne, Michigan State
28 Roscoe Smith, Connecticut
33 Terrance Ross, Washington

2009
18 Mason Plumlee
19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky
20 Dominic Cheek, Villanova
21 Milton Jennings, Clemson
22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas
23 Maalik Wayns, Villanova
24 Dexter Strickland, North Carolina
25 Elijah Johnson, Kansas
26 Lorenzo Brown, NC State
27 Peyton Siva, Louisville
28 Thomas Robinson, Kansas
29 John Jenkins, Vanderbilt
32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA
33 Durand Scott, Miami.

There's alot of very good, contributing, players in those ranges from the RSCI lists. I'd have to feel pretty good about getting a guy like Daniels ranked in that area.

And, just as reminder of how recruiting rankings are not the be-all and end-all, here's a few guys who were far, far down the list of RSCI's "consensus" rankings. Think they can play?

2010
59 Tarik Black, Memphis
75 Shabazz Napier, Connecticut
78 Jeremy Lamb, Connecticut (!)

2009
46 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego St.
52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky
86 Devin Booker, Clemson
99 Khris Middleton, Texas A&M
100 DERRICK WILLIAMS, USC/Arizona!

I did not check all of those out but the ones I did (Derrick Williams, Jeremy Lamb, Shabazz Napier) also were missing inputs from services like Daniels.

[FireOgilvie]

Daniels has definite NBA potential. From what I have seen, he could eventually be a lot like Jordan Hamilton of Texas. I think that the current roster would actually be well-suited for him to come in and make a significant impact his freshman year. I believe he could come in immediately and at least have a role like Roscoe Smith this year at UCon (6 pts, 5 rebounds and 1 block per game).

[Greg_Newton]

The RSCI is a combination of all the major rating services. According to that site, DeAndre is rated #9 by Rivals, unranked by ESPN, #19 by Prep Stars, #34 by Dave Telep, #17 by Hoopmasters, #22 by Rob Harrington, and #29 overall.

Now, those ratings are from last summer, so it's possible DeAndre has moved up. It's also possible he hasn't; we'll have to wait and see what the final ranking looks like when it comes out. However, it would seem both the #9 from Rivals and the unranked from ESPN are outliers. The truth would seem to be in the mid-20s.

ESPN doesn't rank him because they don't rank post-graduate players. If you factor out the ESPN non-ranking, he clocks in at 18/19.

There does seem to some disconnect with his rankings; a lot of (informed) people talk about him as a potential one-and-done, and say that he'll have a good shot at starting from day 1, which would imply a top 10-15 talent. I think some of it might have to do with him being a post-grad player, but who knows really. It'll be very interesting to see how much of an impact player he is next year.

[Nugget]

[/B]

I did not check all of those out but the ones I did (Derrick Williams, Jeremy Lamb, Shabazz Napier) also were missing inputs from services like Daniels.

I think all of those guys (except possibly Napier) were regular high schoolers, so the "missing inputs" means they were not ranked in the top 100 by the given service, not that they were ineligible to be ranked.

But, in any event, if you just look at the averages for those guys from the services that included them in their top 100, the point is still valid.

Here's the ones of most interest:

2010
Shabazz Napier (RSCI #75; ranked in 5 of 6 services - numerical average 73rd)
Jeremy Lamb (RSCI #78; ranked in 5 of 6 services - average of 74th)

2009
Kawhi Leonard (RSCI #48; ranked in all 6 services, highest #40, lowest #70)
Khris Middleton (RSCI #99; ranked in 5 of 6 services - average of 81st)
Derrick Williams (RSCI #100; ranked in 4 of 6 services - avg. of 76th, highest was #56)

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Would also like to add that if you just read the strengths and weaknesses for Daniels by espn you would notice that if he were ranked by them it would be fairly high.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...yer/_/id/56932


excellent size and length
one of the elite scorers in the country
score in a variety of ways
great speed
shot is smooth and his release is effortless
potent shooting in transition
He can op to shoot or drive
does a good job of rebounding at both ends of the floor

When the words associated with him are Excellent, Elite, Variety, Great, Smooth, Effortless and Potent when describing aspects of his game that is awesome. Not to mention he has been heavily recruited by Kansas and Kentucky who do not go after the ordinary talent themselves says a lot about how good he really is.

Those descriptions are usually reserved for top players in a class.

[rotogod00]

He is only unranked by espn because he reclassified late. So lets leave off espn all together then. so his rankings then are: 9, 17, 19, 22, 29 and 34 which averages about 22 if you round up.

Like I said earlier, a 95 grade/4-star rating places him between 41 and 58. And yes, you can use those ratings as they are updated through today.

[FellowTraveler]

Would also like to add that if you just read the strengths and weaknesses for Daniels by espn you would notice that if he were ranked by them it would be fairly high.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...yer/_/id/56932


excellent size and length
one of the elite scorers in the country
score in a variety of ways
great speed
shot is smooth and his release is effortless
potent shooting in transition
He can op to shoot or drive
does a good job of rebounding at both ends of the floor

When the words associated with him are Excellent, Elite, Variety, Great, Smooth, Effortless and Potent when describing aspects of his game that is awesome. Not to mention he has been heavily recruited by Kansas and Kentucky who do not go after the ordinary talent themselves says a lot about how good he really is.

Those descriptions are usually reserved for top players in a class.

I notice you only listed strengths. Weaknesses include "a slender frame that may struggle to add significant muscle to bang at the next level ... lack of strength... far too often he takes bad shots and displays very little effort to get his teammates good looks...will repeatedly make a bad decision either leading to a forced shot or a turnover."

I don't know anything about Daniels that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but I think it's important to understand that cherry-picking adjectives is an ineffective way to assess whether someone is a "top player in a class."

ESPN ranks LaQuinton Ross #50 in the class of 2011. Let's see how he looks if we just list positive adjectives from ESPN's profile: "loaded with talent...excellent size, skill and can take over the game...sweet stroke from three, mid range pull ups and athletic finishes at the rim...can post smaller defenders and score over them with his length and touch around the basket...an excellent open court ball handler and willing passer...as talented and skilled as any player in the class of 2011."

[FireOgilvie]

Here's a video with a few clips of Daniels playing in Cameron:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9-7i...eature=related

[Greg_Newton]

I notice you only listed strengths. Weaknesses include "a slender frame that may struggle to add significant muscle to bang at the next level ... lack of strength... far too often he takes bad shots and displays very little effort to get his teammates good looks...will repeatedly make a bad decision either leading to a forced shot or a turnover."

I don't know anything about Daniels that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but I think it's important to understand that cherry-picking adjectives is an ineffective way to assess whether someone is a "top player in a class."

ESPN ranks LaQuinton Ross #50 in the class of 2011. Let's see how he looks if we just list positive adjectives from ESPN's profile: "loaded with talent...excellent size, skill and can take over the game...sweet stroke from three, mid range pull ups and athletic finishes at the rim...can post smaller defenders and score over them with his length and touch around the basket...an excellent open court ball handler and willing passer...as talented and skilled as any player in the class of 2011."

To be fair, LaQuinton Ross is really, really good.

I'm not saying to ignore rankings here, but sometimes other things are more telling - the rumblings about Daniels among people I generally trust to have been very positive (will definitely compete for a starting spot right away, probably a one-or-two and done, etc), and the fact that his other main suitors were Kansas, Texas and UK.

For some perspective: two years ago, Jeremy Lamb was the #~43 SG in his class, and Derrick Williams was a 6'7 195 beanpole that was the #32 PF. When there's some discrepancy in how good prospects are, I tend to go with the coaches... I think it seems pretty safe to say Daniels is a player.

[Bluedevil114]

To be fair, LaQuinton Ross is really, really good.

I'm not saying to ignore rankings here, but sometimes other things are more telling - the rumblings about Daniels among people I generally trust to have been very positive (will definitely compete for a starting spot right away, probably a one-or-two and done, etc), and the fact that his other main suitors were Kansas, Texas and UK.

For some perspective: two years ago, Jeremy Lamb was the #~43 SG in his class, and Derrick Williams was a 6'7 195 beanpole that was the #32 PF. When there's some discrepancy in how good prospects are, I tend to go with the coaches... I think it seems pretty safe to say Daniels is a player.

Agreed!! Shelvin Mack was a 2 star SG not rated and Gordon Hayward was a 2 star SF both not rated in the 2008 class. Matt Howard was a three star not rated PF in the 2007 class. Rankings are not always accurate. A player with talent and more important is their heart and dirve to become better players. Butler did ok.

[Kedsy]

There's alot of very good, contributing, players in those ranges from the RSCI lists. I'd have to feel pretty good about getting a guy like Daniels ranked in that area.

And, just as reminder of how recruiting rankings are not the be-all and end-all, here's a few guys who were far, far down the list of RSCI's "consensus" rankings. Think they can play?

I think your observations miss the point. Sure there are always guys who weren't highly ranked who turn out to be good players. That happens every year, but they are the exception.

The question is what can we expect from a guy who is probably ranked around 20th or a little worse, around where Lance Thomas was ranked and worse than Ryan Kelly and Mason Plumlee. Sometimes guys like that become NBA players; occasionally they can be major contributors their freshman year. But most of the time a player in this range needs work before he can start and/or play big minutes for a program of Duke's stature. While it's possible that he does, I don't think we should expect DeAndre to start his freshman year (assuming he chooses to come to Duke), on a team with a fair amount of experienced talent; a more reasonable expectation would be his sophomore or junior season. That could change if he's made a huge jump and has become a top ten player, but if he hasn't, why talk about him as if he's locked into the starting lineup? That's all I'm saying.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

I notice you only listed strengths. Weaknesses include "a slender frame that may struggle to add significant muscle to bang at the next level ... lack of strength... far too often he takes bad shots and displays very little effort to get his teammates good looks...will repeatedly make a bad decision either leading to a forced shot or a turnover."I don't know anything about Daniels that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but I think it's important to understand that cherry-picking adjectives is an ineffective way to assess whether someone is a "top player in a class."


ESPN ranks LaQuinton Ross #50 in the class of 2011. Let's see how he looks if we just list positive adjectives from ESPN's profile: "loaded with talent...excellent size, skill and can take over the game...sweet stroke from three, mid range pull ups and athletic finishes at the rim...can post smaller defenders and score over them with his length and touch around the basket...an excellent open court ball handler and willing passer...as talented and skilled as any player in the class of 2011."

I just wanna clear this up real quick. I was not cherry-picking those out and leaving off the weaknesses for no reason. Let me put it like this with a comparison with Ross since you named him.

Ross:
"loaded with talent"- This goes for any and every top 100 recruit and they used this line as a filler and attention grabber for the reader. This does not mean a whole lot.

"excellent size"- No problem here because this is spot on. He is 6'8" and plays SF there will not be many guys taller than him.

"can take over a game"- Here is another phrase you have to be warry of. This means that he is capable of dropping big numbers and what not but he is not going to do it all that often. He has done it defore but has some consistency issues potentially in this area. He is not quite the game changer yet.

"sweet stroke from three"- Can generally hit the three with some consistency.

"finishes at the rim"- He goes hard to the rim is all this means. He doesnt usually fall down when contact is made and can get te buckett. This is usually very underrated but leads to easy and ones.

"can post smaller defenders..." He can post players but only if he has a significant size advantage. He needs to hone this natural ability to make it work on larger guys. Should be a point of emphasis in college.

"excellent open court ball handler"- Simply means he can dribble well if played losely but probably has trouble with a man playing tight to moderate.


Now let me break down how words were used on DD:

"skilled SF with excellent size and length"- Now I know this is similar to what was said for Ross but there are two large changes. 1) The word skilled here could imply he comes with a natural set of instincts for the game and is good at multiple things but it could also be just like with Ross the "attention grabber to build up the following". But the choice of skilled is a bit different than "loaded with talent" because everyone of these guys is not skilled but they all are loaded in talent. 2) The word length is a great thing to hear period let alone with size included. Length is what makes Henson so deadly inside and allows him to block shots and reach up for rebounds and easier shots inside.


"definitely one of the elite scorers in the country"- Several things in this should stand out. 1) The first is the word definitely. In this case it means the same as without a doubt and there should not be anyone questioning his ability here. 2) The next word to strike is elite. Elite is the highest praise you could give (except the word Best) (poor, bad, good, great, elite) to judge someones ability in an area of skill. 3) Finally they wrap it up with "in the country" which means not just his class but the 3 classes behind him as well.


"score in a variety of ways"- Variety of course means he has multiple options when it comes to scoring. He does not have to be a jump shooter all the time. He can drive, pull up, shoot the 3, spot up, and post. He may also have several go to moves as fakeouts (Rivers has that quick step back) to gain seperation.

"He can hit the 3 point shot of the catch..."- This is the first area he is not given high praise. This is not a knock either but is similar to Ross when talking about taking over a game. He is not very consistent or reliable from 3, but can occasionally hit a wide open 3 when the oppurtunity arises. Similar to about what a 33% shooter is from long range.

"potent shooting in transition"- Means this guy runs the floor well in an up tempo style of play. He will help you better in an up tempo style rather than half court if you want to see him at his best.


"good rebounder on both ends"- Either he has knack for the ball or he is good at positioning himself but what ever he does he is a help on the glass.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

I only was stating the strengths because of how they were used in describing his abilities. If you want to address the weaknesses of his game than this is how I see it:

"slender frame"- This describes almost every incoming freshmen. Many of these guys are kids and have not grown into their body just yet. This especially happens with your forwards and centers and sometimes guards who grew a lot real quick. This should not be a major cause for concern for a college SF right away

"takes bad shots... repeatedly will take bad shots"- Do you really think Coach K would keep a kid in if he is repeatedly taking bad shots? This is only a problem for him because he is in high school and is relied upon to score for his team. Anyone that has watched Rivers play this year will tell you he does the same when his team can not hit anything.


The only real problem is he seems to lack the ability to finish at the rim unlike Ross does.

[Saratoga2]

If he comes, we would clearly have 3 freshmen, if not more, who would have the possibility of starting. I am speaking of DeAndre, Austin and Quinn. Austin looks to be a definite, while Quinn and DeAndre might crack the starting lineup at sometime during the season.

My own take is that all three of these guys would need to learn to play within the team concept before the team would become elite. At least Austin and Quinn have shown signs of trying to do it all on offense and taking some questionable shots. From the words used to describe him, DeAndre may have the same mindset. The challenge for coach K would be to get them to play together and best utilize the strengths of each.

[MChambers]

If he comes, we would clearly have 3 freshmen, if not more, who would have the possibility of starting. I am speaking of DeAndre, Austin and Quinn. Austin looks to be a definite, while Quinn and DeAndre might crack the starting lineup at sometime during the season.

I'd add Michael to that list. From what I've read, he's got a well-rounded game and the size to play the 3, so he's got a good shot to replace lots of Kyle's minutes.

[Atlanta Duke]

But once you sign an agent you automatically lose your amateur status so tech Kyrie is a pro and now his actions do not reflect Duke as far as basketball goes.

Thank you

[MCFinARL]

Originally Posted by Duke: A Dynasty
But once you sign an agent you automatically lose your amateur status so tech Kyrie is a pro and now his actions do not reflect Duke as far as basketball goes.

Thank you

Well, this would be relevant if Kyrie had signed with an agent. But he hasn't--he has announced that he will sign with an agent, to make it clear that he is leaving, but yesterday's ESPN article in which he mentioned Daniels also includes his statement that he probably won't choose a specific agent until May.

I don't really know what the rule is here; from a common sense standpoint, however, it's hard to see why this would be a violation, or at least a significant violation. That being said, there is a lot in the NCAA rules that doesn't have much to do with common sense.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Originally Posted by Duke: A Dynasty
But once you sign an agent you automatically lose your amateur status so tech Kyrie is a pro and now his actions do not reflect Duke as far as basketball goes.


Well, this would be relevant if Kyrie had signed with an agent. But he hasn't--he has announced that he will sign with an agent, to make it clear that he is leaving, but yesterday's ESPN article in which he mentioned Daniels also includes his statement that he probably won't choose a specific agent until May.

I don't really know what the rule is here; from a common sense standpoint, however, it's hard to see why this would be a violation, or at least a significant violation. That being said, there is a lot in the NCAA rules that doesn't have much to do with common sense.

Hmm well the my comment was not of any help... I thought the original poster said Kyrie had signed an agent.. hmm maybe next time I should read for myself

[El_Diablo]

13.10.2 Comments Before Signing.
Before the signing of a prospective student-athlete to a National Letter of Intent or an institution's written offer of admission and/or financial aid, a member institution may comment publicly only to the extent of confirming its recruitment of the prospective student-athlete. The institution may not comment generally about the prospective student-athlete's ability or the contribution that the prospective student-athlete might make to the institution's team; further, the institution is precluded from commenting in any manner as to the likelihood of the prospective student-athlete's signing with that institution. Violations of this bylaw do not affect a prospective student-athlete's eligibility and are considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1. (Revised: 1/14/97)

The only question here is whether Kyrie is folded into the definition of "institution." I can't find any official NCAA definition of institution, much less whether it includes players or former players. Former players are considered representatives of institutional athletic interests (i.e. boosters) and thus cannot provide material benefits or something like that, but as far as I know they can comment on recruits so long as they're not acting on behalf of the institution in some capacity. As for current players, the rules distinguish between institutions and student athletes elsewhere, so it's possible that it's not a violation at all. I'm sure there's some precedent out there somewhere to resolve it, but either way, it would be at most a secondary violation with a maximum penalty consisting of rules education (although it more likely would carry no penalty).