PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting Class Rankings



NYC Duke Fan
02-08-2009, 05:19 AM
When the so called experts rate recruiting classes do they rate them on immediate contributions or long term contributions ?

If I remember correctly, this year's class of Czyz, Plumlee and Williams were given a fairly high ranking. Was it for what they thought these players were going to contribute this year or down the road ? I know that everyone thought that Czyz was a project , but what about the other 2 ?

TO THE MODERATORS : There is absolutely no sarcasm or negativity meant in this question. I am merely trying to find out an answer from someone who is more basketball knowledgable than I am.

devildownunder
02-08-2009, 05:58 AM
When the so called experts rate recruiting classes do they rate them on immediate contributions or long term contributions ?

If I remember correctly, this year's class of Czyz, Plumlee and Williams were given a fairly high ranking. Was it for what they thought these players were going to contribute this year or down the road ? I know that everyone thought that Czyz was a project , but what about the other 2 ?

TO THE MODERATORS : There is absolutely no sarcasm or negativity meant in this question. I am merely trying to find out an answer from someone who is more basketball knowledgable than I am.


I do know Williams was very highly rated by most everyone, which would suggest great potential for a big contribution right away. The fact that it hasn't happened that way shouldn't cause anyone to give up on him though.

FireOgilvie
02-08-2009, 07:16 AM
I think it differs based on who does the rankings (immediate vs. long-term prospects). Almost everyone that evaluated Czyz said he was a raw, long-term prospect. Williams was rated in the top 20, but nationally it was a very weak class overall... I don't think many people realistically thought that he would be a star from the beginning, but that he has great upside. Plumlee was kind of an unexpected bonus because of his late arrival. I think most people believed he would be a good back-up his freshman year. I'm not surprised at how the newest class is doing in their first season; however, it's nice to be surprised once in a while.

RelativeWays
02-08-2009, 08:48 AM
our current recruiting woes remind me of the dry spell we had in the mid 90's. Seems like we a few consistently good players and a bunch of other players recruited to be stars and ended up at best as role players and bench warmers (or worse in Greg Newton's place). We rebounded from that period and we can rebound from this.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-08-2009, 10:33 AM
our current recruiting woes remind me of the dry spell we had in the mid 90's. Seems like we a few consistently good players and a bunch of other players recruited to be stars and ended up at best as role players and bench warmers (or worse in Greg Newton's place). We rebounded from that period and we can rebound from this.

But we rebounded with 2 historically outstanding recruiting classes in 3 seasons: the Killer B's gave us 2 of the best C's (Brand and Burgess), one of the best PG's (Avery) and Shane Battier (and Simpson). Two years later we got an even better PG (JWill), two more McDonald's C's (Boozer and Sanders), and an amazing SG/SF (Dun) (as well as Horvath, Buckner, and Borman). There were a couple of busts (Burgess) and some practice players, but those classes were loaded with outstanding players and heavy on post guys and PG's (even before we landed Duhon in '01). Those classes were ranked highly and contributed mightily.

I think we're doing a fairly good job building up our overall talent. Jon, G and Kyle are all great players and Kelly and Dawkins look promising. What we haven't done is fix our problem with being one-dimensional. I'm frustrated that we seem to be unappealing to every serious post guy we offer, but I'm even more confused by the fact that we haven't even been looking at PG's since Greg got here. We can rebound from this, and I think having K's full attention will make a world of difference. But we haven't yet and looking forward I don't see any players that we've signed or are considered overwhelming favorites for that will make us a three-dimensional team again.

Honestly, at this point I don't think Duke is in a slump, I just think we were recruiting over our head from 1998-2002 and we've regressed to the mean. We're a small, private school with rigorous academic requirements and a coach that demands a lot from his players in terms of character, commitment, and lifestyle. We're also the most hated team in America with a serious rep for being unfriendly to poorer, more urban players (i.e. the mainstream of basketball prospects). We bring a tea spoon to a gun fight for every recruiting class and that has caught up with us. I think it may be time to stop bashing the staff for failing to keep up with Memphis, UNC, UConn, etc. and start praising them for getting the number of guys that we do pull in.

DukeBlood
02-08-2009, 10:51 AM
I think we're doing a fairly good job building up our overall talent. Jon, G and Kyle are all great players and Kelly and Dawkins look promising. What we haven't done is fix our problem with being one-dimensional. I'm frustrated that we seem to be unappealing to every serious post guy we offer, but I'm even more confused by the fact that we haven't even been looking at PG's since Greg got here. We can rebound from this, and I think having K's full attention will make a world of difference. But we haven't yet and looking forward I don't see any players that we've signed or are considered overwhelming favorites for that will make us a three-dimensional team again.

Honestly, at this point I don't think Duke is in a slump, I just think we were recruiting over our head from 1998-2002 and we've regressed to the mean. We're a small, private school with rigorous academic requirements and a coach that demands a lot from his players in terms of character, commitment, and lifestyle. We're also the most hated team in America with a serious rep for being unfriendly to poorer, more urban players (i.e. the mainstream of basketball prospects). We bring a tea spoon to a gun fight for every recruiting class and that has caught up with us. I think it may be time to stop bashing the staff for failing to keep up with Memphis, UNC, UConn, etc. and start praising them for getting the number of guys that we do pull in.

We recruited Nolan Smith. While he isn't a natural PG, he is in ways a PG. Duke also landed Tyler Thorton, Is he not a PG? As far as the big man thing, Who know's. I doubt they find Duke unappealing but just feel comfortable other places. Plus we have landed multiple big bodies who just haven't really turned out or have yet to.

While Duke has a smaller number of prospects to recruit, they still have quite a few that meet the standards. We all talked about Coach K and the Olympics helping the recruiting. IMO I think it kind of hurt the recruiting. If these recruits couldn't handle the fact that Coach K was busy trying to win a gold medal for our country instead of entertaining them, then maybe its best they went elsewhere.

In 2010 Duke has landed 3 solid prospects. Tyler Thorton from what I have read and seen, he reminds of a Chris Duhon. Just does whatever his team needs to get a W. Andre Dawkins- While I dont know alot about him, he is the highest rated recruit of the 3. Josh Hairston- A hard worker but still has a ways to go before he is ready. Luckily he has a year and half. I don't think anyone will say we have slipped in recruiting IF we land Brandon Knight and/or Hairrison Barnes. You could throw Josh Smith in there, but I give it about 5% that he ends up a Dukie.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-08-2009, 11:24 AM
We recruited Nolan Smith. While he isn't a natural PG, he is in ways a PG. Duke also landed Tyler Thorton, Is he not a PG? As far as the big man thing, Who know's. I doubt they find Duke unappealing but just feel comfortable other places. Plus we have landed multiple big bodies who just haven't really turned out or have yet to.

Nolan Smith was the #7 SG (http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=8&c=1&nid=825502) in his class. Tyler Thornton is the #9 PG (http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=8&c=1&nid=2905705) in the class of 2010. Maybe a four-star guy will come in ready to start from day 1, but he'd be the exception. Let's not rehash the laundry list of big guys that spurned us, many without even taking a visit. Unless some long shots come through we're looking at the same team makeup for the next several seasons.


While Duke has a smaller number of prospects to recruit, they still have quite a few that meet the standards. We all talked about Coach K and the Olympics helping the recruiting. IMO I think it kind of hurt the recruiting. If these recruits couldn't handle the fact that Coach K was busy trying to win a gold medal for our country instead of entertaining them, then maybe its best they went elsewhere.

I think everyone agrees that the Olympics were a short-term hit (the jury's still out on long-term results, but early returns have been massively underwhelming). I don't fault K for taking that challenge, or Duke for requiring character and academics that 99% of schools don't. It's one of the reasons I'm a Duke fan. But we have to be realistic about what those trade-offs mean.


In 2010 Duke has landed 3 solid prospects. Tyler Thorton from what I have read and seen, he reminds of a Chris Duhon. Just does whatever his team needs to get a W. Andre Dawkins- While I dont know alot about him, he is the highest rated recruit of the 3. Josh Hairston- A hard worker but still has a ways to go before he is ready. Luckily he has a year and half. I don't think anyone will say we have slipped in recruiting IF we land Brandon Knight and/or Hairrison Barnes. You could throw Josh Smith in there, but I give it about 5% that he ends up a Dukie.

We've got a nice start on the class of 2010, and if Knight, Barnes, Smith etc. decide to join the party we'll be in good shape. We've just had this discussion with Boynton ('09), Monroe ('08), Patterson ('07), etc. for several years now. I'm saying that we should respect the unique difficulties our staff operates under and temper our expectations appropriately. I love Duke precisely because we hold ourselves to a higher standard. But the fact that Brand, JWill, Shel, etc broke well for us has, IMO, given us a false sense of what reasonable expectations are for this program.

Devilsfan
02-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Recruiting is not a science. We have had decent ratings the last four years that was in part based on our school name and Coach K. I think we have finally got back on track starting in 2010. I think 2011 and 2012 should be very good also because of his renewed focus and intensity and the additions to his coaching staff. Sure glad Team USA is history and Coach K got his players a Gold metal and our country the repects it deserves. Now what about another ACC Championship and a Final Four appearance. I think it's just a matter of "time".

RelativeWays
02-08-2009, 12:02 PM
Recruiting is not a science. We have had decent ratings the last four years that was in part based on our school name and Coach K. I think we have finally got back on track starting in 2010. I think 2011 and 2012 should be very good also because of his renewed focus and intensity and the additions to his coaching staff. Sure glad Team USA is history and Coach K got his players a Gold metal and our country the repects it deserves. Now what about another ACC Championship and a Final Four appearance. I think it's just a matter of "time".


See I agree with this and I think currently we have guys that seemed to fit our style but didn't pan out (or haven't yet) The rub on people like Boynton, Patterson and Monroe is that they wouldn't stay at college long, to those kids who want to bail in 1, 2 years Duke doesn't look as attractive because of the academic standards and a coach who has a reputation of being tough on freshmen, regardless of their talent level. You don't need Duke for national exposure, so you might as well go to USC or Kansas St, if you're good you'll be drafted high regardless. John Wall will be going to Baylor for that same reason. Does this mean that Coach K can't use a true talented 1 and doner on his team, no, but thats the reputation.

Beyond that, we're just missing guys who aren't ranked as high but really work well for their teams, theres no magic 8 ball that says Elliott Williams will struggle his freshman year, go get that Landesburg kid whose going to UVA instead.

The recruiting landscape has truly changed due to the explosion of early entry. Duke is learning to adapt.

Jumbo
02-08-2009, 12:11 PM
I try not to pay too much attention to recruiting rankings. Why? They are extremely flawed. There's only so much you can tell by watching guys play in high school, AAU and sneaker camp games. In the end, a lot of rankings end up looking silly, but no one ever goes back and calls the "evaluators" on those misses -- they just watch the latest list as if it's some sort of definitive career-path indicator. For perspective, I offer you the Class of 2003:
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2003

RelativeWays
02-08-2009, 12:15 PM
I try not to pay too much attention to recruiting rankings. Why? They are extremely flawed. There's only so much you can tell by watching guys play in high school, AAU and sneaker camp games. In the end, a lot of rankings end up looking silly, but no one ever goes back and calls the "evaluators" on those misses -- they just watch the latest list as if it's some sort of definitive career-path indicator. For perspective, I offer you the Class of 2003:
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2003

Seeing LeBron having Duke listed as a school of interest makes me want to weep tears of bitterness +1

Regenman
02-08-2009, 01:46 PM
On the other hand, there is some merit in the recruiting rankings (look at our late 90s and early 00s recruiting).

Also, remember when our highly touted class of Greg Newton, Joey Beard and Ricky Price (if I remember correctly) went up against UNC's class of Rasheed Wallace, Jerry Stackhouse, and Jeff McGinnis?

In the last 20 years, I haven't seen a single big man recruited under the 50s that Coach K has been able to develop into a NBA pro (maybe someone can point out where I missed somebody). The ones that are successful usually come in very highly ranked (and even some of the highly ranked ones don't pan-->Taymon Domzalski, Burgess, Thompson, Newton, Beard)

DukieBoy
02-08-2009, 02:36 PM
I try not to pay too much attention to recruiting rankings. Why? They are extremely flawed. There's only so much you can tell by watching guys play in high school, AAU and sneaker camp games. In the end, a lot of rankings end up looking silly, but no one ever goes back and calls the "evaluators" on those misses -- they just watch the latest list as if it's some sort of definitive career-path indicator. For perspective, I offer you the Class of 2003:
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2003

LeBron, LeBron, LeBron. O what could have been. :(

Anyways, I agree completely. Many times, these high school kids have just matured faster physically than anyone else around them, so they essentially "men among boys". Once they get to the college level, they are facing players their size and physique level and just don't pan out. Ebi looks like a good example of that (don't really recall high school recruiting in '03 outside of the LeBron craze). Ebi was physically taller than everyone and had a above average skill set. It was enough to seem like a man in high school, but once in got to the NBA, it was a whole different story.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-08-2009, 02:46 PM
Also, remember when our highly touted class of Greg Newton, Joey Beard and Ricky Price (if I remember correctly) went up against UNC's class of Rasheed Wallace, Jerry Stackhouse, and Jeff McGinnis?

I'd rather remember how the '99 class of Jason Capel, Ron Curry, Kris Lang, and Orlando Melendez turned out vs our classes. The one that led Gut to tell JWill that he wasn't needed in Chapel Hill. :D

Ranking are not an exact science, especially for big men (ask Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson). I'm not so concerned that we start recruiting highly-ranked players. We need successful players and we need a full complement of guards, forwards, and low-post guys. Assuming we continue bringing in comparable recruits I'm pretty happy with the talent base we're building. It's the distribution that needs to get better.