Page 53 of 139 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563103 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,060 of 2763
  1. #1041
    Quote Originally Posted by HayYou View Post
    The class isn't strong because three of the top 10 players in the class left the class early.
    Well, three of the top 10 players in the 2021 high school class reclassified to 2020 (Kuminga; Askew; Cisse). Did that make the 2021 class weak too? I mean, pretty much every year top 10 guys reclassify.

  2. #1042
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Well, three of the top 10 players in the 2021 high school class reclassified to 2020 (Kuminga; Askew; Cisse). Did that make the 2021 class weak too? I mean, pretty much every year top 10 guys reclassify.
    I was referring to the poster talking about how Flip was highly rated, but in a bad class, so that might mean Flip is a multiyear player.

    The class was bad regardless of who left. If those were the top three guys in the class, or even three of the top 6, it is a bad class.

    The reclassifications, nor the relative strength or weakness of any given class, doesn't impact the draft status of any player in that class. 15 guys might have been better draft prospects in an earlier, or later class, for ANY prospect. But that same prospect might be the 5th best prospect in his draft class.

    Talking about how weak the class is, or isn't, has no bearing on draft rankings.

    Also, I'm not sure Askew and Cisse were consensus top 5 recruits at the time of their reclassification. I think they were guys who figured out how to game the draft rules and were able to pick the situation that best suited their desires, whatever those desires were/are.

  3. #1043
    Quote Originally Posted by HayYou View Post
    This. First, it is rare that a frosh is a "great" shooter right out of HS. They can be pretty good, but great, say 40% or better on a reasonable number of takes, say, 5+ per game, is rare. And fantastic.

    But a kid can be a 35% FT shooter, which is very good in today's game, again, on a reasonable number of takes (I dismiss someone who shoots 40% on 1.5 attempts per game because that's just not enough shots to significantly impact a game) but not get meaningful PT.

    If Schutt can't effectively guard next year, it is a problem. If he's not athletic or active enough to get open looks, it is a problem. There are any other number of reasons why he might not be able to earn minutes. I happen to think he'll contribute, but maybe he won't be able too. Expecting him to contribute is dicey.
    I agree it's dicey. In the past 10 seasons, here are the Duke guys who came out of high school in the past ten years with (IIRC) the reputation of a great shooter, along with their shooting percentage as freshmen and three-attempts per game as freshmen (I've also included RSCI recruiting ranking):

    Trevor Keels (#19): 31.2% on 4.8 3att/gm
    DJ Steward (#24): 34.1% on 5.3 3att/gm
    Cam Reddish (#2): 33.3% on 7.4 3att/gm
    Joey Baker (#37): 1 for 2 for the season
    Jordan Tucker (#59): 1 for 2 for the season before he transferred out
    Luke Kennard (#21): 32.0% on 4.8 3att/gm
    Matt Jones (#34): 14.3% on 0.7 3att/gm

    So, none of them (who had more than two attempts for the season) got to 35% (only two of them topped 32%), and the ones outside the top 25 hardly played at all. So maybe Jaden Schutt can be the exception (I hope he is), but based on history we shouldn't expect him to be a great shooter as a freshman. We probably shouldn't expect him to play much more than 10mpg, either.

  4. #1044
    Quote Originally Posted by HayYou View Post
    I was referring to the poster talking about how Flip was highly rated, but in a bad class, so that might mean Flip is a multiyear player.

    The class was bad regardless of who left. If those were the top three guys in the class, or even three of the top 6, it is a bad class.

    The reclassifications, nor the relative strength or weakness of any given class, doesn't impact the draft status of any player in that class. 15 guys might have been better draft prospects in an earlier, or later class, for ANY prospect. But that same prospect might be the 5th best prospect in his draft class.

    Talking about how weak the class is, or isn't, has no bearing on draft rankings.

    Also, I'm not sure Askew and Cisse were consensus top 5 recruits at the time of their reclassification. I think they were guys who figured out how to game the draft rules and were able to pick the situation that best suited their desires, whatever those desires were/are.
    I agree with you and I agree with your premise (that whether or not it's a "bad class," the top 5 or 10 (or 15) guys are likely to be OAD, because the NBA teams have to draft someone). I was just pointing out that the reasoning behind saying it's a "bad class" happens to some extent almost every year.

    Also, according to ESPN, Askew was #10 and Cisse was #8 when they reclassified (which fits both into your post and my post, both of which said "top 10," not "top 5"). I found an article, however, that said Cisse was at one time #2 in the class.

  5. #1045
    My hunch is that Blakes will play more minutes than Schutt in a Goldwire type role - high energy, defensive-minded, able to bring the ball up reliably to initiate the offense, and not expected to score. I’m betting that the full year in the program will have Blakes more ready than Schutt to contribute.

    I actually hope my hunch is wrong because I’d love for Schutt to give us another strong outside threat with passable defense. But that’s asking a lot for a freshman with his ranking.

  6. #1046
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Not sure how Jon goes deeper into the bench when, at this point, we don't appear to have many bodies. We'll see what happens, but it's beginning to look a bit dicey.

  7. #1047
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I agree it's dicey. In the past 10 seasons, here are the Duke guys who came out of high school in the past ten years with (IIRC) the reputation of a great shooter, along with their shooting percentage as freshmen and three-attempts per game as freshmen (I've also included RSCI recruiting ranking):

    Trevor Keels (#19): 31.2% on 4.8 3att/gm
    DJ Steward (#24): 34.1% on 5.3 3att/gm
    Cam Reddish (#2): 33.3% on 7.4 3att/gm
    Joey Baker (#37): 1 for 2 for the season
    Jordan Tucker (#59): 1 for 2 for the season before he transferred out
    Luke Kennard (#21): 32.0% on 4.8 3att/gm
    Matt Jones (#34): 14.3% on 0.7 3att/gm

    So, none of them (who had more than two attempts for the season) got to 35% (only two of them topped 32%), and the ones outside the top 25 hardly played at all. So maybe Jaden Schutt can be the exception (I hope he is), but based on history we shouldn't expect him to be a great shooter as a freshman. We probably shouldn't expect him to play much more than 10mpg, either.
    Don't forget AJ Griffin (#18) 44.7% on 4.1 3att/gm

  8. #1048
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    Don't forget AJ Griffin (#18) 44.7% on 4.1 3att/gm
    Think were also missing GTJ here

  9. #1049
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by cbolden1 View Post
    Think were also missing GTJ here
    Sulaimon (37.1%) and Frank Jackson (39.5%) too. Tyus Jones wasn’t known as a marksman first, but he was considered a good shooter and he shot 37.9%.

    There is definitely risk in counting on high school shooters as freshmen. But some guys do make the transition just fine.

  10. #1050
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Scheyer has officially offered Xavier Booker: https://twitter.com/RealXman23/statu...80477769302017
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  11. #1051
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Scheyer has officially offered Xavier Booker: https://twitter.com/RealXman23/statu...80477769302017
    The kid has shot up recruiting rankings lately. He's another one like Derek Lively and Kyle Filipowski where the staff have identified a player that is gaining a lot of traction.

    From what I've seen and read of Booker, he's a versatile big that could play all over the court and doesn't slot into one specific role. I think it's clear that Derek Lively is going to be in the draft next June. Besides him, I'm not sure if Filipowski or Mitchell is going to be ready to go. I should assume both will go pro just based on their respective recruiting profiles. If by some miracle one does return for a sophomore season, Booker could play with either given his mix of shot-blocking, perimeter skills, and athletic profile to defend multiple positions. Hopefully Duke can land a visit this summer or fall. Booker would be an ideal addition to an already outstanding recruiting class.

  12. #1052
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Not sure how Jon goes deeper into the bench when, at this point, we don't appear to have many bodies. We'll see what happens, but it's beginning to look a bit dicey.
    A lot of coaches give minutes to players who aren't that good individually, provided they play well with the team and play decent defense.

    Playing the bench more than K did isn't really a high bar. I think that Scheyer WILL play more guys and I really hope he does. I think, in general, that it eventually pays dividends. Maybe a time will come in the tournament when one if your stars is hampered with foul trouble and you need one of the bench guys to come in and not hurt you too much. I am of the belief that if those guys had more actual on-court playing time, they are less likely to completely disappoint you when you need them.

  13. #1053
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Stewart

    Sean Stewart continues to impress: 23 pts, 18 boards. https://twitter.com/recruitinghm/sta...1UiudlIVqVewUw

  14. #1054
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I agree it's dicey. In the past 10 seasons, here are the Duke guys who came out of high school in the past ten years with (IIRC) the reputation of a great shooter, along with their shooting percentage as freshmen and three-attempts per game as freshmen (I've also included RSCI recruiting ranking):

    Trevor Keels (#19): 31.2% on 4.8 3att/gm
    DJ Steward (#24): 34.1% on 5.3 3att/gm
    Cam Reddish (#2): 33.3% on 7.4 3att/gm
    Joey Baker (#37): 1 for 2 for the season
    Jordan Tucker (#59): 1 for 2 for the season before he transferred out
    Luke Kennard (#21): 32.0% on 4.8 3att/gm
    Matt Jones (#34): 14.3% on 0.7 3att/gm

    So, none of them (who had more than two attempts for the season) got to 35% (only two of them topped 32%), and the ones outside the top 25 hardly played at all. So maybe Jaden Schutt can be the exception (I hope he is), but based on history we shouldn't expect him to be a great shooter as a freshman. We probably shouldn't expect him to play much more than 10mpg, either.
    The TYPE of shots they hit (or, rather, MISS) is important. A huge HUGE ability, one that almost no top ranked player has, is catch and shoot. Take Tatum as a frosh, or Luke Kennard as a frosh, or Steward, or Baker. Tatum and Luke and Steward were disappointing 3pt shooters as frosh. And all the guys during Zion's year. That was because they couldn't catch the ball and shoot it with accuracy. In HS, most of these guys had the ball in their hands, and they dribbled around, found their open look, and shot at a high percentage. For most of the ostensible shooters we recruit, their entire team's offensive strategy was geared around getting that player the shot he wanted. I think we fans take that to mean that the team was geared around passing the player the ball when he got to his spot. Nope. The ball was put in the player's hands at the first opportunity, and he dribbled around looking for his shot. And usually top guys are deadly attacking the rim, so they are given a big cushion on the perimeter, because opposing coaches in HS know a guy like Tatum might light them up from 3, but they are certain that Tatum will bury them attacking the rim.

    These stars never operated in a situation wherein they moved around, as did the ball, and when the player got open, he got the ball, and made the shot. Even those top tier hoops academies are more like individual one on one games, but they've got top talent at all 5 positions and are 2 deep with college level players.

    Tatum was actually OK, not great, but OK when shooting off the dribble from 3 at Duke. But he was pretty bad on catch and shoot. That is why the splash bros were/are so deadly. They don't have to dribble (but they can stroke it off said dribble) to be deadly. They all run around, and the ball gets passed quickly, and they just catch and shoot in one motion. They make high 30s percentage on those shots, which are plentiful. Shooting off the dribble is harder, and likely more closely guarded, but now that dribblers are allowed to walk with the ball, er, "step back" they can get some open looks that way, which players make a high percentage of today.

    Take the Dallas Mavs last series. And, indeed, all year. Thanks to Luka, they get a ton of open, catch and shoot opportunities. But they don't make a high percentage as a team. Luka is much better off the dribble himself, but a catch and shoot guy who can defend would be a near max player beside Luka.

    And this lacking skill has killed Duke. Is isn't that our guys couldn't shoot from 3. It is that they couldn't hit open shots in catch and shoot situations. Because K's strategy, and the team's execution, created a poop ton of open looks (said creation was helped by defenses slouching off once they realized which of our guys couldn't hit those shots) but our guys didn't make the open looks. Drive and kick is wide open, but frosh aren't used to shooting like that, and don't make a bunch of them.

    Schutt could be bad at almost everything else, but if he could make catch and shoot 3s at a high rate, north of 35%, he'd get 10-15 mpg and be INVALUABLE to Duke next year.

  15. #1055
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Sulaimon (37.1%) and Frank Jackson (39.5%) too. Tyus Jones wasn’t known as a marksman first, but he was considered a good shooter and he shot 37.9%.

    There is definitely risk in counting on high school shooters as freshmen. But some guys do make the transition just fine.
    How many attempts per game? High percentage on 2-3 attempts per game isn't worth much.

    And, I know I'm splitting hairs to help my own POV, but Griffin's variance was a killer. Overall, the average was great. But he'd have a 7-9 game, and then a couple of 1-5 games. The end result was a 9-19, for a high percentage over 3 games. But he was next to useless in those 1-5 games, given his struggles on D.

    Honestly, not to beat a dead horse, but it is hard to play championship D when the SF is a bad defender. They have to help up on guards, and down on PFs. Stick a guy in Paolo who was bad on D (until the NCAAT when he got MUCH better on D) who is also an iffy defender, and it is a precarious position.

  16. #1056
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I agree with you and I agree with your premise (that whether or not it's a "bad class," the top 5 or 10 (or 15) guys are likely to be OAD, because the NBA teams have to draft someone). I was just pointing out that the reasoning behind saying it's a "bad class" happens to some extent almost every year.

    Also, according to ESPN, Askew was #10 and Cisse was #8 when they reclassified (which fits both into your post and my post, both of which said "top 10," not "top 5"). I found an article, however, that said Cisse was at one time #2 in the class.
    Look, I don't want to be condescending (but it will sound that way, and I genuinely DO NOT MEAN IT THAT WAY because I respect your open-mindedness), but I spend WAY too much time following recruiting. Way too much. I read tons of recruiting sites, blogs, and SM, even about kids not going to Duke or thinking about any ACC team or other national power.

    I am by no means an expert, but I've learned which actual experts are pretty good about hinting what the real dirt is, and when they are dishing it, etc.

    And my sense about Cisse and Askew was that they were exiting the class prior to dropping in the rankings. Alex Murphy and Joey Baker did the same. Murphy was trending down, but he left his class prior to a rankings update, which "froze" his prior ranking in amber. He moved down in the new class, but he was always referred too a being ranked X in his former class. Only he wasn't. Had he stayed, he'd have moved down in the new class. Ditto Baker. I sort of feel like he might have been in free fall as a senior in HS rankings wise. He wanted to associate with the Zion class and its predicted glory, but it didn't work out. Honestly, I suspect his performance at a national power like Duke was probably in line with what his ultimate ranking would have been.

    Askew and Cisse were sort of in the same boat. It wasn't so much that they fell off, nor were they due for big drops. But my sense was that they were going to go from top 10 kids to top 25 kids had they stuck in their old class.

    The pro options allow kids like this to reclassify and hide from the prying eyes of college hoops and fans and NBA execs. They can work on their game with less, or at least DIFFERENT types of attention. Some guys, who are trending UP, reclass and go to college for the express purpose of hitting the NBA sooner rather than later.

    I'm not for certain that this is what happened. But in reading about different events from the Askew and Cisse class, I just have the sense that lower ranked guys surpassed them. You know, the Jabari Smith or Kyrie or Flip types that really come on the summer before their Sr year of hs, and carry that over in the HS season, going from top 25-50 guys into that top 15 or top 5 rank. It wasn't that Cisse and Askew played badly, but just that other guys played better.

    Again, nitpicking and not being condescending. I spend too much time parsing hints etc. And it was LESS about what is said about certain players, but more what is said about other players. When player X is raved about, and player Y is mentioned as playing well, and that happens for a month straight, I just get the sense that player X will move above player Y. That is all I'm talking about. That is my memory about Askew for certain, and probably Cisse as well.

  17. #1057
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyBrickey View Post
    My hunch is that Blakes will play more minutes than Schutt in a Goldwire type role - high energy, defensive-minded, able to bring the ball up reliably to initiate the offense, and not expected to score. I’m betting that the full year in the program will have Blakes more ready than Schutt to contribute.

    I actually hope my hunch is wrong because I’d love for Schutt to give us another strong outside threat with passable defense. But that’s asking a lot for a freshman with his ranking.
    I really agree with this. Even with no Keels or a new transfer, Whitehead and play 20ish minutes at SG, with Blakes as a great defender off the bench (also getting 5-10 mins as the PG backup), and Schutt as a 10ish minutes guy who is more offense than defense.

    Honestly, I'm not worried about SG. We'll be fine as is.

    So long as Mitchell can handle SF. Which I think he can do, but I'll admit that it is far from certain. If he can't, which is just as likely as him being able to handle SF, then DW has to play SF, and we have a hole at SG.

    Roach best be working on his three point shot. He could play a Cook like role in that he'll need to be a primary 3pt shooter, while Blakes plays off ball but guards the other team's best perimeter player letting Cook have a relative break on that half of the court.

  18. #1058
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by HayYou View Post
    I really agree with this. Even with no Keels or a new transfer, Whitehead and play 20ish minutes at SG, with Blakes as a great defender off the bench (also getting 5-10 mins as the PG backup), and Schutt as a 10ish minutes guy who is more offense than defense.

    Honestly, I'm not worried about SG. We'll be fine as is.

    So long as Mitchell can handle SF. Which I think he can do, but I'll admit that it is far from certain. If he can't, which is just as likely as him being able to handle SF, then DW has to play SF, and we have a hole at SG.

    Roach best be working on his three point shot. He could play a Cook like role in that he'll need to be a primary 3pt shooter, while Blakes plays off ball but guards the other team's best perimeter player letting Cook have a relative break on that half of the court.
    Think you meant Jeremy. I hope Blakes will improve over the offseason and can contribute.

    GoDuke!

  19. #1059
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    A lot of coaches give minutes to players who aren't that good individually, provided they play well with the team and play decent defense.

    Playing the bench more than K did isn't really a high bar. I think that Scheyer WILL play more guys and I really hope he does. I think, in general, that it eventually pays dividends. Maybe a time will come in the tournament when one if your stars is hampered with foul trouble and you need one of the bench guys to come in and not hurt you too much. I am of the belief that if those guys had more actual on-court playing time, they are less likely to completely disappoint you when you need them.
    I get all that...I know Jon evidently wants to play more guys. It's just that, as presently constituted, this roster is unusually thin.

  20. #1060
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    I know Jon evidently wants to play more guys. It's just that, as presently constituted, this roster is unusually thin.
    This is puzzling to me, as I see sufficient playable depth, even in a worst-case scenario. Perhaps it all depends on exactly what the words “play more guys” and “unusually thin” mean.

    To take this worst-case scenario, I’ll assume Keels does not return, neither Green nor any other additional player transfers in, and Baker does not decide to come back to Duke. (I also do not include Reeves, in case he sticks to his previous statement about redshirting in ‘22-‘23). I don’t prefer this worst-case scenario, but think even if this happens, Scheyer would have 9 playable players, capable of finishing 1-2 in the ACC.

    Interior — Lively and Filipowski, backed by Young (5), Catchings (4), and Mitchell (4).
    Wings - Mitchell, Whitehead, Schutt, Catchings (who’s mostly an undersized 4, but shot 36.5% on 3 3-pt FGA/game in 24 mpg last season). I realize most see Mitchell as the first interior player off the bench. In this worst-case scenario, he starts at wing, mostly for his D.
    PG - Roach, Blakes (nominally the back-up PG, but who’s likely to be at the borderline-end of the rotation for his D), Whitehead (a point-wing, and so effectively a second PG).

    I see a core-5, with 4 bench players, one of whom, Young, might play 15+ mpg, making it sort of a core-6. I do not see either Catchings or Blakes as merely practice players, though neither do I expect either to play more than 7-8 mpg. Still, they’re capable of playing 9-10 mpg. Schutt is, I suppose, the wildcard. I expect him to play, also 7-10 mpg.

    If in this worst-case scenario we assume the worst-est case — that no more than one of Young, Catchings, Blakes, and Schutt will be solid enough to play more than a cameo — then I’d agree that the roster is “unusually thin.” My assumption, instead, is that at least 3, probably all 4, of these bench players will be in the rotation, at anywhere from 7 to 15 mpg.

    If “unusually thin” refers to depending heavily on frosh, then we’re thin.

    If “wants to play more guys” means Scheyer wants a 9-10-man rotation, with only 1 or 2 starters at 28-30 mpg, I’d agree it’s thin. But I don’t think “playing more guys” means quite that to Scheyer.

    If “unusually thin” refers in part to the lack of proven 3-pt shooters, that appears to be likely. But all of Whitehead, Filipowski, Catchings, and Schutt might wind up at 35%+ next season.

Similar Threads

  1. 2019 Men's Basketball Recruiting
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4070
    Last Post: 07-08-2019, 09:43 AM
  2. 2017 Basketball Recruiting Thread
    By Henderson in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4965
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 04:02 PM
  3. New take on recruiting... USA Basketball style?
    By Kyrie'sToe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-02-2012, 06:06 PM
  4. Women's Basketball Recruiting
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2008, 11:17 AM
  5. Women's Basketball Recruiting
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 02:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •