2021 Men's Basketball Recruiting Thread

[ElliottHoo]

As an aside, here are guys I found from a cursory glance at the bottom 10 or so spots in recent years' RSCI top-100 rankings. Most years, I found 1 or 2 very recognizable names without having to ever go beyond #85.

Tyrell Terry (88)
James Akinjo (89)
Jared Butler (95)
Jordan Poole (99)
Ty-Shon Alexander (96)
Luke Garza (93)
Myles Powell (100)
Mo Wagner (97)
Shake Milton (89)
Mikal Bridges (96)
Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk (95)
Domantas Sabonis (92)
Josh Hart (94)
Frank Mason (89)
Denzell Valentine (88)
Montrezl Harrell (85)
Malcolm Brogdon (94)

That's a decade's worth of a pretty good list and sure, plenty of guys in that range (or lower) did not become contributors but this is a compelling amount of success to me, in that (admittedly arbitrary) range.

That’s a good list, but it seems like kind of an odd exercise. Over the last decade there’s been 200 kids in this grouping and they appear to have maybe a 10-15% chance of turning into... “contributors” doesn’t really feel right. Maybe “we’ll positioned for the NBA draft”?

If the real question here is “why doesn’t Duke have more players on the list like those cool people at Villanova?” I think that concern is misplaced. I’m certainly not qualified to pass judgement on K’s ability to develop HS players relative to his past (when he certainly was great at it).

But I can count, and I’d guess that Nova has had dramatically more 90-110 ranked kids over the last decade than Duke. I mean, given Duke’s recruiting strategy in recent years, I’d be surprised if Duke has had more than 1 or maybe 2 such kids over the last 10 years (and maybe zero). If K has 2 kids (just for example) ranked in that category, and neither gets drafted, that’s not exactly an indictment of Duke development when that’s overwhelmingly the most likely outcome for HS kids in that bracket.

[DukieTiger]

That’s a good list, but it seems like kind of an odd exercise. Over the last decade there’s been 200 kids in this grouping and they appear to have maybe a 10-15% chance of turning into... “contributors” doesn’t really feel right. Maybe “we’ll positioned for the NBA draft”?

If the real question here is “why doesn’t Duke have more players on the list like those cool people at Villanova?” I think that concern is misplaced. I’m certainly not qualified to pass judgement on K’s ability to develop HS players relative to his past (when he certainly was great at it).

But I can count, and I’d guess that Nova has had dramatically more 90-110 ranked kids over the last decade than Duke. I mean, given Duke’s recruiting strategy in recent years, I’d be surprised if Duke has had more than 1 or maybe 2 such kids over the last 10 years (and maybe zero). If K has 2 kids (just for example) ranked in that category, and neither gets drafted, that’s not exactly an indictment of Duke development when that’s overwhelmingly the most likely outcome for HS kids in that bracket.

Sorry you didn’t like the exercise. Seems like it missed the mark since I’ve gotten multiple such comments.

Most of the guys on the list are all-conference level players or better. There’s nothing magic about this range or anything, but some of us are excited that Duke is looking at taking a guy in that general range because it’s very much possible to get solid contributors or better from this caliber of a player, particularly compared to where Duke typically pulls their practice players from (Vrank, White, Goldwire, J Rob). The last time Duke took a guy in this general range was Tyler Thornton, so it’s been a while. Not meant to be any sort of comment criticizing Duke’s recruiting strategy at all though.

[luvdahops]

This is a fun list, and there are certainly some standout college players and some NBA players among these names--I'm not super confident I know what the point of this exercise is, though. Is it to show that, occasionally, a guy in the 85-100 range hits? My guess is that from that same timeframe, you could find an equally or more compelling list of names in the 25-50 or 50-75 range too. I think it's well-recognized that recruiting rankings out of high school (or even NBA draft rankings) aren't an exact science, nor do I think anyone is really arguing that guys in this range never excel or exceed expectations.

Don't know if this is a point the OP was trying to make, but it has been my (admittedly very unscientific) impression from following college basketball for a long time that there is typically a lot more obvious difference in talent and potential moving from prospects ranked 1 to 50 in any given recruiting class than there is in moving from 51 to 100. And even less obvious difference in moving from 101 to 150, etc.

[Nugget]

Some interesting quotes from Blakes in this piece from DevilsDen

Prior to his high school season tipping off at Blair, Blakes offered some insight into what will shape his decision-making process when he does eventually move toward a decision.

"I am looking for the best combination of academics and athletics, an alumni network that is supportive during my college years and after graduation, a school, culture and community that embraces student-athletes, are committed to diversity and inclusiveness and has a great school spirit at games," he told 247Sports.com. "From a basketball perspective, I am looking for a coach that trusts me and I know that the trust goes both ways. In order for the coach to trust me I also have to perform off the court and I want that coach to trust me as well and I want a coach that embraces me for the individual that I am and continues to invest in my development and knowledge of the game that continues to grow me as a person and as an athlete. I have been blessed at Blair with the culture of brotherhood, selflessness, community service and a focus on just making each other better and that's what I am looking for in a college program. One of the most important parts is winning. I have always wanted to win, I am competitive, so that's one of the most important parts."

https://247sports.com/college/duke/A...m_content=Link

I was greatly impressed by these quotes, in particular to the weighing the importance of an "alumni network" (along with the list of Ivies Blakes is also considering) as markers for someone who is, hopefully, committed to the full depth of collegiate experience and willing to stick it out even if he doesn't play a great deal as a freshman or sophmore and gets "recruited over" at least once. I take more solace in these kinds of quotes than trying to pigeonhole how he might develop based on comparative recruiting rankings. And, Duke has so rarely recruited players in this range that the sample sizes are too small to draw any reliable conclusions.

It's certainly fair to say some players in this range develop into meaningful contributors, probably more don't than do (while a tiny handful become stars). But, Blakes would seem to be an excellent pickup nonetheless.

However, just to add to the rankings comparisons, since Blakes is the #16 rated PG in the class per the 247 Composite, I pulled out the #14-#18 rated PGs in the classes of 2016-2019 to see what sort of range of outcomes could be anticipated for Blakes. As one would expect, it's a crapshoot:

2019: Kyle Sturdivant, Markese Jacobs, Joshua Pierre-Louis, Keeshawn Barthelemy, Caleb Grill.

2018: Tyger Campbell, Delano Banton, Foster Loyer, Jared Butler, Jaelin Llewellyn.

2017: Chris Lykes, Wabissa Bede, Darius Perry, Alex Barcello, Remy Martin.

2016: Markus Howard, Jaylen Fisher, Charlie Moore, Quentin Goodin, Myles Powell.

Outside of the 2019 class, looks like players in this range have had around a 40% rate of becoming (at least) productive, P5-level, upperclassmen.

[mr. synellinden]

As an aside, here are guys I found from a cursory glance at the bottom 10 or so spots in recent years' RSCI top-100 rankings. Most years, I found 1 or 2 very recognizable names without having to ever go beyond #85.

Tyrell Terry (88)
James Akinjo (89)
Jared Butler (95)
Jordan Poole (99)
Ty-Shon Alexander (96)
Luke Garza (93)
Myles Powell (100)
Mo Wagner (97)
Shake Milton (89)
Mikal Bridges (96)
Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk (95)
Domantas Sabonis (92)
Josh Hart (94)
Frank Mason (89)
Denzell Valentine (88)
Montrezl Harrell (85)
Malcolm Brogdon (94)

That's a decade's worth of a pretty good list and sure, plenty of guys in that range (or lower) did not become contributors but this is a compelling amount of success to me, in that (admittedly arbitrary) range.

Let's add Trey Burke (83) the 2013 NCAA player of the year and Naismith Award winner who took his team to the title game as a soph.

[budwom]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but it might be a good idea to keep in mind that the RSCI and other rankings this year are most likely not based on as much real information as in previous years.

The entire summer circuit of play was short circuited for The Covid, and as such I do not think the rankings are quite as meaningful as they were in previous years.

Which is not to say that any one is prospect is better or worse than his current ranking.

[DavidBenAkiva]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but it might be a good idea to keep in mind that the RSCI and other rankings this year are most likely not based on as much real information as in previous years.

The entire summer circuit of play was short circuited for The Covid, and as such I do not think the rankings are quite as meaningful as they were in previous years.

Which is not to say that any one is prospect is better or worse than his current ranking.

This is a good point. The rankings for the Class of 2021, especially for those that haven't played since the 2019-20 high school season, is missing out on a lot of development time. I doubt there would have been much movement at the top, but after the top 25 or so? There have got to be players that might otherwise have moved up (or down) 20 or more spots.

[plimnko]

This is a good point. The rankings for the Class of 2021, especially for those that haven't played since the 2019-20 high school season, is missing out on a lot of development time. I doubt there would have been much movement at the top, but after the top 25 or so? There have got to be players that might otherwise have moved up (or down) 20 or more spots.

I agree.... what little I've seen and read about the guy, he seems like a high quality guy who is willing to put in the time and learn without expecting more than he's earned. I also like his competitive attitude and desire to win.

[tommy]

This is a good point. The rankings for the Class of 2021, especially for those that haven't played since the 2019-20 high school season, is missing out on a lot of development time. I doubt there would have been much movement at the top, but after the top 25 or so? There have got to be players that might otherwise have moved up (or down) 20 or more spots.

Yeah. Like TyTy Washington.

[DieHard]

We are talking about the top 100 players in a class. They are all good. Exceptional. Sure the top 10 are good players and project well, and you can look at any statistical category grouping after the top 10 and see how they have finished to get the historical percentage of players who made an impact. From my perspective, it is the player that never stops working and improving regardless of initial ranking that succeeds. The top 10 kids have the talent to be there. Layers behind, they think they should be top 10, but were not so they work hard. Several layers behind that, they are pissed they were never considered in that upper category and they end up better than the top 10 because of a chip on their shoulder. So kids 50-100+ fall in that category. A mutt is a great dog, if you can keep him. It is definitely about talent initially, but it is all about heart in the end. If they have both you have a 1 and done top 5 pick. That leaves 95+ other players in the top 100 to figure out who has both.

[Kedsy]

So if a guy with a great attitude is top 100ish with high major offers but none that I would consider top shelf, there must be a reason why he isn't ranked better.

It isn't that Jaylen Blakes hasn't shown himself against good competition, because Blair Academy is a high level high school program.

It isn't that he's too small, because at 6'2" with a 6'8" wingspan, he has decent size for even an NBA point guard.

It probably isn't his end-to-end running speed, because what few scouting reports I could find praised that aspect of his game (one said he was one of the fastest high school players in the country, end to end). Also, he can dunk at 6'2" (I saw it on his highlight reel), so it's not that he has no athletic ability.

It may be questions about his shooting, because his form looked funny to me on his highlight reel, but as a junior he hit 37% from three, so it's probably not that.

It may be questions about his point guard skills (ballhandling/passing), except as a junior he had 5 assists per game, which is pretty good (much better than #20 2020-21 PG recruit Jeremy Roach, for example). And on his highlight reel he seemed to get to the rim pretty easily (though he tended to favor crazy, acrobatic scoop shots once he got there).

Only other thing I can think of that's left is a lack of quickness, which would be a potential issue at a high-major program. If this is the issue, it may hinder his efforts to be a contributing rotation player at Duke as an upperclassman.

Unless the theory propounded above in this thread is true, that because of COVID scouts haven't had the opportunity to watch him enough to rank him properly. Though you'd think that would be less of an issue at a place like Blair Academy. The thing is, if this is the real explanation, and he's really a top 30 or so quality player, then the people who applaud recruiting this guy because he'll be patient and willing to be a practice player for at least two years without transferring away (or going pro) may end up being disappointed.

[ElliottHoo]

Sorry you didn’t like the exercise. Seems like it missed the mark since I’ve gotten multiple such comments.

Most of the guys on the list are all-conference level players or better. There’s nothing magic about this range or anything, but some of us are excited that Duke is looking at taking a guy in that general range because it’s very much possible to get solid contributors or better from this caliber of a player, particularly compared to where Duke typically pulls their practice players from (Vrank, White, Goldwire, J Rob). The last time Duke took a guy in this general range was Tyler Thornton, so it’s been a while. Not meant to be any sort of comment criticizing Duke’s recruiting strategy at all though.

I’m sorry, I definitely didn’t mean to say that I didn’t like it as an intellectual exercise. I do all kinds of odd analysis myself for no other reason than I’m curious of the outcome.

My point was simply that I suspected it came a place of concern over Duke’s recent ability to develop HS players who weren’t already obviously NBA-bound and I felt that particular concern was misplaced. I definitely didn’t intend to say the analysis wasn’t worth doing, because it certainly is. Analysis is it’s own reward.

[budwom]

I don't think Blair played any games last year, so I'm resting my hopes on the wish that he could be a late bloomer...(for which I have no solid evidence, of course)

[sagegrouse]

So if a guy with a great attitude is top 100ish with high major offers but none that I would consider top shelf, there must be a reason why he isn't ranked better.

It isn't that Jaylen Blakes hasn't shown himself against good competition, because Blair Academy is a high level high school program.

It isn't that he's too small, because at 6'2" with a 6'8" wingspan, he has decent size for even an NBA point guard.

It probably isn't his end-to-end running speed, because what few scouting reports I could find praised that aspect of his game (one said he was one of the fastest high school players in the country, end to end). Also, he can dunk at 6'2" (I saw it on his highlight reel), so it's not that he has no athletic ability.

It may be questions about his shooting, because his form looked funny to me on his highlight reel, but as a junior he hit 37% from three, so it's probably not that.

It may be questions about his point guard skills (ballhandling/passing), except as a junior he had 5 assists per game, which is pretty good (much better than #20 2020-21 PG recruit Jeremy Roach, for example). And on his highlight reel he seemed to get to the rim pretty easily (though he tended to favor crazy, acrobatic scoop shots once he got there).

Only other thing I can think of that's left is a lack of quickness, which would be a potential issue at a high-major program. If this is the issue, it may hinder his efforts to be a contributing rotation player at Duke as an upperclassman.

Unless the theory propounded above in this thread is true, that because of COVID scouts haven't had the opportunity to watch him enough to rank him properly. Though you'd think that would be less of an issue at a place like Blair Academy. The thing is, if this is the real explanation, and he's really a top 30 or so quality player, then the people who applaud recruiting this guy because he'll be patient and willing to be a practice player for at least two years without transferring away (or going pro) may end up being disappointed.

I think it's charming that you have faith in the abilities of the people rating HS players. I agree that the rating systems are much, much better than 20 years ago, when a player suddenly targeted by Duke or UNC back then would soar in the rankings. (Why not? It's validation.) But if the folks doing the ratings are so talented, why don't they have legitimate high-paying coaching jobs instead of working part time for very little in trying to dope out the abilities of mid-teens?

And, even if they are talented scouts, this is a tough, tough year to rate anyone. No AAU teams, limited schedules, many fewer travel games -- where players in different states can be legitimately compared.

Anyway, not meant as criticism -- just balance. I read all your posts.

[DavidBenAkiva]

So if a guy with a great attitude is top 100ish with high major offers but none that I would consider top shelf, there must be a reason why he isn't ranked better.

I am not saying Jaylen Blakes is a diamond in the rough. He fits a need for Duke, a long-term backup guard that can spell the primary PG next season or possibly play alongside him in a small-ball backcourt. Not every player on Duke's roster is going to become a 1st round draft pick, after all. The roster needs role players. Blakes fits the bell (with some potential upside down the line). That being said, there seem to be a couple of obvious reasons why he (or anyone) wouldn't be ranked higher.

A lot of players didn't play more than a handful of games this past season. Combine that with the cancellation of the summer circuit in 2020, and you have a situation where a bunch of late bloomers did not receive exposure. Or maybe they didn't bloom at all since they didn't get to play. Maybe Blakes isn't a late bloomer. Maybe he is. We don't know. In fact, a ton of high majors might not know since all they have on him is word of mouth from his coaches and whatever tape was out there from 2020 and prior. Meanwhile, there are some players that are rising up the rankings, like TyTy Washington. He has been able to play in showcase events and now has offers from Kentucky, UCLA, Texas, and many others. If there had been a normal season, maybe Washington is now a consensus top 10 or top 15 players in the Class of 2021. On the other hand, he might be rising because he's one of the few that did get exposure. It's all just a guess. There's a lot of fog.

[fgb]

Most of this conversation over Blakes seems to be focused on the level of his talent--How good is he? What's his ceiling? Can he become all-ACC? Can he contribute to a contending team?

While I don't discount any of this, I also think that a lot of us are overlooking the whole concept of team-building. There have been plenty of times in my career where I've had to make a hire, and knowingly went with a less talented candidate, simply because they seemed seemed a better fit for our team. Maybe, just maybe, there's some degree of that dynamic at play here.

I'm hoping Blakes chooses to come to Duke. And while it would be amazing if he were to become another Jared Butler, I'll be thrilled if he "only" matures into our next Jordan Goldwire or Justin Robinson.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Most of this conversation over Blakes seems to be focused on the level of his talent--How good is he? What's his ceiling? Can he become all-ACC? Can he contribute to a contending team?

While I don't discount any of this, I also think that a lot of us are overlooking the whole concept of team-building. There have been plenty of times in my career where I've had to make a hire, and knowingly went with a less talented candidate, simply because they seemed seemed a better fit for our team. Maybe, just maybe, there's some degree of that dynamic at play here.

I'm hoping Blakes chooses to come to Duke. And while it would be amazing if he were to become another Jared Butler, I'll be thrilled if he "only" matures into our next Jordan Goldwire or Justin Robinson.

Fit is important. I am not even setting my expectation at Goldwire, since that seems wildly optimistic. The success of the team next season (and maybe the following) is going to rest on how good Jeremy Roach is as the starting PG. He's getting to the keys to the car. Some players have done well with that, others have struggled. I think of Nolan Smith and Quinn Cook as players that struggled being the starting PG early in their careers. Hopefully Roach has a smoother transition than that. At any rate, I think of players like Josh Hairston, Tyler Thornton, Nick Horvath, and others that contributed when called upon. That's sort of my baseline expectation for Blakes, should he commit to Duke. On the high end of outcomes is Jordan Goldwire, a player that started and contributed for 3 seasons when he came to Duke as an afterthought. Expecting Blakes to have that kind of career strikes me as overly optimistic. I'd be thrilled if he did that.

[dm9e24]

I am interested to hear why you think Blakes having a Jordon Goldwire career is being highly optimistic. Blakes looks to have better measurables, higher ranking and a strong high school program. He played for a great coach at Blair. Illinois, Virginia Tech and a number of other ACC programs have offered. I can't remember Jordan' offer list, but Blakes seems a little more P5 heavy.

[Rich]

I am interested to hear why you think Blakes having a Jordon Goldwire career is being highly optimistic. Blakes looks to have better measurables, higher ranking and a strong high school program. He played for a great coach at Blair. Illinois, Virginia Tech and a number of other ACC programs have offered. I can't remember Jordan' offer list, but Blakes seems a little more P5 heavy.

Based on past DBR history with names, my biggest worry if we get this guy is how the DBR community will manage to deal with the "possessive s" at the end of his name - Blake's, Blakes', Blakes's

[JasonEvans]

However, just to add to the rankings comparisons, since Blakes is the #16 rated PG in the class per the 247 Composite, I pulled out the #14-#18 rated PGs in the classes of 2016-2019 to see what sort of range of outcomes could be anticipated for Blakes. As one would expect, it's a crapshoot:

2019: Kyle Sturdivant, Markese Jacobs, Joshua Pierre-Louis, Keeshawn Barthelemy, Caleb Grill.

2018: Tyger Campbell, Delano Banton, Foster Loyer, Jared Butler, Jaelin Llewellyn.

2017: Chris Lykes, Wabissa Bede, Darius Perry, Alex Barcello, Remy Martin.

2016: Markus Howard, Jaylen Fisher, Charlie Moore, Quentin Goodin, Myles Powell.

Outside of the 2019 class, looks like players in this range have had around a 40% rate of becoming (at least) productive, P5-level, upperclassmen.

Of the 20 players listed, Butler, Howard, and Powell all became 1st team All-Americans. Remy Martin and Tyger Campbell who were both first team All-Pac 12. Chris Lykes was an All-ACC level player who has been really hurt by injuries. That's 30% of them who became among the best players in their conference and the country. That's a remarkable success rate and makes me even more excited for what Blakes could do at Duke.

I mean, if you tell me there's a 30% chance this dude is an All-Conference player by the time he leaves, I'm doing cartwheels over this recruitment. Sign him up!!