You go after the best (talent AND character, and best fit), simple as that
Should we keep targeting top 10 kids
- Thread starter EvilMD
- Start date
Tubby recruited players that were barely ranked in the top 150. If you get a few top 30-50 players every year you will have very talented teams and good continuity. Syracuse, Mich St, UConn and several other top tier programs recruit this way and have success. I think Wisconsin is the only team that recruits similarly to the way Tubby did that's been successful in recent years.
John wall
Boogie
Knight
Davis
MKG
Nerlens
Randle
Twins
Young
KAT
Lyles(don't remember if he was top 10)
Skal (bust)
Murray
These are top 10, and usually were our best players on the team.
Usually especially top 2-3 is game changers that you would dream of having.
If Ben Simmons had better character and intelligence, he would have been amazing for UK last season. You can never have enough of game changers.
And you're more likely to get someone like that in top 10. Also booker was great, but he wasn't that mind boggling. His NBA career has been better than at UK. He was mad streaky at UK.
Boogie
Knight
Davis
MKG
Nerlens
Randle
Twins
Young
KAT
Lyles(don't remember if he was top 10)
Skal (bust)
Murray
These are top 10, and usually were our best players on the team.
Usually especially top 2-3 is game changers that you would dream of having.
If Ben Simmons had better character and intelligence, he would have been amazing for UK last season. You can never have enough of game changers.
And you're more likely to get someone like that in top 10. Also booker was great, but he wasn't that mind boggling. His NBA career has been better than at UK. He was mad streaky at UK.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. For what it's worth, I don't think Cal could've done any better at all with a different philosophy. I was merely providing the OP with an alternative way to phrase the question.
Really I wish cal would spend more time and a few rides on CDR types that he once really relied on. I think cals teams are better when there's 1 or 2 of them around. I think he's abandoned that philosophy to be a OAD recruiter and while it works I think he could still be an effective OAD guy while doing it the way he once did.
Not talking about taking a Kentucky 4 star. I'm talking about actively recruiting a certain player that fits his method, like the example of CDR, Dozier, Antonio Anderson etc. he was handed a few of them with Miller and Liggins and we got a final four and title out of it.
Not talking about taking a Kentucky 4 star. I'm talking about actively recruiting a certain player that fits his method, like the example of CDR, Dozier, Antonio Anderson etc. he was handed a few of them with Miller and Liggins and we got a final four and title out of it.
Problem is when you bring in guys ranked around where Matthews was they transfer because of playing time. Same with Poole, wiltjer, lee. I know harrow was a different situation but he left. I think some of these guys get in their head they will play because they've always been the star, but they get here and guys end up being better than them or they are recruited over. I know cal is big on honesty, so if he recruits a kid in the 30-70s he should flat out tell them hey chances are you wont play a ton your first two years but by the time you're a junior or a senior you could very easily start. Stein would be a perfect example. I would also like to add if we could get one player every year with the character and attiude we had with kat that would be awesome. I think bamba fits that mold and I think he is cals number 1 target for next yr
This. Really when I started this thread I was thinking about the 2014 and 2015 classes. The 2014 class had the top-ranked PG, SG, PF and C. Really, only Randle lived up to that. The other three are struggling to find a home in the NBA. The 2015 class had Booker and Ulis. I still want to have a Towns in each class, who wouldn't? But I like having the rest of the class filled out with guys who don't just need to improve to make it to the next level, but here's the key...they KNOW they need to improve. And work hard. And they listen to the coach.
You can't win a title without an Anthony Davis. But you can't win one without a few Darius Millers, too. This "we need a five star at every position" mentality might not be best. That's all I was getting at.
What a pompous response.
First you tell the OP what his question should be.
Then I simply replied to your version of the question.
Replying to the question kinda has something to do with the question wouldn't you say?
How about you post what you want and I post what I want?
Last edited:
you can't win without Anthony Davis. You could have won without darius Miller. Just because he was on the team doesn't make him all that valuable. He was nice piece as a 6th player.
2014 class went to title game...only other team to do so was AD's team.
Also saying top 10 is a bit vague, since not all top 10 is equivalent of each other. 2014 was hailed as greatest class, but looking back now, that class was weak as hell. Only proves the point...(yet, they still manage to get to title game...)
Why people use stupid example like you...? Have you even seen legit super stars as a starting 5?
Give me Wall, Murray, MKG, Davis, and KAT as a starting 5 as a freshman. I'm confident we would have gone 40 - 0...
The reality is that once you get to the 4th-5th option, you can be completely fine with lesser talent as no team has ever really had top tier talent as a 4th option. That's why you see players like Darius Miller looking valuable...
I think we should target kids that no one else wants. Maybe we could take the Billy G approach and target 8th and 9th graders. Who cares about winning. We should target those kids that no one else wants and give them a chance to attend college. Otherwise they may never get to attend college. That way we are helping the underprivileged.
You allways go after studs! I mean look at the success. We compete for FF and NCAA TITLE alot. Lets let Cal keep doing what he is doing.
I don't think Cal looks at rankings to determine who he wants. He watches them play and learns about their mental make up and then decides.
...and UK has only won 8 championships total. Championship or bust is not a fair way to gauge success.
