Pikiell Player Development

[Eagleton95.99]

Reading the board I saw some of the recurring criticism of Pikiell's player development. There is a lot of data and a real track record to evaluate. I was curious so I did an analysis.

Evidence for Pikiell’s player development (or lack thereof) should be judged by evidence in 3 buckets:

1. Guys who came in with expectations - did they meet expectations?
2. Guys who came in with little hype and got developed at Rutgers
3. Guys who left Rutgers for other high-majors and what actually happened after they left?

Looking at it that way, I think the overall answer is pretty clear: Pikiell absolutely has developed players at Rutgers. It seems very clear that he is very good at developing defense, toughness, rebounding, and role execution. The record on maximizing offensive upside is mixed, but definitely not clearly negative, with many data points.

1. Players who came in with expectations

This category is mixed, but on the whole strongly refutes the idea that Rutgers didn't develop or utilize talented players.

Cliff Omoruyi came in as a real national recruit — RSCI Top 100: No. 46 — and became exactly what Rutgers hoped he’d become: a high-level Big Ten center who made All-Big Ten and Big Ten All-Defense twice.

Same basic point with Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey. Harper was the No. 2 player in the 2024 247Sports rankings, and Bailey was also an elite national recruit; at Rutgers, Harper averaged 19.4 ppg and 4.0 apg as a freshman, while Bailey averaged 17.6 ppg and 7.2 rpg. They both produced at a high level, appeared on the relevant all-freshman teams, and achieved their lottery pick aspirations at the end of one and done seasons.

Montez Mathis came in with real recruiting buzz ranked by some as a 4 star, and he didn’t live up to that at Rutgers. After transferring to St. John’s, he was a little better, but not so much better that he becomes a major anti-Pikiell example.

Paul Mulcahy also fits here in a different way: he came in with a minor pedigree, became a good winning high-major player at Rutgers, and then got worse/similar after leaving for Washington.


2. Players who came in with little hype and got developed at Rutgers

This is the strongest evidence for Pikiell.

If you want the best argument for his player development, start with Geo Baker, Caleb McConnell, Ron Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson.

Geo Baker was a No. 232 247 recruit and developed into a 2x All-Big Ten guard. Caleb McConnell was a No. 344 composite recruit and became a 2x Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year. Myles Johnson was an 86-rated three-star prospect who developed into a Big Ten all-defense caliber center. Ron Harper Jr. was rated 88 by 247Sports and No. 57 at small forward, then became a 2x All-Big Ten player and AP honorable mention All-American. That’s a real development résumé.

Eugene Omoruyi was a late-blooming Canadian prospect who only started basketball in 10th grade, and 247 does not show him as a nationally ranked blue-chip recruit. At Rutgers he developed from 2.4 ppg as a freshman to 13.8 ppg and 7.2 rpg as a junior, earning All-Big Ten honorable mention.

This group is the clearest evidence that Pikiell can identify traits — toughness, feel, defensive instincts, competitiveness, size — and turn them into high-major value. A coach who develops Baker, McConnell, Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson is very obviously doing something right.

3. Players who left Rutgers for other high-majors

This is the best test of whether Rutgers was really holding players back. If Rutgers were the problem, you’d expect a consistent pattern of guys leaving and immediately becoming much better elsewhere at the same high-major level. That’s not what happened.

The relevant cases are Eugene Omoruyi to Oregon, Jacob Young to Oregon, Myles Johnson to UCLA, Cam Spencer to UConn, Paul Mulcahy to Washington, Lathan Sommerville to Washington, Cliff Omoruyi to Alabama, and Montez Mathis to St. John’s.

Of those, the clearest upgrades after leaving were Spencer and Eugene, but both came with important context. Spencer was better at UConn, but he was also stepping into one of the best offensive environments in the country, on a team that won the national title, and he already had a strong Rutgers season before leaving.

Omoruyi did improve significantly at Oregon, but he left Rutgers, sat out a full season under the old transfer rules, and then made a jump. That matters. Neither case is as simple as “Rutgers failed and somebody else fixed them."

After that, the pattern actually helps Rutgers more than it hurts it:

• Jacob Young was roughly similar (slightly worse statistically) at Oregon to what he had been at Rutgers, which suggests Rutgers had already gotten close to his best version
• Myles Johnson had smaller production at UCLA but played at a roughly similar level
• Mulcahy had a clear drop at Washington
• Sommerville has had a smaller role at Washington so far
• Cliff was efficient at Alabama, but in a lower-volume role and no significant offensive breakout
• Mathis was somewhat better at St. John’s in a system better suited for him, but not enough to count as some huge blossom-elsewhere story

So the transfer record does not show a pattern of guys escaping Rutgers and becoming much better high-major players.

Bottom line:
Pikiell has clearly developed players at Rutgers. The strongest evidence is the number of lower-hype guys who became real Big Ten players under him, especially Baker, McConnell, Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson. The transfer record also helps him more than it hurts him, because most guys who left were either about the same, had smaller roles, or were less productive. The fairest criticism is not that he can’t develop players. It’s that Rutgers has generally been better at developing high-floor, tough, winning players than at maximizing offensive ceiling.

 

[bac2therac]

Great analysis on the positives and hits but care to list all the ones who didnt develop or were quite mediocre like a Hyatt and J Will

None of these players were from 24, 25, 26 seasons save for Cliff and Summerville who wasnt good. Your reaching into a different era of Ru hoops from 4-5 years ago

And note out of 7 freshmen brought in this year 1 might be a star while 3 others look like role players next year that might develop into starters by senior year. Unfortunately the NIL doesnt allow for 4 year development cycles

 

[Eagleton95.99]

Great analysis on the positives and hits but care to list all the ones who didnt develop or were quite mediocre like a Hyatt and J Will

None of these players were from 24, 25, 26 seasons save for Cliff and Summerville who wasnt good. Your reaching into a different era of Ru hoops from 4-5 years ago

And note out of 7 freshmen brought in this year 1 might be a star while 3 others look like role players next year that might develop into starters by senior year. Unfortunately the NIL doesnt allow for 4 year development cycles

I'm looking at the Pike era as a whole. Any other players other than J-Will and Hyatt you think I should include?

 

[T2Kplus20]

Reading the board I saw some of the recurring criticism of Pikiell's player development. There is a lot of data and a real track record to evaluate. I was curious so I did an analysis.

Evidence for Pikiell’s player development (or lack thereof) should be judged by evidence in 3 buckets:

1. Guys who came in with expectations - did they meet expectations?
2. Guys who came in with little hype and got developed at Rutgers
3. Guys who left Rutgers for other high-majors and what actually happened after they left?

Looking at it that way, I think the overall answer is pretty clear: Pikiell absolutely has developed players at Rutgers. It seems very clear that he is very good at developing defense, toughness, rebounding, and role execution. The record on maximizing offensive upside is mixed, but definitely not clearly negative, with many data points.

1. Players who came in with expectations

This category is mixed, but on the whole strongly refutes the idea that Rutgers didn't develop or utilize talented players.

Cliff Omoruyi came in as a real national recruit — RSCI Top 100: No. 46 — and became exactly what Rutgers hoped he’d become: a high-level Big Ten center who made All-Big Ten and Big Ten All-Defense twice.

Same basic point with Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey. Harper was the No. 2 player in the 2024 247Sports rankings, and Bailey was also an elite national recruit; at Rutgers, Harper averaged 19.4 ppg and 4.0 apg as a freshman, while Bailey averaged 17.6 ppg and 7.2 rpg. They both produced at a high level, appeared on the relevant all-freshman teams, and achieved their lottery pick aspirations at the end of one and done seasons.

Montez Mathis came in with real recruiting buzz ranked by some as a 4 star, and he didn’t live up to that at Rutgers. After transferring to St. John’s, he was a little better, but not so much better that he becomes a major anti-Pikiell example.

Paul Mulcahy also fits here in a different way: he came in with a minor pedigree, became a good winning high-major player at Rutgers, and then got worse/similar after leaving for Washington.


2. Players who came in with little hype and got developed at Rutgers

This is the strongest evidence for Pikiell.

If you want the best argument for his player development, start with Geo Baker, Caleb McConnell, Ron Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson.

Geo Baker was a No. 232 247 recruit and developed into a 2x All-Big Ten guard. Caleb McConnell was a No. 344 composite recruit and became a 2x Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year. Myles Johnson was an 86-rated three-star prospect who developed into a Big Ten all-defense caliber center. Ron Harper Jr. was rated 88 by 247Sports and No. 57 at small forward, then became a 2x All-Big Ten player and AP honorable mention All-American. That’s a real development résumé.

Eugene Omoruyi was a late-blooming Canadian prospect who only started basketball in 10th grade, and 247 does not show him as a nationally ranked blue-chip recruit. At Rutgers he developed from 2.4 ppg as a freshman to 13.8 ppg and 7.2 rpg as a junior, earning All-Big Ten honorable mention.

This group is the clearest evidence that Pikiell can identify traits — toughness, feel, defensive instincts, competitiveness, size — and turn them into high-major value. A coach who develops Baker, McConnell, Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson is very obviously doing something right.

3. Players who left Rutgers for other high-majors

This is the best test of whether Rutgers was really holding players back. If Rutgers were the problem, you’d expect a consistent pattern of guys leaving and immediately becoming much better elsewhere at the same high-major level. That’s not what happened.

The relevant cases are Eugene Omoruyi to Oregon, Jacob Young to Oregon, Myles Johnson to UCLA, Cam Spencer to UConn, Paul Mulcahy to Washington, Lathan Sommerville to Washington, Cliff Omoruyi to Alabama, and Montez Mathis to St. John’s.

Of those, the clearest upgrades after leaving were Spencer and Eugene, but both came with important context. Spencer was better at UConn, but he was also stepping into one of the best offensive environments in the country, on a team that won the national title, and he already had a strong Rutgers season before leaving.

Omoruyi did improve significantly at Oregon, but he left Rutgers, sat out a full season under the old transfer rules, and then made a jump. That matters. Neither case is as simple as “Rutgers failed and somebody else fixed them."

After that, the pattern actually helps Rutgers more than it hurts it:

• Jacob Young was roughly similar (slightly worse statistically) at Oregon to what he had been at Rutgers, which suggests Rutgers had already gotten close to his best version
• Myles Johnson had smaller production at UCLA but played at a roughly similar level
• Mulcahy had a clear drop at Washington
• Sommerville has had a smaller role at Washington so far
• Cliff was efficient at Alabama, but in a lower-volume role and no significant offensive breakout
• Mathis was somewhat better at St. John’s in a system better suited for him, but not enough to count as some huge blossom-elsewhere story

So the transfer record does not show a pattern of guys escaping Rutgers and becoming much better high-major players.

Bottom line:
Pikiell has clearly developed players at Rutgers. The strongest evidence is the number of lower-hype guys who became real Big Ten players under him, especially Baker, McConnell, Harper Jr., and Myles Johnson. The transfer record also helps him more than it hurts him, because most guys who left were either about the same, had smaller roles, or were less productive. The fairest criticism is not that he can’t develop players. It’s that Rutgers has generally been better at developing high-floor, tough, winning players than at maximizing offensive ceiling.

Nice post, but most of what you are saying is N/A in the new NIL world. Pike is a fish out of water now. Game has changed.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Great analysis on the positives and hits but care to list all the ones who didnt develop or were quite mediocre like a Hyatt and J Will

None of these players were from 24, 25, 26 seasons save for Cliff and Summerville who wasnt good. Your reaching into a different era of Ru hoops from 4-5 years ago

And note out of 7 freshmen brought in this year 1 might be a star while 3 others look like role players next year that might develop into starters by senior year. Unfortunately the NIL doesnt allow for 4 year development cycles

+1
This OP is more proof that the game has passed Pike by. Time to turn the page.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

OK bac, so looking at Hyatt and J. Williams.

This is another angle to look at Pikiell on player development: guys Rutgers got after another high-major or good college program had already had them and asking: were they better before Rutgers, at Rutgers, or after Rutgers?

Aundre Hyatt was a reclamation project. He was a former four-star / Top-100-type prospect who went to LSU first, but he never broke through there. At LSU he was basically a rotation guy, around 4.2 ppg as a freshman and 3.4 ppg as a sophomore. Rutgers then got more out of him over time: 3.6 ppg, then 8.8 ppg, then 10.5 ppg in his three seasons here. So Hyatt is not a “Pikiell made something out of nothing” case like Baker or McConnell. He’s more of a reclamation-project success: a guy who looked underwhelming at LSU and became a solid Big Ten wing at Rutgers.

Jeremiah Williams is a little different. He was already productive before Rutgers at a lower level. At Temple, he was around 9.3 ppg / 4.1 apg and then 9.5 ppg / 4.3 apg, so Rutgers did not “discover” him. He then lost a full year at Iowa State because of injury, came to Rutgers, and in his brief healthy stretch in 2023-24 gave RU 12.2 ppg in 12 games. In 2024-25 he was more modest over a full season. But after Rutgers he went to Georgetown, where his production has declined even further.

Net result: more support for Pikiell as player developer.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

Nice post, but most of what you are saying is N/A in the new NIL world. Pike is a fish out of water now. Game has changed.

I'm specifically responding to accusations that he can't develop players. There is no doubt that player development is less important now. But how much less remains to be seen. If Rutgers can't retain a core of players with more NIL then I think Pike won't make it.

 

[NickRU714]

I wouldn't even say the criticism of a "different era".

Even if it was the same era - it's been 4 years of disappointing results combined with zero development from players.
Davis, Ogbole, Grant: At best they should be deep bench players next year.
The beacon of recent development was supposed to be Grant coming into this year.
Now he's replaced with Mark or Powers as the next beacon of development.

Again - imagine Pike was at PSU and had the same seasons. Their fans say "We like the staff. They developed some good guys 5-6 years ago. We like the direction of the program."
The threads mocking them couldn't be created fast enough.

 

[T2Kplus20]

I'm specifically responding to accusations that he can't develop players. There is no doubt that player development is less important now. But how much less remains to be seen. If Rutgers can't retain a core of players with more NIL then I think Pike won't make it.

I want Pike fired ASAP, but perfectly happy to say he did a good job in the old pre-NIL world. Not sure why that matters anymore? That world is gone with the wind.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

I wouldn't even say the criticism of a "different era".

Even if it was the same era - it's been 4 years of disappointing results combined with zero development from players.
Davis, Ogbole, Grant: At best they should be deep bench players next year.
The beacon of recent development was supposed to be Grant coming into this year.
Now he's replaced with Mark or Powers as the next beacon of development.

Again - imagine Pike was at PSU and had the same seasons. Their fans say "We like the staff. They developed some good guys 5-6 years ago. We like the direction of the program."
The threads mocking them couldn't be created fast enough.

I think to say that a specific player is evidence for or against Pike's player development, that player has to be evaluated against expectations coming in. If they were low expectations coming in and did nothing, that's not evidence of player development (it's evidence of bad recruiting - different subject).

A few more names worth separating out in the “guys with expectations” discussion that were brought up are Jamichael Davis, Dylan Grant, and I'll add in Gavin Griffiths.

Jamichael Davis came in with mild recruiting expectations. Rutgers’ bio lists him as No. 243 overall, No. 38 PG nationally, and No. 17 in Georgia by 247Sports. Through three seasons at Rutgers, his scoring has gone 5.6 ppg → 4.6 ppg → 7.3 ppg. So there has been some growth, especially this year, but not any kind of breakout. To me he’s not a bust, but he is fair to mention as a guy who has been solid relative to the ranking.

Dylan Grant is different, and I think people should be careful not to lump him in too early. He was a good recruit, but not in the same hype tier as someone like Griffiths. 5.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg as a freshman and 9.8 ppg, 4.3 rpg as a sophomore, while Rutgers’ bio says he started 16 games as a freshman. That looks more like a player who is actually progressing on schedule than one who failed to meet expectations. I would not use Grant yet as evidence against Pikiell’s development. If anything, he looks like a case that is still trending upward. Any failure to meet expectations probably stems from desperate fans latching on to him as the only ray of light on a bad team, rather than any external recruiting rankings.

The more interesting case is Gavin Griffiths, because he is the cleanest example of a player who came in with major hype and did not establish himself at Rutgers. No. 20 recruit in the country by 247Sports, the highest-ranked player of the Pikiell era at that point. As a freshman at Rutgers in 2023-24, ESPN lists him at 5.8 ppg on 32.4% FG / 28.2% from three. He then transferred to Nebraska, where in 2024-25 he was actually used less and averaged only 2.1 ppg in 8.4 minutes. After that he transferred again, this time to Temple, where in 2025-26 he played a much larger role and put up 10.1 ppg, 4.9 rpg on 40.6% FG / 33.5% from three.

To me, Griffiths is important because he cuts both ways. He is definitely a point against Rutgers in the sense that a top-20 recruit did not break out here. But what happened after Rutgers also matters: he did not go to another Big Ten school and suddenly prove Rutgers was the problem. He actually had an even smaller role at Nebraska before finding a better landing spot at a lower level in Temple. That suggests the issue was not simply “Pikiell can’t develop players.” It looks more like Griffiths was not ready to become a winning Big Ten impact player that quickly, period. Temple is the first place where he has really gotten the volume and runway to put up numbers.

So if I were summarizing those three:

• Davis: fair mild example of a guy with some expectations who has been decent, but not a major hit relative to ranking.
• Grant: too early, and actually looks more like a player developing normally than a disappointment.
• Griffiths: best example of a high-expectation recruit who didn’t make it happen at Rutgers, but the Nebraska stop also shows Rutgers was not obviously the problem. Temple is where he finally started to look moderately productive.

The overall take doesn't change.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

I want Pike fired ASAP, but perfectly happy to say he did a good job in the old pre-NIL world. Not sure why that matters anymore? That world is gone with the wind.

I think Pike deserves his "prove-it" year with a reasonably competitive player salary pool. I also think that showing that his coaching strengths can work in the NIL era will matter. So that means retaining a core and having them grow as a team, as defenders, and as players, in addition to shopping the portal.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

He's been better at player development than all of the post-Yoing coaches, but that's not saying much, considering that player development was pretty much non existent at RU for 3 plus decades.

 

[T2Kplus20]

I think Pike deserves his "prove-it" year with a reasonably competitive player salary pool. I also think that showing that his coaching strengths can work in the NIL era will matter. So that means retaining a core and having them crow as a team, defenders, and as players, in addition to shopping the portal.

His prove it year was 24/25 with 2 of the top 3 recruits in the entire nation. He couldn't even sell his vision then and generate support/excitement for the program. Remember, the HC is vital part of the NIL revenue process. It's not just the AD. With this in mind, Pike has been an utter failure.

And sure, I hope he proves me wrong and has a great season.....but I'm not counting on it. I know how this story ends.

 

[bac2therac]

I'm looking at the Pike era as a whole. Any other players other than J-Will and Hyatt you think I should include?

Alot..too many to list offhand

 

[dark_check]

I think Pike deserves his "prove-it" year with a reasonably competitive player salary pool. I also think that showing that his coaching strengths can work in the NIL era will matter. So that means retaining a core and having them crow as a team, defenders, and as players, in addition to shopping the portal.

Definitely appreciate the research and time. Don’t necessarily agree though. Would the following players say they developed or improved at RU:
Reiber
Palmquist
Jaden Jones
Miller
Kiss
Agee
Simpson
Spencer (at UConn absolutely)
Woolfolk
Chol
Fernandes
Griffiths (reading your above I only see him as a ru negative)
Derkack
Grant

arguably none did. Some regressed.

 

[bac2therac]

JMike Davis
the 7 freshmen this year I get it probably not enough time but a discussion on its own for the amount of misses
Dortsch
Ogbole
Grant
Derkack
Griffiths
Mag
Simpson
Spencer
Palmquist
Wolfolk
J Will
Chol
Miller
Reiber
Hyatt
Jones
Doucoure
Carter
Kiss
Doorson
Bullock
Mensah
Thiam
Sa

latter 2 could be Jordan recruits

more indictive of recruiting malpractice rather than not being able to develop but should be evaluated just like the others

alot of failure and i didnt include 2 huge successes in Spencer and Yeboah but also 2 misses in A Williams and Fernandes

 

[Eagleton95.99]

His prove it year was 24/25 with 2 of the top 3 recruits in the entire nation. He couldn't even sell his vision then and generate support/excitement for the program. Remember, the HC is vital part of the NIL revenue process. It's not just the AD. With this in mind, Pike has been an utter failure.

And sure, I hope he proves me wrong and has a great season.....but I'm not counting on it. I know how this story ends.

That analysis ignores that he didn't have NIL money for the rest of the team. Not only couldn't he shop the portal like his competitors, we lost needed returning players that, normally pre NIL, we might have been able to rely on. It's a much different team with Mulcahy, Mag, Cliff, Spencer or even a smaller combo, and a couple of portal pieces that actually costed money. He didn't have that. Now he does. That equates to a prove-it year for me.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

Definitely appreciate the research and time. Don’t necessarily agree though. Would the following players say they developed or improved at RU:
Reiber
Palmquist
Jaden Jones
Miller
Kiss
Agee
Simpson
Spencer (at UConn absolutely)
Woolfolk
Chol
Fernandes
Griffiths (reading your above I only see him as a ru negative)
Derkack
Grant

arguably none did. Some regressed.

In my analysis I specifically tried to avoid lumping a bunch of stuff together because it obscures what's fact or feeling and enables people to project onto it. I already covered, I think, ALL the players that left here to go to a high-major. That includes Spencer and Griffiths. I covered Grant. My analysis is actually looking at each player's expectations coming in, what happened here, and also after they left. It indicates that players got as good or better player development here than elsewhere. Everyone else you mentioned did not have the expectations and rankings coming in to assume that they should have developed into anything, or they were busts here based on rankings, and stayed busts even after going to other programs (i.e. no player development can help them).

 

[seansherm]

I wouldn't even say the criticism of a "different era".

Even if it was the same era - it's been 4 years of disappointing results combined with zero development from players.
Davis, Ogbole, Grant: At best they should be deep bench players next year.
The beacon of recent development was supposed to be Grant coming into this year.
Now he's replaced with Mark or Powers as the next beacon of development.

Again - imagine Pike was at PSU and had the same seasons. Their fans say "We like the staff. They developed some good guys 5-6 years ago. We like the direction of the program."
The threads mocking them couldn't be created fast enough.

Grant just finished his soph year, hasn't improved yet, but not everyone develops at the same pace. Agree on they all should be bench players but I'd argue Davis and EO are better than when they arrived.

 

[NBKnight]

I think to say that a specific player is evidence for or against Pike's player development, that player has to be evaluated against expectations coming in. If they were low expectations coming in and did nothing, that's not evidence of player development (it's evidence of bad recruiting - different subject).

A few more names worth separating out in the “guys with expectations” discussion that were brought up are Jamichael Davis, Dylan Grant, and I'll add in Gavin Griffiths.

Jamichael Davis came in with mild recruiting expectations. Rutgers’ bio lists him as No. 243 overall, No. 38 PG nationally, and No. 17 in Georgia by 247Sports. Through three seasons at Rutgers, his scoring has gone 5.6 ppg → 4.6 ppg → 7.3 ppg. So there has been some growth, especially this year, but not any kind of breakout. To me he’s not a bust, but he is fair to mention as a guy who has been solid relative to the ranking.

Dylan Grant is different, and I think people should be careful not to lump him in too early. He was a good recruit, but not in the same hype tier as someone like Griffiths. 5.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg as a freshman and 9.8 ppg, 4.3 rpg as a sophomore, while Rutgers’ bio says he started 16 games as a freshman. That looks more like a player who is actually progressing on schedule than one who failed to meet expectations. I would not use Grant yet as evidence against Pikiell’s development. If anything, he looks like a case that is still trending upward. Any failure to meet expectations probably stems from desperate fans latching on to him as the only ray of light on a bad team, rather than any external recruiting rankings.

The more interesting case is Gavin Griffiths, because he is the cleanest example of a player who came in with major hype and did not establish himself at Rutgers. No. 20 recruit in the country by 247Sports, the highest-ranked player of the Pikiell era at that point. As a freshman at Rutgers in 2023-24, ESPN lists him at 5.8 ppg on 32.4% FG / 28.2% from three. He then transferred to Nebraska, where in 2024-25 he was actually used less and averaged only 2.1 ppg in 8.4 minutes. After that he transferred again, this time to Temple, where in 2025-26 he played a much larger role and put up 10.1 ppg, 4.9 rpg on 40.6% FG / 33.5% from three.

To me, Griffiths is important because he cuts both ways. He is definitely a point against Rutgers in the sense that a top-20 recruit did not break out here. But what happened after Rutgers also matters: he did not go to another Big Ten school and suddenly prove Rutgers was the problem. He actually had an even smaller role at Nebraska before finding a better landing spot at a lower level in Temple. That suggests the issue was not simply “Pikiell can’t develop players.” It looks more like Griffiths was not ready to become a winning Big Ten impact player that quickly, period. Temple is the first place where he has really gotten the volume and runway to put up numbers.

So if I were summarizing those three:

• Davis: fair mild example of a guy with some expectations who has been decent, but not a major hit relative to ranking.
• Grant: too early, and actually looks more like a player developing normally than a disappointment.
• Griffiths: best example of a high-expectation recruit who didn’t make it happen at Rutgers, but the Nebraska stop also shows Rutgers was not obviously the problem. Temple is where he finally started to look moderately productive.

The overall take doesn't change.

Griffiths had to grow up physically and mentally.

 

[bac2therac]

In my analysis I specifically tried to avoid lumping a bunch of stuff together because it obscures what's fact or feeling and enables people to project onto it. I already covered, I think, ALL the players that left her to go to a high-major. That includes Spencer and Griffiths. I covered Grant. My analysis actually looking at each player's expectations coming in, and what happened after they left, indicates that they got as good or better player development here than elsewhere. Everyone else you mentioned did not have the expectations and rankings coming in to assume that they should have developed into anything, or were busts and stayed busts even after going to other programs (i.e. no player development can help them).

How can you exclude 2 dozen players who he didnt develop

 

[Eagleton95.99]

JMike Davis
the 7 freshmen this year I get it probably not enough time but a discussion on its own for the amount of misses
Dortsch
Ogbole
Grant
Derkack
Griffiths
Mag
Simpson
Spencer
Palmquist
Wolfolk
J Will
Chol
Miller
Reiber
Hyatt
Jones
Doucoure
Carter
Kiss
Doorson
Bullock
Mensah
Thiam
Sa

latter 2 could be Jordan recruits

more indictive of recruiting malpractice rather than not being able to develop but should be evaluated just like the others

alot of failure and i didnt include 2 huge successes in Spencer and Yeboah but also 2 misses in A Williams and Fernandes

I'll do this whole list in a bit

 

[Eagleton95.99]

How can you exclude 2 dozen players who he didnt develop

Those are recruiting issues not player development. A player needs to have a certain amount of talent to be developed. Not every lump of coal is a diamond in the rough. Recruiting is another issue. A totally relevant issue with a whole set of arguments to be made pro and con. But you can't say Pike should have been expected to turn lumps of coal into diamonds strictly from a player development perspective.

 

[seansherm]

How can you exclude 2 dozen players who he didnt develop

Half were only here a year, can't include those guys in a development conversation. Recruiting? Whole other story.

 

[bac2therac]

Those are recruiting issues not player development. A player needs to have a certain amount of talent to be developed. Not every lump of coal is a diamond in the rough. Recruiting is another issue. A totally relevant issue with a whole set of arguments to be made pro and con. But you can't say Pike should have been expected to turn lumps of coal into diamonds strictly from a player development perspective.

Then why did u include geo and caleb...there were zero expectations based on ranking

You cant just cherry pick successes

So he is poor recruiter so where does that leaves us...hoping for 1 in 4 diamonds in the rough

 

[bac2therac]

Half were only here a year, can't include those guys in a development conversation. Recruiting? Whole other story.

Not really half..im counting 19 or 20

 

[dark_check]

In my analysis I specifically tried to avoid lumping a bunch of stuff together because it obscures what's fact or feeling and enables people to project onto it. I already covered, I think, ALL the players that left her to go to a high-major. That includes Spencer and Griffiths. I covered Grant. My analysis actually looking at each player's expectations coming in, and what happened after they left, indicates that they got as good or better player development here than elsewhere. Everyone else you mentioned did not have the expectations and rankings coming in to assume that they should have developed into anything, or were busts and stayed busts even after going to other programs (i.e. no player development can help them).

I feel your last few sentences give Pike too much of a pass. The Miller, Reiner, Palmquists, Simpsons, Chol, Woolfolk were supposed to be everything Geo RHJ etc became. Underrated guys who came here and developed. We were sold that bag of goods. Except Pike seemed to get lucky with one core group and he couldn’t repeat it time after time. Yet he still gets credit as a master developer.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

Then why did u include geo and caleb...there were zero expectations based on ranking

You cant just cherry pick successes

So he is poor recruiter so where does that leaves us...hoping for 1 in 4 diamonds in the rough

As i tried to explain in my OP, the only way we can say there is 'evidence' that relates to player development is evaluating how they did relative to expectations. A player that roughly lives up to expectations is neutral - not evidence of above or below average player development.

I cherry picked the players whose performance was different than expected. I also included the blue chips to assess if he knows how to use and teach top talent.

I didn't do every single player that was expected to be a lump of coal, and performed at that level. But I will dig into the larger list you posted above.

 

[Degaz-RU]

This thread is solely about "player development," but many people are pointing to RECRUITS or PORTAL TRANSFERS that stayed for one year and transferred, or this year's freshmen -- there's a difference between (one the one hand) developing players over a period of 2 to 4 years, and (on the other hand) landing high level recruits. The latter is a different discussion.

I do think it's fair to evaluate "development" against the backdrop of the initial expectations for the players. I like the way the OP has put these into the three buckets. So it's one thing to just list a bunch of players, but there needs to be some context. Feel free to read my own "development" evaluations below (mixed with recruiting evaluations), but I think the overriding conclusion is NOT that Pike can't develop players -- he certainly can and did -- but rather that, after initial success in recruiting, he failed to consolidate his success and failed to RECRUIT a full roster of talent after Ron, Geo, Myles, Paul, Caleb, Mathis, and Cliff left. Ace and Dylan aside (special situations), there just haven't been enough high quality players that were recruited to play here either from high school or the portal.

JMike Davis -- he came in with ZERO expectations, as the player who was signed solely to entice Ace Bailey to come. But he's turned into a credible Big Ten guard, perhaps shouldn't be starting, and would be a good "fourth" guard in a good program but has been asked to play starter's minutes. He also improved his metrics markedly from his freshman year to his junior year. FINAL SCORE: A nice development success.

Dortsch - zero expectations as a recruit, and has only seen minor development over two years. FINAL SCORE: Incomplete but trending as a development failure.

Ogbole - zero expectations coming from JUCO, but has developed over three years to being a decent backup center being asked to play starter's minutes. FINAL SCORE: A mild development success, but should NEVER have been put in a position to be a starter in the Big Ten.

Grant - solid expectations as a high 3-star/low 4-star recruit. He increased his production this year, but mainly based on the OOC schedule, and regressed over the last half of the season. FINAL SCORE: Still a work in progress, but trending as a development failure.

Derkack - low expectations as a mid-major portal recruit, and played to his reputation. FINAL SCORE: a wash, and a recruiting miss.

Griffiths - high expectations as a consensus 4-star recruit, and was terrible as a freshman before transferring. FINAL SCORE: Incomplete from a development standpoint, but a major RECRUITING/EVALUATION miss.

Mag - low expectations as a low 3-star recruit without any other major offers. Was unplayable as a freshman but developed into a legit starting wing forward and arguably our most important player in 2022-23 before tearing his ACL. He regressed the following year, but some of that was injury and some was attitude. FINAL SCORE: a major development success.

Simpson - solid expectations as a top NJ recruit, but not a national recruit. Made a minor splash in the last third of his freshman year and then was the most inefficient guard in the country his sophomore year, magnified by him having to take on an "alpha" role before he was ready and with little help. Transferred after his sophomore year. FINAL SCORE: a wash.

Spencer - a fabulous portal get and played even better when he went to UConn. FINAL SCORE: doesn't really fit the "development" concept since he was only here one year, but he did play better than expected coming from a mid-major. FINAL SCORE: a development win.

Palmquist - zero expectations coming from Sweden. Never developed into anything more than a deep reserve. We would've been content if Pike had not hyped him up as a great shooter and athlete. FINAL SCORE: a wash compared to our expectations, but a development failure ultimately.

Woolfolk - low expectations as a 3-star recruit with no other major offers. Played decently as a sophomore, but was overmatched in the Big Ten. FINAL SCORE: a mild development success or a wash.

J Will - moderate expectations after two solid years at Temple, and performed well in his limited first year here, but then regressed a bit his second year. He was basically the same player all four years of his career before transferring to Georgetown, where his numbers have dipped even more. FINAL SCORE: a wash.

Chol - zero expectations, zero production. FINAL SCORE: a development failure, but not really unexpected from the standpoint of expectations.

Miller - mild expectations, not much production. FINAL SCORE: a development failure.

Reiber - zero expectations, made an initial splash as a "big" who could shoot and space the floor, jinxed us by singing along to Toto's "Africa" during our road game against Minnesota (had to mention that), and then regressed. FINAL SCORE: a recruiting failure, and a development failure.

Hyatt - high expectations as a former 4-star recruit who played two years at LSU, but did not produce much. Increased production in each year at Rutgers and became a solid wing but -- a familiar refrain -- was never a starting quality guy. FINAL SCORE: a mild development success.

Jones - high expectations as a 4-star recruit, did nothing here in one year. FINAL SCORE: a recruiting/evaluation failure.

Doucoure - high expectations as a 4-star recruit, but never did much here. FINAL SCORE: a recruiting/evaluation failure, and a development failure.

Carter - medium expectations as a transfer 4/5, and lived up to that billing. FINAL SCORE: a wash.

Kiss - low/medium expectations as a high scoring guard from a low major program. Was inefficient and lost playing time over the year. FINAL SCORE: a recruiting/evaluation miss.

Doorson - zero expectations as a lightly recruited, overweight center, but became a solid starting C his last year. FINAL SCORE: a mild development success.

Bullock - low/medium expectations as a player from high profile NJ school, but no other major offers. Did nothing here in one or two years. FINAL SCORE: a recruiting/evaluation failure, and a development failure.

Mensah - zero expectations as an unknown recruit from France, and was one of the worst players for Rutgers in Pike's tenure. FINAL SCORE: a major recruiting/evaluation failure.

Thiam - high expectations as a high 3-star/low-4-star recruit, billed as a shooter. Was only solid here before running into legal troubles. FINAL SCORE: a development failure.

Sa - low expectations and performed to that billing. FINAL SCORE: a wash.

 

[T2Kplus20]

That analysis ignores that he didn't have NIL money for the rest of the team.

He should have gotten more. That's the point. It's the HC job to make it rain (more NIL money). He already had the 2 best recruits in the history of RU b-ball and still failed to excite donors and fans to contribute to what could have been a special season.

While I don't believe GS will be successful either, at least I appreciate GS busting his butt looking for more NIL money. Pike is just clueless.

 

[Eagleton95.99]

He should have gotten more. That's the point. It's the HC job to make it rain (more NIL money). He already had the 2 best recruits in the history of RU b-ball and still failed to excite donors and fans to contribute to what could have been a special season.

While I don't believe GS will be successful either, at least I appreciate GS busting his butt looking for more NIL money. Pike is just clueless.

This is a thread dedicated to the question of whether or not Pikiell is a good player developer.

 

[seansherm]

I feel your last few sentences give Pike too much of a pass. The Miller, Reiner, Palmquists, Simpsons, Chol, Woolfolk were supposed to be everything Geo RHJ etc became. Underrated guys who came here and developed. We were sold that bag of goods. Except Pike seemed to get lucky with one core group and he couldn’t repeat it time after time. Yet he still gets credit as a master developer.

Anyone who thought Miller and Reiber were going to be anything needs their head examined, although if I recall Miller had a decent senior year eventually. Palmquist got built up in fans minds by Pike talking him up, but was a great end of the bench teammate. Simpson, Chol, and Folk probably make this years team better.

 

[RAC93]

Definitely appreciate the research and time. Don’t necessarily agree though. Would the following players say they developed or improved at RU:
Reiber
Palmquist
Jaden Jones
Miller
Kiss
Agee
Simpson
Spencer (at UConn absolutely)
Woolfolk
Chol
Fernandes
Griffiths (reading your above I only see him as a ru negative)
Derkack
Grant

arguably none did. Some regressed.

I was going to mention Jaden Jones, not sure if he was never developed, not sure if it was more that he was a flake (which he was). Might give 50% blame of Jones to Pike and staff and 50% to Jones himself and his flightiness. He seemed to have talent and that was never developed, just not sure exactly where the fault lies on that one.

 

[NickRU714]

Those are recruiting issues not player development. A player needs to have a certain amount of talent to be developed. Not every lump of coal is a diamond in the rough. Recruiting is another issue. A totally relevant issue with a whole set of arguments to be made pro and con. But you can't say Pike should have been expected to turn lumps of coal into diamonds strictly from a player development perspective.

Agree. To an extent.

If one of your main selling points as a staff is "We develop players" then some increased level of "coals into diamond"s" should be expected.

If you need a high minimum level of talent in order to develop - then what exactly is the staff offering over other coaches?

Its like saying someone is a great recruiter but only if they are at OSU or UM.

 

[Wavy]

Anyone who thought Miller and Reiber were going to be anything needs their head examined, although if I recall Miller had a decent senior year eventually. Palmquist got built up in fans minds by Pike talking him up, but was a great end of the bench teammate. Simpson, Chol, and Folk probably make this years team better.

Well then why did Pickle recruit them? To occupy the bench?

 

[bac2therac]

Pikiell also benefited from getting his core to have an extra covid year. Unfortunately in many ways it also hurt the programs future

 

[seansherm]

Well then why did Pickle recruit them? To occupy the bench?

His recruiting is a whole different topic

 

[seansherm]

Pikiell also benefited from getting his core to have an extra covid year. Unfortunately in many ways it also hurt the programs future

Same with Greg

 

[RU-ROCS]

Nice post, but most of what you are saying is N/A in the new NIL world. Pike is a fish out of water now. Game has changed.

I agree with the OP and this post. Sadly, NIL has been a big impediment for Pikiell ball.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Definitely appreciate the research and time. Don’t necessarily agree though. Would the following players say they developed or improved at RU:
Reiber
Palmquist
Jaden Jones
Miller
Kiss
Agee
Simpson
Spencer (at UConn absolutely)
Woolfolk
Chol
Fernandes
Griffiths (reading your above I only see him as a ru negative)
Derkack
Grant

arguably none did. Some regressed.

Some of these guys like Griffiths, Jones and Derkack transferred after only a year before they had a chance to develop, so they are really not great examples. Spencer was great for RU so he would support the OP’s argument. Spencer left for a bag and a shot at a natty.