How many 5-Star recruits is enough? Too many? | The Boneyard

How many 5-Star recruits is enough? Too many?

D

dogpause

Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,127
Reaction Score
8,234
Assuming almost all 5*'s are one-and-done, in your opinion is there a correct number to have on the roster? One, Stephon Castle was just right this year, and Kentucky has shown that too many are not good. In addition to talent, it seems that continuity, chemistry, and humilty are also valued assets to Hurley. What's your thoughts?
 
this is a skill issue. some 5 stars can be impact players with the right attitude, not all are. the problem comes when you just recruit for rankings, but they are obviously not doing that. that they are getting more 5 stars is not an indication that they are sacrificing the team for rankings. it's just that the program reputation is finally catching up to reality and more players are willing to buy in.
 
Somewhere between 1 and 13 seems about right.

The problem with some of those teams isn’t that there are too many 5 star recruits, it’s lack of experience on the roster overall or poor roster construction or less effective coaching. There is nothing inherently cocky, selfish, or disruptive about a 5 star recruit, alone or in combination.
 
.-.
Probably depends on the make-up of the team. A roster full of them does not make an elite team. I think last year we had a perfect mix with experience, youth and grit.
 
As said in several ways above, it's not the number of 5-stars you have, it's whether you can get them to mesh together into a great team.

Example that I've seen a lot: St. Mary's of California, who has gifted Aidan Mahaney to Storrs. Aidan was the Gaels' first-ever 4-star guy, yet SMC had won LOTS of games under Randy Bennett, even a few tourney games; often beating teams with 4-stars and 5-stars galore.

This sorta brings up another thing I've always thought about coaches. Some are better at "coaching up" so-so talent, but have trouble getting loaded rosters to jell. Some are better at making terrific teams out of highly gifted guys, but can't win at all with so-so talent.

This theory holds true for me in high schools, too.

It seems to me, in my as-yet limited experience with UConn, Hurley (and Auriemma) can be highly successful in both cases.
 
The real question is how many 5-stars can you get who are willing to pass the ball, set screens, play team defense, and run sets knowing that they will not touch the rock on that trip down the floor unless they get the rebound and put back.
 
.-.
NJHoops said:
Somewhere between 1 and 13 seems about right.

The problem with some of those teams isn’t that there are too many 5 star recruits, it’s lack of experience on the roster overall or poor roster construction or less effective coaching. There is nothing inherently cocky, selfish, or disruptive about a 5 star recruit, alone or in combination.
Expand ...

Yes. To get to be a 5* they had to have a lot of grit, determination, hard work on top of natural talent. Other things equal, being a 5* is only a positive.
 
pj said:
Yes. To get to be a 5* they had to have a lot of grit, determination, hard work on top of natural talent. Other things equal, being a 5* is only a positive.
Expand ...
I think that's right. People scoff at 5* as if they were just the most athletic guys who didn't have to try - no you need a lot of grit and effort to get to 5*
 
I don't mind 1, it was great this year. I suppose 2 can work, but once you get to 3 or more and I suspect their playing will become an issue and I prefer older players who are hungry and committed

Having said all that, I defer my every thought to the wisdom of our brilliant coaching staff.
 
There is no right answer to this. It’s about culture and fit more than ranking. Steph Castle is a 5 star, but I would take 13 of him. I wouldn’t pass on someone just because they are a 5 star. I would pass on someone because they aren’t a program fit. It’s always great to have talent, but it has to make sense for what our identity is.
 
.-.
.-.
dogpause said:
Assuming almost all 5*'s are one-and-done, in your opinion is there a correct number to have on the roster? One, Stephon Castle was just right this year, and Kentucky has shown that too many are not good. In addition to talent, it seems that continuity, chemistry, and humilty are also valued assets to Hurley. What's your thoughts?
Expand ...

I think there is no right number as long as you have one who’s an absolute superstar.

Melo had none (Gmac was a 4*) and Davis had a bunch. Okafor and Tyus Jones were the only other one-and-dones champs.

My gut says that it’s so rare that a freshman leads you to a title, the more of them you’re relying on, the bigger problems you’re going to have. Unless you have a Melo or AD.
 
August_West said:
There is no right answer to this. It’s about culture and fit more than ranking. Steph Castle is a 5 star, but I would take 13 of him. I wouldn’t pass on someone just because they are a 5 star. I would pass on someone because they aren’t a program fit. It’s always great to have talent, but it has to make sense for what our identity is.
Expand ...
13 Steph Castles would be a pretty damn good team.
 
Problem with lot of 5* recruits is it gets you lot of freshman and lot of transfers in with little continuity (unless get multi year transfers and or lot of 5* guys not being one and done or feeling being recruited over). See Duke where coach brags about lack of transfers out just before a mass exodus.
UConn with one 5*, and 2 solid 4* (8th PG and 18th SF), 4 returning freshman, 2 returning upper class guys and 2 transfers (both with 2 years remaining) is about as good a mix as can get.
How Hurley and guys pulled this off when entire starting team left for NBA draft is something. And all 11 guys can play and will be fighting for minutes (I put Singare and Ross in the mix for playing time).
 
When Tristen Newton came out of high school was he a 3 star recruit or less? Here were his college choices.

“When it came time to choose a college program, he chose East Carolina over Delaware State, Evansville, Northeastern and Rio Grande.”

My opinion is that it’s important to have players like this mixed in with highly talented 5 stars like Castle. Andre Jackson not a 5 star, AK not a 5 star but basketball smarts, can that be rated in stars? The desire and intensity to win.
 
part of their ability to keep continuity is the way they run practice, but having a bunch of veterans leading the culture is also pretty important. but there's a natural limit on top recruits by position and minutes constraints so you'll probably always have a bunch of veterans around anyway. 2 5 stars in a class is prob the realistic upper limit.

the hard to replace things you can get from uber elite 5 stars is individual creation and athleticism. the creation part is not relied upon but can be a good backup option in case of offense disruptions, but mostly it's a shiny new toy in the hands of LUKE and co, so it's just fun to have a guy like AJ in the system and see what they can come up with.

in terms of raising the team's ceiling against the other top teams, I think having elite rim protection and point of attack defense are pretty important.
 
dogpause said:
Assuming almost all 5*'s are one-and-done, in your opinion is there a correct number to have on the roster? One, Stephon Castle was just right this year, and Kentucky has shown that too many are not good. In addition to talent, it seems that continuity, chemistry, and humilty are also valued assets to Hurley. What's your thoughts?
Expand ...

I think it is more important to recruit players who fit your program, first and foremost. The order in which recruits find themselves isn’t an indictment on their abilities, as the outcome of their success isn’t in line with that order. It is never a surprise when the 75th best player out performs the 20th. Sometimes you get a guy like Steph Castle who as a top 10 recruit performed very well. Look at Elliot Cadeau of UNC. He was ranked right below Castle and was straight garbage. He shot 18% from the 3 and under 70% from the free throw line, as an undersized guard.

I think the goal shouldn’t be how many 5 stars, but rather making sure everyone you do recruit is in the top 100. If they don’t make the top 100 they go to a smaller school and if they then prove themselves, we nab them in the portal when that time comes. I think teams that focus on just the top recruits fail to build teams that perform well together. As you said, chemistry continuity and humility matter. You won’t find those in a stat line or at the combine.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,632
Messages
4,587,023
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom