New Offer: 2015 SF Chris Clarke | Page 3 | The Boneyard

New Offer: 2015 SF Chris Clarke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the fact he has a nice college ready body and motor, is really good with the ball both in the half court and in transition, can pass it and just looks like he can succeed in a program like UConn, with out knowing anything other than video's from both - I take Clarke NOW……….

There's a ceiling there and something really intriguing about him to me………love his game and explosion!
 
mauconnfan said:
Based on the fact he has a nice college ready body and motor, is really good with the ball both in the half court and in transition, can pass it and just looks like he can succeed in a program like UConn, with out knowing anything other than video's from both - I take Clarke NOW……….

There's a ceiling there and something really intriguing about him to me………love his game and explosion!
Expand ...
I'd like to see them hold out for Jones for a little bit before pulling the trigger on Clark. He remind me a little of Sticks. He's not as tall, but has very long arms and doesn't really have much of an outside game to speak of which doesn't bode well for a wing. Maybe he's better than I think, but I think they can wait a little bit before they try to press for a commitment, assuming he's strongly interested in UConn.

If it was between Clarke or one of the big time bigs or guards, as far as the limited number of available ships are concerned, I'd be in no rush.
 
DogMania said:
I'd like to see them hold out for Jones for a little bit before pulling the trigger on Clark. He remind me a little of Sticks. He's not as tall, but has very long arms and doesn't really have much of an outside game to speak of which doesn't bode well for a wing. Maybe he's better than I think, but I think they can wait a little bit before they try to press for a commitment, assuming he's strongly interested in UConn.

If it was between Clarke or one of the big time bigs or guards, as far as the limited number of available ships are concerned, I'd be in no rush.
Expand ...

Looks a fair bit quicker than Sticks, with better handle. A more athletic/quick Denham Brown?
 
I watched most of Clarke's game today and tried to read up on him a little bit. From what I can tell, he is a high energy guy who could turn into a very valuable defensive player and offensive slasher. At the high-major level, he could be an impact energy guy off the bench and defensive specialist, but his offensive game is limited. I'm not sure I agree with all the talk about his handles. He can handle the ball, but I didn't see such a tight handle as it's made out to be. Plus, he literally wouldn't shoot the ball from more than 10-15 feet away..everything was to the hoop. That's not always a bad thing, often times you want guys going to the hoop instead of settling for jumpers, but you can't be an offensive liability either when you won't shoot from deep, a la a Rondo type. I'm by no means knocking the kid. He would be a tremendous role player, and that's not a bad thing at all, but I see a lot more, at least offensively, from D Jones. I wouldn't be upset by any means if we locked this kid up. He will work his way into a player, I'm sure of it. But I agree w/DogMania that there may be better options for us.
 
.-.
Last quick thought - Clarke's offensive game is nowhere near as polished or complete as Denham Brown's game - not a good comp. This kid would be a bulldog on D though. As a junior/senior, I could see him as a lockdown perimeter guy.
 
DogMania said:
I'd like to see them hold out for Jones for a little bit before pulling the trigger on Clark. He remind me a little of Sticks. He's not as tall, but has very long arms and doesn't really have much of an outside game to speak of which doesn't bode well for a wing. Maybe he's better than I think, but I think they can wait a little bit before they try to press for a commitment, assuming he's strongly interested in UConn. If it was between Clarke or one of the big time bigs or guards, as far as the limited number of available ships are concerned, I'd be in no rush.
Expand ...

It depends on who is around him. MKG has the grossest looking jumper I've ever seen and won a title as a wing, but he was a good fit on that team so he didn't have to go to his weakness much at all. And it wasn't like he rode everyone else's coattails - he was a beast in his own right. If you put a guy like Clarke in there between Purvis and Hamilton (if they are still around) to slash into the gaps of a broken down defense, and take the tough defensive assignments, he could fit nicely. You need those guys to win titles.

A hard working blue collar guy can stick around for four years and be a key leader late in his career (Adrien, Giffey, Ricky, Taliek). Of course, I just compared him to MKG who was a #2 pick in the draft after one season, so I guess I'm all over the place. And it's hard to know who his teammates will be, other than Adams.
 
azescobar said:
I watched most of Clarke's game today and tried to read up on him a little bit. From what I can tell, he is a high energy guy who could turn into a very valuable defensive player and offensive slasher. At the high-major level, he could be an impact energy guy off the bench and defensive specialist, but his offensive game is limited. I'm not sure I agree with all the talk about his handles. He can handle the ball, but I didn't see such a tight handle as it's made out to be. Plus, he literally wouldn't shoot the ball from more than 10-15 feet away..everything was to the hoop. That's not always a bad thing, often times you want guys going to the hoop instead of settling for jumpers, but you can't be an offensive liability either when you won't shoot from deep, a la a Rondo type. I'm by no means knocking the kid. He would be a tremendous role player, and that's not a bad thing at all, but I see a lot more, at least offensively, from D Jones. I wouldn't be upset by any means if we locked this kid up. He will work his way into a player, I'm sure of it. But I agree w/DogMania that there may be better options for us.
Expand ...
If it wasn't for having limited ships to offer, I'd be fine with adding him sooner than later, but as it stands, Adams took one of the 4. That leaves 3 for some combination of the following: Stone, Newman, Jones, Enoch, Koumadje and probably a few other recruits that are either more talented or meet a greater need. In the end, maybe we land Clarke and he turns out to be an outstanding talent. It wouldn't be the first time a raw athletic wing developed big time offensive capabilities, but on the other hand, we've seen wings like Sticks and Scoe who never learned to knock down Js on a consistent basis and/or learn to create their own shot.
 
Like it would be awful to have a "Sticks type" player with a better handle or something? It amazes me how people throw Stanley under the bus when he actually had a wonderful career and was a good kid……….also I agree he may be limited in his perimeter game but so is Jones……..and watching them both I think Clarke has a better handle and is a better passer with vision but only by a few minutes of highlights…….not much to go on but gut here but that Clarke kid has the "Kromah/Giffey" things with a lot more athletic ability and room to grow, and he'll stay and get better………we need those types too……..
 
If Clarke is really rising and is a legit Top 50 player then I'm fine with either him or Jones.

As UConn fans we should be well aware of the lack of differentiation between players in the 20-50 range. Some make it, some don't.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
If Clarke is really rising and is a legit Top 50 player then I'm fine with either him or Jones.

As UConn fans we should be well aware of the lack of differentiation between players in the 20-50 range. Some make it, some don't.
Expand ...

And even more important some fit, some don't……..I like Jones too and would take him in a nano second don't get me wrong just something about Clarke and being a Husky!
 
Not sure if it means anything but some guy on 247 named Tyler Mounce updated his prediction with both Clarke and Jones for UConn today. The guy is ranked 13th for getting predictions correct.

I also can see a scenario where we sign 5 for 15 and let the scholarship issue work out later.
 
jleves said:
Not sure if it means anything but some guy on named Tyler Mounce updated his prediction with both Clarke and Jones for UConn today. The guy is ranked 13th for getting predictions correct.

I also can see a scenario where we sign 5 for 15 and let the scholarship issue work out later.
Expand ...

This is what I want. It always does work out in the end, as guys' jump or transfer for whatever reason.

JA
Jones
Clarke
Stone
Enoch

That would be nice. A little guard light, but we'll def still have Cassell and Tsam, so we'd be sweet.
 
johnhuskies95 said:
Sounds like a Paul Harris type player .
Expand ...
intlzncster said:
I'd take Kawahi Leonard (even college version) in a heart beat. Hands for days.

Maybe UCONN is are getting higher profile than we thought? If Kawahi Leonard is 'beneath' us.
Expand ...

Well Kawhi wasn't even good enough for a Pac 10 offer. Sometimes these super role player types are tough to project and I think we should all trust KO.
 
.-.
breezy said:
It's like with women, hit on most of them and a few will say yes.

Unlike our basketball recruits, none of the ones that say yes to me are top 100...
Expand ...

There's always UCONN basketball my friend...
 
Love the motor! But at 6'5 and not very long shouldn't we expect some offensive skills? For 15 give me enoch and a lights out shooter who can stretch the floor and im happy. Jones would be icing on the cake.
 
UcannUconn said:
Love the motor! But at 6'5 and not very long shouldn't we expect some offensive skills? For 15 give me enoch and a lights out shooter who can stretch the floor and im happy. Jones would be icing on the cake.
Expand ...

I'm just not sure what offensive skills he's missing in comparison to Jones? Did you see something very different in the 2 other than the fact Clarke shows some handle away from the basket and just a crazy ability to get to the rim? They are similar, one longer than the other and skinnier and being recruited but UK and other big names the other not so much. I like the one who wants to work harder for whatever reason in this one, not always, but that motor and the way he scores and then begins his sprint back on D - he's a player and he wants to play!
 
Clarke would be a very nice fit if the rest if there are shooters around him. He has a certain toughness to him that I think will be contagious. I don't see him as a smaller Sticks though - Sticks had crazy hops and a pretty good jumper, even if it wasn't always the prettiest. I loved me some Stanley Robinson. I hate to say it, but Clarke reminds me of the kind of guys Cincy gets - tough as hell defensively, a little limited offensively, but guys you'd go to war with. If we got him, I would not be upset in the least bit. But we are after so many big fish in this class, at an unprecedented level, I think we need to let things shake out a little bit first. A Newman/Stone duo pretty much trumps all else, even if we enjoy it only for one championship year. (Give me some Steve Enoch too while we're at it).
 
azescobar said:
Clarke would be a very nice fit if the rest if there are shooters around him. He has a certain toughness to him that I think will be contagious. I don't see him as a smaller Sticks though - Sticks had crazy hops and a pretty good jumper, even if it wasn't always the prettiest. I loved me some Stanley Robinson. I hate to say it, but Clarke reminds me of the kind of guys Cincy gets - tough as hell defensively, a little limited offensively, but guys you'd go to war with. If we got him, I would not be upset in the least bit. But we are after so many big fish in this class, at an unprecedented level, I think we need to let things shake out a little bit first. A Newman/Stone duo pretty much trumps all else, even if we enjoy it only for one championship year. (Give me some Steve Enoch too while we're at it).
Expand ...
Agree with this post on every count. Really well thought out.
 
Kind of reminds me of that kid Demarre Carroll from Missouri. Or am I getting him confused with someone else on that Missouri team?
 
.-.
I'm in the camp of "would be a nice get, but I'd rather hold out for a shooter".

We're already going into this season having lost a lot of our outside shooting production (Bazz, Giff, DD) and replacing those guys who will have a tough time replicating it (Purvis, Facey). [Daniel Hamilton has the reputation of being an excellent shooter, but we haven't seen whether it translates to the college game (lots of other guys have come in with reputations as great shooters, only to flop).]

If we load up with another non-shooter, especially at the 3, we run the risk of making it easy for the defense to become compact and deny us driving lanes. The 2010 team with Kemba (not yet a good shooter), Dyson (never a good shooter), and Sticks (inconsistent from deep) suffered this problem (among others).

Clarke sounds like maybe a rich man's Marcus Johnson which, while nice, might not be the best fit skill-wise (though it sounds like he'd be a perfect fit attitude-wise) for the roster we're building.
 
One thing I would add is we are likely adding a lot of offensive weapons/highly regarded players (we're still doomed) so a guy like this who is all effort, all the time (willing to dive for loose balls/get 50:50 balls) and could be a point forward type is pretty intriguing.

I will be very happy if we land him but recruiting is difficult, I can understand waiting to see how it plays out. He really looks like a warrior in the videos. Agree with some questioning do we have enough shooting if DHam is gone after a year? I've seen Cassell play 3 times and he is a pure shooter but tough to guarantee how guys translate. (would expect him to be fine), not sure if Adams is a pure shooter? (more of crazy athlete I've read - but no idea) and TSam is the man but not a shooter at this point. I really think Facey will be a nice player for us by the time these recruits are wearing UConn jerseys. That would solve a lot.

Also, I wonder what his true height is?
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I'm in the camp of "would be a nice get, but I'd rather hold out for a shooter".

We're already going into this season having lost a lot of our outside shooting production (Bazz, Giff, DD) and replacing those guys who will have a tough time replicating it (Purvis, Facey). [Daniel Hamilton has the reputation of being an excellent shooter, but we haven't seen whether it translates to the college game (lots of other guys have come in with reputations as great shooters, only to flop).]

If we load up with another non-shooter, especially at the 3, we run the risk of making it easy for the defense to become compact and deny us driving lanes. The 2010 team with Kemba (not yet a good shooter), Dyson (never a good shooter), and Sticks (inconsistent from deep) suffered this problem (among others).
Expand ...

Well, if we recruit a shooter, he will come in with the same unproven reputation just like Hamilton. So I don't see why that point matters so much. Hamilton, by all accounts, resembles Rip in his ability to flush the mid range J.

Are we even recruiting any lights out shooters?
 
UConnTrumbull said:
Random question... just wondering what the "DOOMED" stuff is in reference to. I'm relatively new to boneyard and I see it all the time on here.
Expand ...

Because we are DOOOOOMED. Traditionally 5 'O's, but that seems to have fallen by the way side. @Scot-e


BTW, there's a newcomer Boneyard memes thread somewhere that explains a whole ton of common references. Don't know where it is though.
 
intlzncster said:
Because we are DOOOOOMED. Traditionally 5 'O's, but that seems to have fallen by the way side. @Scot-e BTW, there's a newcomer Boneyard memes thread somewhere that explains a whole ton of common references. Don't know where it is though.
Expand ...

Not sure who takes the initial credit but I think it just sort of happened organically through mojo concerns. There would be a cocky poster who would insist we'll win an upcoming game (or insist we had the game locked up in the chat room when the outcome was still in doubt) and the superstitious sorts would insist such brazen optimism was an affront to the basketball gods. So they'd respond oh no, we're doomed. Dooooomed!

This would serve the dual purpose of telling the offending poster not to be so cocky, and also appeasing the basketball gods by creating a better cocky-to-reverent ratio, thus hoping they would go easy on us.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,269
Messages
4,560,842
Members
10,451
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom