New offer out for 2014 PG Devin Watson

[mauconnfan]

Snider looks solid......Watson looks pretty good but smallish........When Samuels is ready and playing it would seem he is the perfect back up so we shouldn't be getting another one!

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm not ready to try to talk myself into getting excited about this kid. His other offers are underwhelming, he's clearly a notch below our other targets at PG.

We already have a likely 4-year backup in Samuel (I hope he turns out to be better than that, but I'm dubious) and don't need another. We need to be landing studs, especially at the most important position on the floor in today's college game.

 

[James]

Samuel would probably throw up if told his upside was 4 year back up. I'm also curious how you came to that conclusion since he hasn't even suited up. Have you guys ever heard of damian lillard? he was a 2 star recruit in hs.

 

[caw]

I'm not ready to try to talk myself into getting excited about this kid. His other offers are underwhelming, he's clearly a notch below our other targets at PG.

We already have a likely 4-year backup in Samuel (I hope he turns out to be better than that, but I'm dubious) and don't need another. We need to be landing studs, especially at the most important position on the floor in today's college game.

I'm OK with it if Boatright stays or if Purvis is an actual PG.

Remember 2009 had AJ (senior) Austrie (Senior) Kemba (freshman) Bev (sophomore) as the PGs. That team only had Dyson at the two. So five guards. Two were considered lower rated out of high school in Bev and Austrie.

I don't think Watson would stop Ollie from continuing to go after Snider or McLaughlin and I don't think he would stop them from joining UConn if that's what they want to do.

 

[caw]

Samuel would probably throw up if told his upside was 4 year back up. I'm also curious how you came to that conclusion since he hasn't even suited up. Have you guys ever heard of damian lillard? he was a 2 star recruit in hs.

Samuel may be a four year backup but he has potential for more.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm OK with it if Boatright stays or if Purvis is an actual PG.

Remember 2009 had AJ (senior) Austrie (Senior) Kemba (freshman) Bev (sophomore) as the PGs. That team only had Dyson at the two. So five guards. Two were considered lower rated out of high school in Bev and Austrie.

I don't think Watson would stop Ollie from continuing to go after Snider or McLaughlin and I don't think he would stop them from joining UConn if that's what they want to do.

Boat isn't staying and Purvis isn't a full-time PG. I see Purvis as being a similar player to Dyson, to be quite honest (take that for what it's worth).

I don't have a problem with signing lower-rated PG's so long as it doesn't preclude signing a true stud for either 2014 or 2015, which we are going to need.

 

[Gurleyman]

I prefer taking a wait and see approach. Stick a solid pass-first role player with Purvis, Calhoun and Hamilton and you may have something to build with for a few years (depending on how long those guys stick around). Whether Samuel or Watson if he comes can be that guy, I don't know, but I'm not writing them off. Austrie found a niche with us, and was way out of the top 100.

When you think about tiers of recruits, you also have to consider how they project. With the advantage of hindsight now, would you have preferred Brandon Knight or Shabazz Napier? Knight was Plan A and Napier Plan E or so. It's not even close - even if Knight is/was a better player.

All things equal, you want the top tier guys, but sometimes all things aren't equal. Pieces fitting is important too - plus some guys who stick around long enough to reach stud level in college and not leave when still scratching the surface (ie Drummond). Knowing what we already have in the fold around the perimeter, I'd rather find a good fit in a lower tiered recruit than a higher ranked stud who doesn't mesh. I think Perkins seemed like an ideal fit, so I'm not saying we're better off without him, and I don't have a good enough feel for Snider, McLaughlin or Watson to speculate. But hopefully Ollie and his staff do, and if they think they see the right type of complementary piece in Watson that can fit well with the other guys, then I'm on board. Or if they see him as a guy who can back up Dorsey for a year (should that happen) and start as a junior, that's cool too.

 

[SeattleHoop]

I prefer taking a wait and see approach. Stick a solid pass-first role player with Purvis, Calhoun and Hamilton and you may have something to build with for a few years (depending on how long those guys stick around). Whether Samuel or Watson if he comes can be that guy, I don't know, but I'm not writing them off. Austrie found a niche with us, and was way out of the top 100.

When you think about tiers of recruits, you also have to consider how they project. With the advantage of hindsight now, would you have preferred Brandon Knight or Shabazz Napier? Knight was Plan A and Napier Plan E or so. It's not even close - even if Knight is/was a better player.

All things equal, you want the top tier guys, but sometimes all things aren't equal. Pieces fitting is important too - plus some guys who stick around long enough to reach stud level in college and not leave when still scratching the surface (ie Drummond). Knowing what we already have in the fold around the perimeter, I'd rather find a good fit in a lower tiered recruit than a higher ranked stud who doesn't mesh. I think Perkins seemed like an ideal fit, so I'm not saying we're better off without him, and I don't have a good enough feel for Snider, McLaughlin or Watson to speculate. But hopefully Ollie and his staff do, and if they think they see the right type of complementary piece in Watson that can fit well with the other guys, then I'm on board. Or if they see him as a guy who can back up Dorsey for a year (should that happen) and start as a junior, that's cool too.

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

 

[James]

It isn't just us, people fly under the radar across the nation. I mentioned lillard, but even russel westbrook and paul george were 3 star recruits. I can't really speak on levels of exposure varying , nor am I calling Samuel a Westbrook mold. all I'm saying is wait and see.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Boatright will back for his senior year IMO. I am 99% sure of that. Listening to Boat spout off at the mouth regarding the decision making process for the 2013-14 season was simply Boat being Boat. It is not the genetic makeup of the UConn coaches now or in the past to let a kid put his name in the draft early when he has 1% chance of being drafted in the first 40 picks. Unless he is one of the 15 or so finalists for the Naismith Award like Khalid was after his Jr. year (fringe 1st rounder) Boat won't leave despite the pending drama over the decision. There is about a 1% chance of that happening IMO.

Kevin Ollie is respected by his players. Boat is no exception and will get another dose of reality from KO soon after our NCAA tournament game.

Boat has a shot at top 40 (fringe 1st rounder) if he puts in the work and stays 4 years. NBA is the kids dream. He has a shot to get there by following the advise of KO. Absent a very strong case for financial hardship which is personal it is my opinion a 4th year will benefit Boat quite a bit despite the naysayers who claim his size ect...caps his draft stock.

I don't think it is imminent to sign a PG in this years class unless the fit is perfect. JMHO

 

[Gurleyman]

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

Voskuhl was out of the top 100. Saunders ended up about 50, but was actually really high in 10th grade or so (top 10) before fading as he plateaued and others caught up to him. Free was about 40 and Ricky about 30. Ricky was very highly regarded, but maybe came up short relative to expectations as a scorer/PG and adapted as his career went on to be a defensive specialist.

We've had a lot of some success with guys like Ricky, Rashamel Jones, Taliek, Roscoe, and CV who maybe had inflated recruiting rankings, or didn't have the immediate impact their rankings said they should, but who adapted to lesser roles than they probably envisioned for themselves and won titles. And we've had the Jakes, Emekas, Boones and Lambs who were much better than expected and also won those titles.

I admit I'm taking an optimistic look at it. Possible that the staff thinks a kid like Watson is a great fit, but it is also possible that they are just looking for an insurance policy - they may fear a worst case where Samuel never comes, Boat leaves, we don't get Snider, and we have a loaded team of Purvis-Hamilton-Calhoun-Daniels-Abu (maybe on the last two, of course) and no point guard to get them all the ball (or at least let Purvis play off the ball a bit). There are success stories, but sometimes you reach on a less-heralded kid and it doesn't pan out, too (Eaves, Garrison, Haralson, Trice, etc.). And there is honesty in recruiting sometimes - the offer we gave to Watson may be conditional on others passing, and he would still like to come if the door opens (and Oregon State is his fallback).

 

[Husky15]

It isn't just us, people fly under the radar across the nation. I mentioned lillard, but even russel westbrook and paul george were 3 star recruits. I can't really speak on levels of exposure varying , nor am I calling Samuel a Westbrook mold. all I'm saying is wait and see.

Those are anomalies, not the norm. You can find lots of those for every position but can find way more where the player didn't work out

 

[aboogieee]

He's a one man wrecking crew!

 

[SeattleHoop]

Those are anomalies, not the norm. You can find lots of those for every position but can find way more where the player didn't work out

You must have misunderstood his point. His point, and mine alike, was not that the lower-rated guys are going to be Westbrook's or Lillard's. His point was that they are often good enough to play significant roles on winning teams. He used those specific players to highlight the "best-case scenario" of his contrary view as oppose to the widely held belief that anyone below the Top 100 is not meant to play for an elite program.

And I would like to know what you mean by "didn't work out" because that is a very vague statement. By "didn't work out" if you meant "bust" or player that came into a program and didn't do anything to help it, I would say that is also on the opposite side of the bell curve.

The "norm" for most 3 star athletes specifically picked by experienced coaches and good programs isn't to "not work out" but to provide a serviceable compliment to a successful team. We are talking about players like Giffey, Olander, Nolan, etc, who are all around 3 star recruits.

In my opinion, it usually "works out" for us.

 

[Hoophound]

Samuel may be a four year backup but he has potential for more.

5 year backup?

 

[Danzz]

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

We've had a lot more misses than hits on under the radar players. We need a PG with skills badly. It doesn't look like McLaughlin or Perkins are likely and Snider may be up in the air so the Watson offer makes sense. Watson may be small but at least he can shoot so we don't end up with a situation like we had with Brown where he could be left unguarded and clog up the paint..

 

[Danzz]

It seems like Perkins and JM are very long shots at this point but you never know. We landed Daniels out of nowhere. Snider is likely the #1 PG target for us now.

i'd like to see if we land perkins or JM first.

 

[Huskyforlife]

It seems like Perkins and JM are very long shots at this point but you never know. We landed Daniels out of nowhere. Snider is likely the #1 PG target for us now.

didn't know about snider back then

 

[Tenspro2002]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

 

[Dogbreath2U]

After watching 2 longish videos, I would say that Devin Watson is a good looking player. Good quickness, plays under control, very good midrange game and made a lot of step-back 3 pointers as well as floaters. He seems to be good at finding space where he can get his shot off even though he is not very tall. Seems to finish well going to the hoop and showed good court vision.

Link..click here!

(it would not embed)

 

[Gurleyman]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

Or Purvis can fill a Ben Gordon role and have the ball in his hands a lot to create, and we just need to be find someone who can be the Taliek and get things organized and fill a role as a glue guy. There's no single formula that succeeds - other than having talented playmakers on the perimeter somewhere. In 1999, our role guy on the perimeter who we didn't look to score much was the two (Ricky), same as 2009 (Austrie). In 2004, it was the point guard (Taliek), which was similar to Ollie in 1994-95. In 2011, it was the SF (Roscoe) or the PG (Napier) when we went small - same as 1996, when Rudy was SF and Ricky came in. With Purvis and Calhoun/Hamilton at the 2 and 3, we've got talent, so perhaps all we need is the Taliek/Ollie/freshman Bazz type PG. Unless Purvis or Hamilton don't pan out like we hope (or pan out so well they leave after one year), which is always a possibility. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to get a stud PG, and sort out everyone's roles from a position of strength - rather than have no choice but to give someone more responsibility than they are capable of (ie Olander last year)..

I also hope we never get another Marcus Williams. Or, well, I hope we get someone who can pass like him, but who is nothing like him otherwise. Personal distaste.

 

[LIUCHusky]

We've had a lot more misses than hits on under the radar players. We need a PG with skills badly. It doesn't look like McLaughlin or Perkins are likely and Snider may be up in the air so the Watson offer makes sense. Watson may be small but at least he can shoot so we don't end up with a situation like we had with Brown where he could be left unguarded and clog up the paint..

Would love to have a situation like T. Brown. If my memory serves me correctly 2004 ended up pretty well.

 

[SeattleHoop]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

I agree with this. And yes as you mentioned Dorsey in 2015 lets not count 2015 out to find our main pg.

 

[Gurleyman]

Different position, but look at what Josh Boone did as a freshman. He was ranked way behind CV in that class. Both had key roles in the 2004 title, but Boone proved to be the better fit as the starting 4 that year, despite having limited skill (his range was a putback). CV was the better player, but Boone was actually the better fit for what we needed. Lamb was ranked around 70 by Rivals and out of the top 100 by ESPN and Scout (Scout ranked him 21st among shooting guards), but proved to be more ready than Roscoe, who was ranked around 30. That was more a case of the rankings being off, with Lamb being undervalued and Roscoe overvalued.

 

[ctchamps]

After watching 2 longish videos, I would say that Devin Watson is a good looking player. Good quickness, plays under control, very good midrange game and made a lot of step-back 3 pointers as well as floaters. He seems to be good at finding space where he can get his shot off even though he is not very tall. Seems to finish well going to the hoop and showed good court vision.

Link..click here!

(it would not embed)

I'm with you. He seems more SN than CA on offense. Snider is still a preference but this kid is capable of running a team with talent around him.