Recruiting update on the blog | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Recruiting update on the blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was pointing out that these recruiting services are not always on target.

Any athletic 6-8 female will have an impact. Mulkey knows how to coach up a big, athletic post player.
How do you know she's athletic?
 
Besides Ekmark would love (love) to get Wilson, Calhoun, Westbeld and Williams. Would have loved Canada, Turner or Drummer, but looks like those ships are sailing. Can live without Canada if we could get Durr in 2015 though. She'd be a Fr with Jefferson as a Sr.

But if UCONN could pull in those first 5, we'd be in great shape.
 
Any athletic 6-8 female will have an impact. Mulkey knows how to coach up a big, athletic post player.
Georgetown had a 6-10 girl a few years ago, remember her? ...........................didn't think so.

And Michigan State's Alyssa DeHaan was a nice player but she didn't exactly tear up the NCAAs either.
 
Nan is correct I would say Mccowan us nothing like Griner, and she definitely would have to have grown 3/4 inches to match her height.
 
Georgetown had a 6-10 girl a few years ago, remember her? ...........................didn't think so.

And Michigan State's Alyssa DeHaan was a nice player but she didn't exactly tear up the NCAAs either.
And Pitt will have a 6'11" girl next year (I think). Just not like BGriner.
 
Georgetown had a 6-10 girl a few years ago, remember her? ...........................didn't think so.

And Michigan State's Alyssa DeHaan was a nice player but she didn't exactly tear up the NCAAs either.

I wouldn't actually call DeHaan "athletic," although I dead hear that she could walk and chew gum at the same time. Was the 6-10 girl athletic? I do not remember her, so I am guessing she wasn't.

McCowan is in the HoopGurlz Terrific 25 list, currently ranked as the number 9 player in the 2015 class. She is described as "tall and physically gifted."

"If you want to know the importance of size, look no further than the Baylor women's basketball team, which went 40-0 on its way to winning a national championship. At 6-7, McCowan, of Brenham, Texas, has the size to make a similar impact at the next level. For now, it's too early to make Brittany Griner comparisons, but McCowan's upside as a tall and physically gifted post player are hard to deny. The young post has made large strides in the last year as she has improved across the board and is starting to make an impact in some of the most elite summer games." (Moore)
 
How do you know she's athletic?

I've seen footage and I've read enough reviews and reports of her games. She has raw talent that any coach would welcome a chance to develop.
 
Nan is correct I would say Mccowan us nothing like Griner, and she definitely would have to have grown 3/4 inches to match her height.

McCowan's coach now reports her to be 6-8.
 
I don't see McGowan ranked anywhere in the Blue Star top 100 class of 2015, she doesn't sound like the next Griner.

Ranked number 9 by Hoopgurlz in the Terrific 25. Does that count?
 
Why do our UConn threads keep turning into threads about Baylor? Once again.
 
And Pitt will have a 6'11" girl next year (I think). Just not like BGriner.
The Pitt player is Marvadene "Bubbles" Anderson and she is 6'11" and is absolutely nothing like BG. They redshirted her this year to try to get her in shape to play college ball. She went to high school at Rutgers Prep in NJ and played for Mary Coyle Klinger, Patty's twin sister. She used to attend a lot of RU's games and is supposedly a very lovely young lady, but she will be a project. I hope she is successful, but IMO it is unlikely she will ever be AA caliber.
 
If this player is 6'8 and athletic, with the right coaching can be an impact type player. You cannot teach height!
 
Thats because right now Baylor is the team to beat for the National Championship. Next year that won't be the case.

Agreed. No dispute there. There won't be a clear favorite next year. .
 
Agreed. No dispute there. There won't be a clear favorite next year. .

Next year the top three teams will be UCONN, Notre Dame, and Duke. Baylor should still be top ten mainly because they still will have Simms.
 
Agreed. No dispute there. There won't be a clear favorite next year. .


They just don't get you, ett. I notices the 2 dots at the end......

You just need a few more to show your tongue in your cheek.
 
Next year the top three teams will be UCONN, Notre Dame, and Duke. Baylor should still be top ten mainly because they still will have Simms.

I think tenn and Stan are top 5 with UConn and duke.
Nd, md, and possibly unc will challenge for top 5.
 
Next year the top three teams will be UCONN, Notre Dame, and Duke. Baylor should still be top ten mainly because they still will have Simms.

I may have to put UNC in that group, also. That's going to be a special class.
 
I may have to put UNC in that group, also. That's going to be a special class.


Kentucky should be in the mix.... top 7-8 mix.... they had a good recruiting class as well.
 
Why do our UConn threads keep turning into threads about Baylor? Once again.

I think that Benjamin Franklin is credited with the comment that "House Guests are like dead fish. After three days they start to smell bad."

Surely there is some application of this principle to visiting posters who seem determined to change national flag blue to some shade of green (which is surely the least pleasing color to Boneyarders).
 
I think that Benjamin Franklin is credited with the comment that "House Guests are like dead fish. After three days they start to smell bad."

Surely there is some application of this principle to visiting posters who seem determined to change national flag blue to some shade of green (which is surely the least pleasing color to Boneyarders).
After Orange but it is slowly changing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
247
Guests online
1,525
Total visitors
1,772

Forum statistics

Threads
164,068
Messages
4,380,895
Members
10,177
Latest member
silver fox


.
..
Top Bottom