Terry Larrier transferring

[James]

never understood how a kid needs to sit out but a coach can ditch a program and go coach that year.

 

[sdhusky]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

Agreed. But I think we will have to be a bit more creative in the AAC.

 

[mets1090]

never understood how a kid needs to sit out but a coach can ditch a program and go coach that year.

Because the coach isn't there for an education.

Oh...wait...

 

[Pmurph678]

Yes, actually, but not the point. The expectations on KO are absurd. I have no reason to think we're getting Larrier, but if we got our two frosh, Miller and Gibbs for 1 year and Larrier for 3, that's a great class. A few points.

1. You can only grade a class once, when recruiting is done, even putting aside you don't know how they actually play for years. This "strong start" bs is simply internet bulletin board drivel.

2. The days of 4 year players, many of whom will sit on the bench for a few years and then settle in as useful role players, is done. Kids transfer out if they don't think they will be impact players. So there are going to be more and more transfers whether or not they abolish grad transfers.

3. If UK can make a living off one and dones, the thought that you can't usefully employ grad transfers is dumb. If we were to get Gibbs, that will be 3 in 4 years who helped us.

4. I really don't get the angst about the number of recruits that spurned us. Our class is what it is. Other than posters feeling bad about being rejected, it makes no difference to anyone whom we went after and didn't get.

If we pull a great class out of transfers, awesome. But do you really think that is the recipe for long term success? The coaching staff doesn't, they did not sit around waiting for the 5th years transfers to pop up, they tried recruiting high schoolers, unfortunately they missed a lot.

The days of 4 year players are not done, there are very few schools that live off of one and dones and transfers.

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders. Not to mention a one and done has the potential to play up to 4 years, only if they are successful will they leave while with grad transfers you get just 1 year max.

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

 

[Jay-Bone]

@Fishy

But Fish, Iowa State's seen back to back 3 seeds with this model and 4 straight tourneys. 6 straight tourneys for SDSU. I get that the bar for us is Calhoun recruiting in his Prime, but there wasn't exactly this model back then either.

I'm an OkaForPrez lean on this one. Ollie gets recruiting credit if he lands Larrier for putting the groundwork in even if he didn't originally land him. It was still recruiting.. Just as much as he doesn't get credit for Ali and Jackson. Add the fact that he convinced Miller to come here and if he convinces Gibbs to come here also I utter major kudos. Just as convincing Kromah to come here paid off. In the end the proof is in the pudding. If this leads to another final four, he's done his job. It may not be Calipari or K level recruiting, but it ain't bad and may even have more of a guarantee. We know Miller, Gibbs and Larrier can play high level D1 ball. Its not as glamorous to ESPN as a top 5 class, but it gets the job done. However, if we become a team that relies on transfers year in and year out, then I'll be concerned. But this hypothetical class would fill all the right holes for an already potentially strong nucleus.

 

[8893]

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders.

And this matters why?

 

[johnhuskies95]

If he hasn't been released yet I doubt he's on campus right now.

 

[businesslawyer]

If we pull a great class out of transfers, awesome. But do you really think that is the recipe for long term success? The coaching staff doesn't, they did not sit around waiting for the 5th years transfers to pop up, they tried recruiting high schoolers, unfortunately they missed a lot.

The days of 4 year players are not done, there are very few schools that live off of one and dones and transfers.

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders. Not to mention a one and done has the potential to play up to 4 years, only if they are successful will they leave while with grad transfers you get just 1 year max.

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

1. Would I rather have a 4 year player or an equivalent 1 year player? Of course I'd rather have an equivalent 4 year player. Of course the base of the plan has to be four year players. I'm hoping we got one great one and one really good one. And two each year, with "pieces" around them -- from whatever method -- is enough.

2. One and done's are different because they are great future NBAers? They are different. But ask me this -- which UConn one and doner had a greater impact on making his UConn team better than it would have been without him -- Drummond or Kromah? Because I'll not only answer Kromah but tell you it wasn't even close.

 

[Pmurph678]

And this matters why?

Seriously? Are you implying that the NBA talent on your team is irrelevant?

I understand NBA talent does not determine who the better player is in college every time, but to disregard it altogether is ignorant.

 

[Matrim55]

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

FWIW, we've now landed our No. 1 target two years in a row (DHam & Adams), and also got our No. 3 target (Enoch) this year.

We swung and missed a lot, but we could afford to since we already had a bunch of important players in the fold and since KO appears to have pretty good luck with 5th-years.

Everybody should also remember that each HS recruiting class under Ollie has been an improvement upon the previous one, and that the staff doesn't have a whole cycle together yet. We were dealing with a ton of uncertainty in 2013; for 2014 we lost man-hours & numbers on the trail; and for 2015 we were onto a bunch of kids late.

2016 will be the first "real" recruiting class under Ollie, in that they'll be kids who aren't touched by sanctions, uncertainty or conference realignment (in the bad way). Best to save all bile until then.

 

[OkaForPrez]

@Pmurph678 a few counterpoints. I would argue that a 1 and done, and let's use stone in this case, is typically touted as such far more because of their raw abilities than their polished game. Think Freshman Andre Drummond and the things he could do that nobody else on the planet can and then the tools he didn't have at that time that only come with experience. We can watch stone next year vs. what we get out of Miller, maybe I'll be dead wrong on this, but I don't think the gap will be as much as you think, particularly for our needs (defense, rebounding, timely shooting). And since we assume both will only be around a year, maybe not as big a loss as we think.

Secondly, let's not pretend like we don't have quite a few 4 year guys developing in the program right now and guys behind them to develop:

Facey, Enoch
Omar, Tsam, Sam

As well as potential early pros in Hamiton, Adams and Purvis.

I don't have a problem with our stud : home grown role player : 5th year plug ratio at all, particularly when we are still trying to rebuild from some lost years during the coach transition and ban.

 

[Pmurph678]

1. Would I rather have a 4 year player or an equivalent 1 year player? Of course I'd rather have an equivalent 4 year player. Of course the base of the plan has to be four year players. I'm hoping we got one great one and one really good one. And two each year, with "pieces" around them -- from whatever method -- is enough.

2. One and done's are different because they are great future NBAers? They are different. But ask me this -- which UConn one and doner had a greater impact on making his UConn team better than it would have been without him -- Drummond or Kromah? Because I'll not only answer Kromah but tell you it wasn't even close.

I would take a freshman Drummond to a senior Kromah.

I agree 5th year transfers can be extremely valuable, but I would always prefer an elite high school recruit to a 5th year transfer.

 

[8893]

Seriously? Are you implying that the NBA talent on your team is irrelevant?

I understand NBA talent does not determine who the better player is in college every time, but to disregard it altogether is ignorant.

I am not implying it, I am stating it directly.

Please list our one-and-dones who left after one year for the NBA. If I'm not mistaken, that list begins and ends with Drummond. If Stone came here he apparently would have been another one. Sight unseen, I'll take a Lasan Kroman or Shonn Miller every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[djct1999]

Do we have any intel on whether or not Kiah Stokes is following him on twitter?

 

[Stainmaster]

It depends what you're looking for. If you want to send players to the NBA and hype up your team's street cred, you go for the one-and-done. But I have no doubt that a grad transfer with the right fit can be much more beneficial for a team's postseason performance.

 

[Pmurph678]

@Pmurph678 a few counterpoints. I would argue that a 1 and done, and let's use stone in this case, is typically touted as such far more because of their raw abilities than their polished game. Think Freshman Andre Drummond and the things he could do that nobody else on the planet can and then the tools he didn't have at that time that only come with experience. We can watch stone next year vs. what we get out of Miller, maybe I'll be dead wrong on this, but I don't think the gap will be as much as you think, particularly for our needs (defense, rebounding, timely shooting). And since we assume both will only be around a year, maybe not as big a loss as we think.

Secondly, let's not pretend like we don't have quite a few 4 year guys developing in the program right now and guys behind them to develop:

Facey, Enoch
Omar, Tsam, Sam

As well as potential early pros in Hamiton, Adams and Purvis.

I don't have a problem with our stud : home grown role player : 5th year plug ratio at all, particularly when we are still trying to rebuild from some lost years during the coach transition and ban.

I agree with everything you said. I like our future, and don't believe the sky is falling when it comes to recruiting.

Like most things, it's not black and white. Are recruiting has been OK, but not where it needs to be. Obviously far from terrible though and we have plenty of pieces to build around.

I am not implying it, I am stating it directly.

Please list our one-and-dones who left after one year for the NBA. If I'm not mistaken, that list begins and ends with Drummond. If Stone came here he apparently would have been another one. Sight unseen, I'll take a Lasan Kroman or Shonn Miller every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I just watched a final 4 led by multiple one and dones, not grad transfers.

 

[Stainmaster]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I just watched a final 4 lead by multiple one and dones, not grad transfers.

Well when you can't get the one-and-dones, you have to make do with what's around. It bothers some that we're scrounging for spare parts, but given the circumstances what else should we do? "Get the top targets" isn't an option -- they're signed to play elsewhere.

 

[8893]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I just watched a final 4 led by multiple one and dones, not grad transfers.

Will you enjoy the 2016 Final Four any less if it is led by a team playing two grad transfers?

 

[CallMeBruce]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I just watched a final 4 led by multiple one and dones, not grad transfers.

This is beyond stupid.

 

[Fishy]

Agreed. But I think we will have to be a bit more creative in the AAC.

Agreed.

 

[Pmurph678]

This is beyond stupid.

Why?

 

[Pmurph678]

Will you enjoy the 2016 Final Four any less if it is led by a team playing two grad transfers?

Of course not, it's just never happened before.

 

[businesslawyer]

I would take a freshman Drummond to a senior Kromah.

I agree 5th year transfers can be extremely valuable, but I would always prefer an elite high school recruit to a 5th year transfer.

Then with all due respect, as to your first point,you don't know basketball. Because Drummond in his one year did not make the team better at all (not his fault, but that team would have been better without him), while Kromah was the spark that made the '14 championship by showing everyone else what it looked like when you subordinated your numbers to helping the team win.

Was Drummon in 11-12 better than Kromah in 13-14. By light years. But did he do as much towards making his team better as Kromah did? Not even close.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Why?

Duke won a title this year with major contributions from one-and-done freshman. That is not a trend, and you should not treat it as such. If Wisconsin had pulled it out, would that mean that one-and-dones don't work?

The key to winning in college basketball is to have good players on your team. Whether those players are one-and-dones or veteran players, and whether those veteran players are transfers or were recruited out of high school, does not change your ability to win games.

 

[upstater]

Specifically, about Larrier, UConn needs a SF for when DHam leaves, and it would be good to have someone ready to go.

I know they are in on Kegler and VJ King, but there will be stiff competition for those two. Im sure Bruce Brown and Diarra/Diallo (sorry, forget which is which) could also play some 3, but you saw how effective DHam's height made him.