Tre Mitchell Recruitment | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Tre Mitchell Recruitment

UConnSwag11 said:
Why?
Expand ...

Because we have 5 scholarships, possibly 4 if we get a scholarship loss out of the Ollie violations; Hurley doesn't like to drive players away to create scholarships; Akok and Kofi would use 4 and we'd rather save the possible 5th for Precious. On Mitchell's side, if Akok and Kofi are here along with Carlton, Whaley, Diarra, there's a lot of competition for playing time, he'd probably prefer to go elsewhere.
 
jimva said:
We can always find room. Not implying we push a current player out, but things happen
Expand ...
Yeah. I said same above. Also, the fact is, so not speculating, that CV had a foot out the door for the pros last year as it is. Wise move to stay and happy he did; but there is an obvious lean there.
 
tcf15 said:
Because we are likely only getting one of Cockburn, Mitchell and Wahab.
Expand ...

I'm not sure why people don't understand this. None of those three guys are going to commit to UConn if one of the other three has.

Complete speculation, but Kofi's visit could be the result of Hurley letting him know we'd have to take Mitchell if he committed.
 
HuskyHawk said:
I'm not sure why people don't understand this. None of those three guys are going to commit to UConn if one of the other three has.

Complete speculation, but Kofi's visit could be the result of Hurley letting him know we'd have to take Mitchell if he committed.
Expand ...

This. I think there is every reason to believe that Cockburn was told he had until a certain date to accept or his slot would be offered to one of the other two bigs. (And I'm not putting Akok in that group -- by all accounts he's more of a 4 than a 5).
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
This. I think there is every reason to believe that Cockburn was told he had until a certain date to accept or his slot would be offered to one of the other two bigs. (And I'm not putting Akok in that group -- by all accounts he's more of a 4 than a 5).
Expand ...

Completely agree. It's exciting imagining we exit the early period with Kofi and Akok and are working on Precious. Superb class if Hurley can pull it off.
 
Ewekon said:
If he is a "true" 6 foot 9 he can absolutely play the 5 in college. At UConn he will be coached up. (I don't think Brey is a bad coach though).
Expand ...

At 6'9 you can play center in the NBA these days, with the right make up.
 
pj said:
Because we have 5 scholarships, possibly 4 if we get a scholarship loss out of the Ollie violations; Hurley doesn't like to drive players away to create scholarships; Akok and Kofi would use 4 and we'd rather save the possible 5th for Precious. On Mitchell's side, if Akok and Kofi are here along with Carlton, Whaley, Diarra, there's a lot of competition for playing time, he'd probably prefer to go elsewhere.
Expand ...

Dude, if those three guys commit, you can be damn near 100% sure one of the current kids would leave (not speculating who) to get some playing time somewhere. Because they won't have any here.

Note, I think it's damn near 100% that all three of those guys together will NOT commit to UCONN.
 
intlzncster said:
Dude, if those three guys commit, you can be damn near 100% sure one of the current kids would leave (not speculating who) to get some playing time somewhere. Because they won't have any here.

Note, I think it's damn near 100% that all three of those guys together will NOT commit to UCONN.
Expand ...

Hurley is trying to build a reputation as a coach who stands by his players. I'm saying he wouldn't accept a commitment from a third big man if it required him to persuade one of his existing players to leave. Mitchell is better than Carlton, Whaley, or Diarra, to be sure; but that doesn't automatically imply that you accept his commitment if it requires chasing one of them away. I agree that if it did happen, one of them would be persuadable. That doesn't mean as a coach you want to do that.
 
pj said:
Hurley is trying to build a reputation as a coach who stands by his players. I'm saying he wouldn't accept a commitment from a third big man if it required him to persuade one of his existing players to leave. Mitchell is better than Carlton, Whaley, or Diarra, to be sure; but that doesn't automatically imply that you accept his commitment if it requires chasing one of them away. I agree that if it did happen, one of them would be persuadable. That doesn't mean as a coach you want to do that.
Expand ...
Can't agree. Near impossible both Tre and Kofi would commit together. (I view them separate from Akok) but if they would you take them all day and twice on Sunday. No one is forcing anyone out. It is just what big time programs do. One of the current bigs will read the writing on the wall and make a decision based on playing time. There would be room for Precious.
 
pj said:
Hurley is trying to build a reputation as a coach who stands by his players. I'm saying he wouldn't accept a commitment from a third big man if it required him to persuade one of his existing players to leave. Mitchell is better than Carlton, Whaley, or Diarra, to be sure; but that doesn't automatically imply that you accept his commitment if it requires chasing one of them away. I agree that if it did happen, one of them would be persuadable. That doesn't mean as a coach you want to do that.
Expand ...

I don't understand the point. If Kofi and Akok commit (a big if but we are hopeful), no other big will be interested in coming to UConn. At least nobody but a lower 3 star guy who would be a bench player. No, Dan isn't taking anybody like that. He won't have a decision to make because Mitchell and Wahab will have no interest in UConn if Kofi is coming here.

I'm not saying the Kofi and Akok alone might not concern some of the existing guys, it could. But there is no hypothetical where Hurley has to decide whether to add another quality big.
 
.-.
pj said:
Hurley is trying to build a reputation as a coach who stands by his players. I'm saying he wouldn't accept a commitment from a third big man if it required him to persuade one of his existing players to leave. Mitchell is better than Carlton, Whaley, or Diarra, to be sure; but that doesn't automatically imply that you accept his commitment if it requires chasing one of them away. I agree that if it did happen, one of them would be persuadable. That doesn't mean as a coach you want to do that.
Expand ...

If we sign, say, Cockburn and Akok, one of our current bigs may very well see the writing on the wall and leave anyway. I don't disagree that you don't want to tell someone "you're out," but the reality is that kids who don't see a future for playing time in a program are often happy to move on when they figure that out.
 
We take the first big out of the group who will commit and deal with any fall out. We have bigs returning and some could improve and contribute more than they did last season.
Precious and Cockburn seem to me to be longer shots than Mitchell and Akok but this is recruiting and it is so fluid that anything can happen. I'd be thrilled with any 2 of the group.
 
in 2019:

Gilbert
Bouknight
Wilson
Akok
Mitchell

is a top 25 team.

Gilbert
Bouknight
Wilson
Akok
Cockburn

is a top 15 team.
 
it's like a chess match. I believe Hurley will take any 3 of the bigs being recruited. however, he really wants kofi because he will have the most impact for the program. and before kofi leaves his OV Danny is letting him know this and probably has given him a deadline (Nov 15). just think about it...neither Wahab nor Mitchell has verbally committed elsewhere. they are eaiting to see what kofi does.
 
Wahab just finished up his third of five scheduled OVs so I don't expect him to commit to anyone until they're finished. Not sure what's going on with Mitchell except that he seems to have soured on ND and now there is this offer from Va Tech that comes out of nowhere (unless they think they don't have Wahab . . . and they probably don't). Would Kofi really commit to us in the next two weeks? Not sure it is realistic.
 
.-.
bendm said:
in 2019:

Gilbert
Bouknight
Wilson
Akok
Mitchell

is a top 25 team.

Gilbert
Bouknight
Wilson
Akok
Cockburn

is a top 15 team.
Expand ...

SCOLDING hot take. Love the enthusiasm.
 
This thread is going well. Kudos to all involved. Here is my take on a couple of points.

1. Absolutely agree that, given the state of the program, that you take a top 100 kid instead of waiting on a top 40 kid. I want the top 40 kid but he has to commit early (now) or we need to move on.

2. The main thing to consider with one and dones is the impact on team chemistry. And that is not to blame the one and done. Look at what happened when we brought Drummond in. Love that kid but Oriakhi did not respond well. A perfect one and done situation is when a starter at their position leaves. You may upset a bench player but that is less likely to destroy team chemistry.
 
Burnsbros23 said:
Don’t think Mitchell is a guy who comes in and starts right away. Think we could sell Mitchell that cockburn would be one and done or two and done.
Expand ...

I don't think the difference between them is that great. Mitchell is too good to just sit for two years, and Cockburn is not so good that there is any real prediction that he would be early entry to the NBA. Mitchell might even have the better potential NBA game.

I can't really worry about it. We need AkAk. Then we need Mitchell, Cockburn or Wahab.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
I don't think the difference between them is that great. Mitchell is too good to just sit for two years, and Cockburn is not so good that there is any real prediction that he would be early entry to the NBA. Mitchell might even have the better potential NBA game.

I can't really worry about it. We need AkAk. Then we need Mitchell, Cockburn or Wahab.
Expand ...
Chief’s eye test is that Cockburn is much more of a dominant physical presence. Having said that we need a rotation of Bigs. Young ones tend to make foolish fouls and we can have those who can post and those who can spread the floor. The bottom line is we need a stable of Bigs.
 
Paesano said:
This thread is going well. Kudos to all involved. Here is my take on a couple of points.

1. Absolutely agree that, given the state of the program, that you take a top 100 kid instead of waiting on a top 40 kid. I want the top 40 kid but he has to commit early (now) or we need to move on.

2. The main thing to consider with one and dones is the impact on team chemistry. And that is not to blame the one and done. Look at what happened when we brought Drummond in. Love that kid but Oriakhi did not respond well. A perfect one and done situation is when a starter at their position leaves. You may upset a bench player but that is less likely to destroy team chemistry.
Expand ...

That's because Oriakhi was selfish and not nearly as good as he thought he was. Drummond is an all-star and Oriakhi has bounced around Isreal, Turkey, the D Leauge, Venezuela and Mexico. We can't pass on an impact player because it might upset a guy who isn't willing to put the team first.
 
WingU-Conn said:
That's because Oriakhi was selfish and not nearly as good as he thought he was. Drummond is an all-star and Oriakhi has bounced around Isreal, Turkey, the D Leauge, Venezuela and Mexico. We can't pass on an impact player because it might upset a guy who isn't willing to put the team first.
Expand ...

Your logic is a little bizarre, because it's focused on future NBA play. Here is the logical question to ask: did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse. Was that Drummonds fault? heck no. But it's also a clear conclusion. It's hard to understand why you care about how good the players were individually as opposed to whether the team did or didn't get better by the addition.

Same question exists here, or for any one or dones. Does bringing him in make us better for that year. I think that in most cases the answer will be yes. But it does depend on not just the skills and positions but the egos and expectations of the other players. And leadership. '11-'12 might have been a totally different season if the team had a real leader, instead of one Freshman point and one Sophomore point who each thought they needed to be a 1 and the other needed to be a 2.
 
Last edited:
businesslawyer said:
did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse.
Expand ...
I don't think Drummond made the season worse. That team lost more than just points, assists and steals when Kemba graduated. The whole year they lacked leadership and the results certainly did not match the talent level. But there's no way that that same team, minus Drummond, is better. Less disappointing, maybe, but not better.
 
quacktalker said:
I don't think Drummond made the season worse. That team lost more than just points, assists and steals when Kemba graduated. The whole year they lacked leadership and the results certainly did not match the talent level. But there's no way that that same team, minus Drummond, is better. Less disappointing, maybe, but not better.
Expand ...

Obviously there is no way to go back and prove it but I could not disagree more. Drummond's minutes and roles were the cause of AO's attitude going south (again, that's primarily AO's fault but it's also not hard to understand) and Roscoe, who was such a key defensively to winning the prior year, being stuck to the bench. And, for all his talents, the things he couldn't do yet (shoot foul shots and set screens) made it hard for the rest of the team. IIRC, we didn't beat a single Top 50 RPI team that year and were lucky to get into the NCAAs. A team that started AO, Roscoe, Lamb, Bazz and Boat, with a bench of Giffey, Daniels, Olander, etc., should have been more than talented enough to play better.


And, for all the crap hurled at AO for that year, sucky attitude or not his plus/minus was significantly better than Drummonds that year. And, since they played most of their minutes together, that meant that the team was much better off when AO was at the 5 and Drummond was sitting than when Drummond was in and AO was sitting.

Finally, it might have been easier to transition leadership to 'Bazz if we weren't dealing with a surefire lottery pick who showed up the first day of classes and was instantly supposed to be the Man.
 
businesslawyer said:
Your logic is a little bizarre, because it's focused on future NBA play. Here is the logical question to ask: did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse. Was that Drummonds fault? heck no. But it's also a clear conclusion. It's hard to understand why you care about how good the players were individually as opposed to whether the team did or didn't get better by the addition.

Same question exists here, or for any one or dones. Does bringing him in make us better for that year. I think that in most cases he answer will be yes. But it does depend on not just the skills and positions but the egos and expectations of the other players. And leadership. '11-'12 might have been a totally different season if the team had a real leader, instead of one Freshman point and one Sophomore point who each thought they needed to be a 1 and the other needed to be a 2.
Expand ...

How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?

Drummond averaged 10 and (nearly) 8. Give his minutes to Oriakhi, and who comes off the bench to rest him? Enosch Wolf? Olander? You can argue the chemistry would have been better, but that team was thin (literally and figuratively) on the front court without Drummond.

My point is that Drummond was one of the best players on that team, one of the top 2 HS seniors in the country, and you don't turn that opportunity down because there's the potential that your fragile/selfish/overly inflated ego having starter might not be able to handle someone better than him coming in and taking his minutes. (I don't like to use the word cancer because it's not that serious, but that metaphor fits). Oriakhi quit on UConn. His dad had more to do with the poor chemistry of that team than Drummond, and that's because Drummond exposed Oriakhi for what he was. A decent college player, but not a guy who could elevate a program.

That team had no senior leadership. They had no junior leadership. Oriakhi as a JR should have been the leader on that team. Instead that team suffered from chemistry problems because the leader of that team cared more about the name on the back of the jersey than the one on the front. You want to say that team was worse because Drummond was there. I say that's false. The team struggled because they had no leadership, and their one impact upperclassmen put himself before the team, and if you take Drummond off that team, it's possible they would have had even worse results.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,363
Messages
4,567,863
Members
10,470
Latest member
EO2004


Top Bottom