- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction Score
- 17,923
5 scholarships for 2017 + 2018 only increase with a transfer or early draft entry of an existing player. We now have 2 of those scholarships spoken for and have a whole lot of 2017 and 2018 talent in queue. My view is that the core of a future top 25 team is in place and the next talent needs to be targeting the 5* type difference makers it takes to compete for championships. What do you think?
For me Scolly #1 should be for a 2017 top rated Big Guard/SF or else hold open for 2018:
Adams, Gilbert, MAL, and Vital is solid 2017 backcourt depth. 5* talent at big guard/SF Diallo or Harvey I would see as mutually exclusive, but either would add a great dimension to the team in different ways. Diallo as a likely 1 and done offers spectacular possibilities that might not foreclose a 2018 6'5 big guard like AJ Reeves. Harvey has a great skill set that had him as a top 10 recruit last year, but now probably stays more than 1 year which is good talent to have. If neither of these players commit I would hold the scholly for 2018. I find it hard to believe that Beatty or Scruggs would see themselves as one of 5 quality guards, or that they are big enough to play small forward in 3 guard sets like Diallo or Harvey. Obviously, if either wanted to come they are good enough to take, but Ollie would be closing the door on the 2018 guards.
Scolly #2 a Top Rated Big:
Either of 5* Bamba or Richards to play center would be the dream. I personally like the stretch 4 possibilities with Tyler Polley as well, and consider Kris Wilkes and Rayshaun Hammonds would be used the same way with some SF. I would see Polley, Wilkes, and Hammond as mutually exclusive. However, with the Carlton commitment, I'd pass on the other 2017 project bigs and hold the scolly for a 2018 Moses Brown or other top talent.
Scolly #3 I would hold open for 2018 unless we could get both a Bamba and one of the SF/Stretch 4's.
FYI: Carlton's potential is a mystery to me based on the clips I have seen, but recent offers suggests that his stock has been rising, and, he has a full year to improve physically and basketball wise. The player that steps on campus may be much more than what is there now. The staff obviously sees potential, but it also suggests they have hedged not being successful with top targets.
Other thoughts?
For me Scolly #1 should be for a 2017 top rated Big Guard/SF or else hold open for 2018:
Adams, Gilbert, MAL, and Vital is solid 2017 backcourt depth. 5* talent at big guard/SF Diallo or Harvey I would see as mutually exclusive, but either would add a great dimension to the team in different ways. Diallo as a likely 1 and done offers spectacular possibilities that might not foreclose a 2018 6'5 big guard like AJ Reeves. Harvey has a great skill set that had him as a top 10 recruit last year, but now probably stays more than 1 year which is good talent to have. If neither of these players commit I would hold the scholly for 2018. I find it hard to believe that Beatty or Scruggs would see themselves as one of 5 quality guards, or that they are big enough to play small forward in 3 guard sets like Diallo or Harvey. Obviously, if either wanted to come they are good enough to take, but Ollie would be closing the door on the 2018 guards.
Scolly #2 a Top Rated Big:
Either of 5* Bamba or Richards to play center would be the dream. I personally like the stretch 4 possibilities with Tyler Polley as well, and consider Kris Wilkes and Rayshaun Hammonds would be used the same way with some SF. I would see Polley, Wilkes, and Hammond as mutually exclusive. However, with the Carlton commitment, I'd pass on the other 2017 project bigs and hold the scolly for a 2018 Moses Brown or other top talent.
Scolly #3 I would hold open for 2018 unless we could get both a Bamba and one of the SF/Stretch 4's.
FYI: Carlton's potential is a mystery to me based on the clips I have seen, but recent offers suggests that his stock has been rising, and, he has a full year to improve physically and basketball wise. The player that steps on campus may be much more than what is there now. The staff obviously sees potential, but it also suggests they have hedged not being successful with top targets.
Other thoughts?