Elite Texas Hoops Talent

3,054 Views | 33 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by bobinator
Rusty GCS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
http://www.maxpreps.com/m/article.aspx?articleid=ef9ba4b0-1568-4d94-8f80-5aa3bae74e80

I knew Texas had come a long way for basketball in 20 years but didn't expect this. Texas is only 2nd to Cali in players drafted in 1st Rd of NBA draft the last 10 years.

Need more of these kids becoming Ags.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texas has been a hotbed for hoops for a long time, but there's really no reason for players that could go to Duke or Kentucky to stay here. Just part of life. Key is recruiting those next tier guys and then occasionally grabbing an elite one.
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With the one and done structure in place a Tyler Davis is more valuable to a program overall than an Anthony Davis is.
Method Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uhhhh
Ags #1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you want the Tyler Davis over the darron fox? I would take the one and done On a yearly basis over the Tyler Davis. But this is Texas a&m so a Tyler Davis is more valuable to us. But if we could recruit the one and dones on a yearly basis I would take my
Chance with them
txjortsagent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's merit to both arguments.

Why not have both types?
txjortsagent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We hit the elite 8 this season, and players will continue to come
Hu11abaloo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

Texas has been a hotbed for hoops for a long time, but there's really no reason for players that could go to Duke or Kentucky to stay here. Just part of life. Key is recruiting those next tier guys and then occasionally grabbing an elite one.
while generally speaking i agree with you, in this era of one-and-done, that statement holds less weight. the students you're talking about, specifically the ones that can go to duke or kentucky, are largely the ones that already know they're going to the draft in a year, and are always the highest tier recruits. it is possible to convince top tier texas talent to come to a&m, knowing full well they'll take advantage of one-and-done (deandre jordan), or even perhaps two-and-done, if they're really secure in their future and love a&m (robert williams). we can play the card of "you're going to the draft regardless; why spend a year in BFE kentucky or north carolina when you can stay close to home?"

the landscape is shifting and more dynamic now. this is more an advantage for non-perennial basketball schools like ourselves vs the traditional powers... kentucky, duke, etc. we should be able to recruit the best texas recruits in this day and age...
Pumpkinhead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our current swing of the bat at an ultra elite in-State recruit is 2018 guard Grimes. Main competition seems to be Kansas. We will see how that goes.
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ags #1 said:

So you want the Tyler Davis over the darron fox? I would take the one and done On a yearly basis over the Tyler Davis. But this is Texas a&m so a Tyler Davis is more valuable to us. But if we could recruit the one and dones on a yearly basis I would take my
Chance with them
Ideally in a peak year you would land a guy like Fox or Anthony Davis or Robert Williams to complement your core group of guys like Davis. If you aren't Kentucky, your best bet to be in contention regularly is to recruit really good three or four year players year after year and compete on the basis of both talent and experience
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hu11abaloo said:


while generally speaking i agree with you, in this era of one-and-done, that statement holds less weight. the students you're talking about, specifically the ones that can go to duke or kentucky, are largely the ones that already know they're going to the draft in a year, and are always the highest tier recruits. it is possible to convince top tier texas talent to come to a&m, knowing full well they'll take advantage of one-and-done (deandre jordan), or even perhaps two-and-done, if they're really secure in their future and love a&m (robert williams). we can play the card of "you're going to the draft regardless; why spend a year in BFE kentucky or north carolina when you can stay close to home?"

the landscape is shifting and more dynamic now. this is more an advantage for non-perennial basketball schools like ourselves vs the traditional powers... kentucky, duke, etc. we should be able to recruit the best texas recruits in this day and age...
I don't think the "close to home" pitch helps much for most one-and-dones. MAYBE one every now and then, but they're already thinking NBA, so moving away from home isn't an issue.

We don't have anything to sell a typical one-and-done type player over a school like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.

Now, every so often you'll find a kid that wants to play close to home, or that really likes the idea of winning a title for a school that hasn't won one before and that sort of thing, and maybe we've got a shot.

But the key for us is like I said, use the next tier of players to build a solid foundation year-in-year-out and then if you get lucky and grab one of those guys take advantage. Texas is so loaded with players that you can build an elite team out of the next tier guys by coaching them up and keeping them in your program and building and then sprinkling in the elite guys when you get them.

The other thing is that some years there aren't any one-and-done types and most other schools are going to stay out of Texas and in those years we need to clean up. That's basically what happened in 2015 when we got the #2, #3 and #4 players in Texas.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txjortsagent said:

There's merit to both arguments.

Why not have both types?
I think if you can have both types, you obviously want to, I assume the argument is more about allocation of resources. We don't need to waste time chasing down players we're never going to get.
mallen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it's completely unrealistic to think we should expect one and dones every year even with SEC championships and deep tournament runs. There is just such a small population of those guys every year and an even smaller population from Texas.

According to the article there are less than 2 NBA first round draft picks per year from Texas and not every first round pick is a one and done.
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

txjortsagent said:

There's merit to both arguments.

Why not have both types?
I think if you can have both types, you obviously want to, I assume the argument is more about allocation of resources. We don't need to waste time chasing down players we're never going to get.
The other argument is a developmental one. If Robert Williams enters the draft after last season, how much value did he really provide to the program vs. another guy we could have had for four seasons and spent those minutes building experience?

One and dones are extremely valuable in peak years but really don't do very much for a program when they eat up a bunch of minutes and then leave in a year a team doesn't even make the tournament.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Robert Williams isn't really a relevant example because nobody thought he was a one-and-done coming in. We didn't spend a disproportionate amount of recruiting resources landing him or anything. He just ended up being really good.
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

Robert Williams isn't really a relevant example because nobody thought he was a one-and-done coming in. We didn't spend a disproportionate amount of recruiting resources landing him or anything. He just ended up being really good.
Point taken, but I was only using him as an example of a player of that talent level taking up minutes on the floor in a season that's not going to amount to anything regardless and then just leaving after the season.

The recruiting resources argument is also a relevant point when it comes to these guys. When you have an "in" with a guy like Grimes you go for him, but you don't go for him and 15 others like him that you don't have an in with at the expense of allocating time and resources to guys with whom you have a higher likelihood of landing.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It always kind of sucks to see a really good player on a bad team, but you still have to recruit the best players you can get.

I'd say he added a lot of value to the program even if he would have left last year because he actually gave people a reason to watch a team that was otherwise not really worth noting. And then he'd have brought a lot of attention to the program on draft night. And anyone practicing against him obviously would have gotten better also.
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our location doesn't matter. Just need to get back on a tourney streak and make some deep runs/big wins to raise program visibility again
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And play an attractive style of basketball on offense
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

It always kind of sucks to see a really good player on a bad team, but you still have to recruit the best players you can get.

I'd say he added a lot of value to the program even if he would have left last year because he actually gave people a reason to watch a team that was otherwise not really worth noting. And then he'd have brought a lot of attention to the program on draft night. And anyone practicing against him obviously would have gotten better also.
I don't disagree with any of that, but in a more general sense, had he left and been drafted, do you think overall that would be better for the program than getting to play a four year guy the quality of Davis or Gilder for those same minutes and also having that guy for the next three years?
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I sort of get what you're saying in the sense that if you're going to suck, you're better off playing players that can help you down the road, but I don't know that it has any practical application to how you'd recruit or coach. You're not going to not recruit a guy because he's too good or bench a guy because he's going to the NBA anyway.

Is a potential four year player like Davis worth more to the program than a one-and-done like Williams could have been? It depends.

Most recruits have one big question in mind, "what school is going to make me more likely to get drafted?"

So taking a guy like Williams, who wasn't a highly touted one-and-done style recruit, gives you coaching staff an example of a guy they put into the NBA. "When we got him, he was an extremely raw athlete and we helped him become a better all around player..."

That could help you land the next Tyler Davis (who was a higher regarded recruit btw) who ends up staying a couple of years because maybe they aren't quite ready. So having one-and-done players, even if the actual team isn't particularly good, can still help you build for the future.

Plus, when you have a guy that's a surefire NBA pick, you can sell playing time to the next guy also. Like imagine us trying to recruit a center. Tyler Davis is one of the best centers in college basketball, and he's not going pro next year probably, compared to us trying to recruit a power forward to fill Williams' role.
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All good points, I don't really disagree with any of that. There are times where you would change how you recruit based on one guy being one and done and another being a multi-year player, but they are infrequent. As an example, 75% chance of signing Tyler Davis or 45% chance of signing Jarrett Allen. Who do you pursue.
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
GE said:

bobinator said:

txjortsagent said:

There's merit to both arguments.

Why not have both types?
I think if you can have both types, you obviously want to, I assume the argument is more about allocation of resources. We don't need to waste time chasing down players we're never going to get.
The other argument is a developmental one. If Robert Williams enters the draft after last season, how much value did he really provide to the program vs. another guy we could have had for four seasons and spent those minutes building experience?

One and dones are extremely valuable in peak years but really don't do very much for a program when they eat up a bunch of minutes and then leave in a year a team doesn't even make the tournament.
With the exception of the elite of the elite programs like Kentucky that can land 3-4 one-and-dones a class, the practice of pursuing one-and-dones is not very prudent. It's the reason why Barnes faded and was eventually fired at Texas. He could get one a year and the only way to replace that one with another one...he was always filling gaps. It's like quicksand. It's really hard to build a program with a couple of one year guys. You can never build depth and you are always young.
WayneS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I occasionally wonder how far the Ags would have gone this year with De'Aaron Fox. Would he have gone lower in the draft if he had a good year at A&M?
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You never know, we might have been quite a team with him at point guard.
Serious Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ive seen where quentin grimes is not thought to be the type of kid to go one and done, but at this point does he look good enough to go if he wanted to?
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

You never know, we might have been quite a team with him at point guard.
Could have been, but with DJ having a down season and then getting injured, Tonny not shooting well from outside at all, and no real good options to backup DJ, Gilder, or Fox, depth and lack of shooting still would have been an Achilles heel.

That being said, I piss myself every time I think of Robert Williams and Tyler Davis playing with a true point guard who can break a defense down off the dribble and distribute. Not to mention the number of corner threes Admon will hit and quality looks Hogg will get
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Either way, being on bad teams didn't hurt Simmons or Fultz. And Fultz's team flat out sucked.
jml2621
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GE said:

With the one and done structure in place a Tyler Davis is more valuable to a program overall than an Anthony Davis is.

You might want to rethink that statement:




jml2621
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hop said:

GE said:

bobinator said:

txjortsagent said:

There's merit to both arguments.

Why not have both types?
I think if you can have both types, you obviously want to, I assume the argument is more about allocation of resources. We don't need to waste time chasing down players we're never going to get.
The other argument is a developmental one. If Robert Williams enters the draft after last season, how much value did he really provide to the program vs. another guy we could have had for four seasons and spent those minutes building experience?

One and dones are extremely valuable in peak years but really don't do very much for a program when they eat up a bunch of minutes and then leave in a year a team doesn't even make the tournament.
With the exception of the elite of the elite programs like Kentucky that can land 3-4 one-and-dones a class, the practice of pursuing one-and-dones is not very prudent. It's the reason why Barnes faded and was eventually fired at Texas. He could get one a year and the only way to replace that one with another one...he was always filling gaps. It's like quicksand. It's really hard to build a program with a couple of one year guys. You can never build depth and you are always young.

It depends. Roy Williams has had luck convening OADs to stick around 2-3 years past their peak draft positioning.


jml2621
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bobinator said:

Either way, being on bad teams didn't hurt Simmons or Fultz. And Fultz's team flat out sucked.


We saw how bad LSU was without Simmons this year.



You go for talent. If they turn out to be one and done, so be it. We never really hit the 13 man ceiling in elite talent.



Having said that, I hope the NBA votes in a voice for a HS student:

1. NBA draft

2. College -3+ years

3. Europe
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jml2621 said:

GE said:

With the one and done structure in place a Tyler Davis is more valuable to a program overall than an Anthony Davis is.
You might want to rethink that statement:


Which one year would Anthony have been more valuable to A&M than Tyler will have been over his four years?
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's a simple sounding complicated question, because we've probably never been good enough that one more piece would win us a national championship.

But flipping Tyler Davis for Anthony Davis in 2015-16 probably gets you pretty close. You add that sort of inside presence, especially defensively, to that team...
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

That's a simple sounding complicated question, because we've probably never been good enough that one more piece would win us a national championship.

But flipping Tyler Davis for Anthony Davis in 2015-16 probably gets you pretty close. You add that sort of inside presence, especially defensively, to that team...
I agree it's not a simple question. It is one worth considering for a team like A&M when you don't know who will be the replacement when the 1 and done leaves.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't really think so. You recruit the best players you can. If you think you're the most likely landing spot for an elite player, you have to chase them.

In part because sometimes one-and-dones aren't, and sometimes players that are going to stay for several years don't.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.