How do you rate Mullin as a recruiter
- Thread starter isham
- Start date
Let's call it a Sophomore recruiting class of Ponds, Lovett, Simon and Clark. That is pretty fantastic. We need some bigs and this is a formidable team especially if Bashir and Owens get in some good work off-season. 2 solid grad transfers and we have a legitimate high DI 8 man rotation and with a player like Ponds much is possible. Need some bigs especially as we have seen, post-season.
Class of 72
Active member
Soph recruiting class...I like that!
If this staff can find one decent big during the post season things can improve radically but hopefully they get someone stronger than Sima or Owens.
Class of 72
Active member
Recruiting is the lifeblood of any successful program. The staff grabbed what they could but I think there was very little time for evaluating talent. Hence we signed a few projects who underperformed. Sima, inexplicably transferred. Ellison could have become a poor man's D.J. Kennedy and he transfers. Slice leaves. Marcus Lovett drama. Local recruits dropping us lower on their lists. We hear you. May not be a long term formula for sustained success.
All I can say is we will know what to expect long term by NEXT SPRING!
Actually Paul I think it's more accurate to call it a Freshman recruiting class. Mullin came on so late in the recruiting cycle there was almost noone to recruit for his first year so he threw together a team consisting of whoever he could find - several grad transfers, some freshmen from overseas and a late pick-up in Yakwe. The first real recruiting effort was for this year's class. And even with this class there was limited time for the process that's usually several years in the making - cultivating kids in advance, having staff show up in their gyms, getting to their HS and AAU games frequently and all the while working on their coaches and parents, that takes time, so much so that it's amazing the class Mullin and co were able to put together for this year. How good a recruiting job the staff is doing will show up in the players they are able to get in the next few recruiting classes.
Class of 72
Active member
Nice try!
Only at St. John's do we have to deal with L O N G term cultivation of player relationships if we are to get lucky with a high level impact player. If I recall Lavin did that with Briscoe until Kentucky flew him on a Lear jet to Lexington after barely communicating with him or his family. How many times did UCLA come see Anderson play while Tony Chiles was camping out in Jersey?
Even if your argument held water in today's age of instant messaging and gratification, we will still likely lose most local talent to better programs if recruits and their handlers feel they will better benefit from other coaching staffs.
Does it dawn on you that going into year three we are still using the end of the recruiting cycle to try to snag a grad transfer, a decommit, a transfer that needs to sit a year or any player we barely had contact with?
I surely hope and expect this staff to sign targets earlier in the next couple of years. But until St. John's is seen as a legit post season program the best players will opt for successful programs if offered at the last minute.
Next year JUST WIN! You will see that long term cultivation shortened considerably in length.
Ottrando23
Member
This got me interested. As of now, this is the current average recruiting player ranking for each Big East team going into the 2017-18 season. Things will change slightly from now to the season, but as of now we have the 3rd most talented team in the Big East according to 247 composite. The number in parenthesis is the current number of scholarship players on the team.
Villanova (11) - .9328
Xavier (12) - .9253
St. John’s (10) - .9075
Marquette (11) - .8962
Georgetown (8) - .8918
Providence (11) - .8866
Creighton (12) - .8796
Seton Hall (10) - .8783
Butler (12) - .8685
DePaul (12) - .8259
Villanova (11) - .9328
Xavier (12) - .9253
St. John’s (10) - .9075
Marquette (11) - .8962
Georgetown (8) - .8918
Providence (11) - .8866
Creighton (12) - .8796
Seton Hall (10) - .8783
Butler (12) - .8685
DePaul (12) - .8259
Mullin and staff need a solid season next year of Winning . Program needs some momentum. Overall I think they have done a good job. Hopefully we add a serviceable Grad transfer big (who can rebound & finish at the rim). As far the 18' class recruiting is so fluid these days. A long way to go. At least Mullin is seen in the local gyms evaluating & cultivating relationships.
I agree with you. We are not Kentucky. But most perennial NCAA tournament teams aren't either and they do have to cultivate players over several years. And they put together excellent programs with 3 and 4 star players and transfers. All of those teams experience the distress of cultivating local players who blow up and then a UK, KU, Duke, UNC swoops in and steals them without having to have done the years of work. That's the reality and we just have to deal with it. We still have to do that work and we will get some top players - Ponds was a huge get in that respect. Meanwhile we have to gradually build up the program, win more so recruits believe they can get to the tourney with us. If we can get enough low post help from the grad transfer market this year to get us to the post season next year that will help us in the eyes of stronger local players and if we can sustain that for a few years, regardless of where our players come from, we could get over the hump and start being consistently good. So why complain about where we are getting our players? If it advances the goal great. We were much better this year than last but we still have some huge holes in the low post. Lets fix that wherever possible and take the next step next year. Once we are consistently more successful, coaching staff continuity or at least effective succession will be the key to continuing to be a strong program longer term. That's the only realistic plan to get us where we all want to be. First step get to the dance. Next step get to the dance consistently. Then we can start to expect to hold onto local stud players when the big boys come calling. No matter what we are always going to have to work local talent consistently and starting far in advance.
westchesterjoe
Active member
The terrain in College Basketball today, Kentucky, Duke, and a few others excluded, is to have a cadre of 3-4 year players who may not be Top 50 or McD All Americans and have somewhat even distribution among Freshman Sophs, Jr's and Seniors plus, the new factor, 5th yr Grad Players..
Guys like Hart, Jenkins on Nova,etc.
What is noticeable too, on many teams is the necessity of having that 6'10 or 7' player of some bulk. Karnowski, Collins on Gonzaga, even though they didn't play that well. Meekins on NC are big and bulky but, have skills. Sima and Yakwe are not that prototype. Creighton had Patton, whom I am still steaming about as BE rookie of the Year.
Freudenberg is not that prototype either, not big enough or good enough yet to be a contributor.
2017-18 season will largely rise or fall on getting that BIG INSIDE player. We won 7 BE Games this year, if we win 10 we go to the NCAA'S , Maybe even 9-9 gets us in if, we win 18-19 overall.
The physical inside play that dominates College BB today requires having that Big Body, who doesn't have to be a leaping shot blocker . Just capable of rebounding, and making the bunnies inside. To me, Karnowski had a awful game and he missed way too many 2-3 foot gimmes, otherwise, the Zags win.
It is especially important to get that inside Force as our 2 lead guards are barely 6' and 170 lbs. Hopefully, Simon and Clark will pick up and put away a lot of the Inside stuff we didnt get from Yakwe or Sima.
Guys like Hart, Jenkins on Nova,etc.
What is noticeable too, on many teams is the necessity of having that 6'10 or 7' player of some bulk. Karnowski, Collins on Gonzaga, even though they didn't play that well. Meekins on NC are big and bulky but, have skills. Sima and Yakwe are not that prototype. Creighton had Patton, whom I am still steaming about as BE rookie of the Year.
Freudenberg is not that prototype either, not big enough or good enough yet to be a contributor.
2017-18 season will largely rise or fall on getting that BIG INSIDE player. We won 7 BE Games this year, if we win 10 we go to the NCAA'S , Maybe even 9-9 gets us in if, we win 18-19 overall.
The physical inside play that dominates College BB today requires having that Big Body, who doesn't have to be a leaping shot blocker . Just capable of rebounding, and making the bunnies inside. To me, Karnowski had a awful game and he missed way too many 2-3 foot gimmes, otherwise, the Zags win.
It is especially important to get that inside Force as our 2 lead guards are barely 6' and 170 lbs. Hopefully, Simon and Clark will pick up and put away a lot of the Inside stuff we didnt get from Yakwe or Sima.
Too early to rate this staff’s true recruiting ability, but so far so good.
What I anticipate will be our 6 best players (Lovett, Ponds, Simon, Ahmed, Clark, and Owens) next year as of now were secured in this staff’s first 12ish months on the job. This includes a mix of two 4-star guards, two transfers from two of the Top 10 programs in the country, a JUCO All-American Honorable Mention, and a less-heralded but great identification 6-11 transfer.
That’s amazing.
We’ve no doubt hit a little bit of a lull as we approach the 24 month mark which is not uncommon. For pretty much everyone but the top programs, collateral damage to bringing in good players who are likely to stick around more than one year is that the playing time conversation can be more challenging for the following year’s recruiting class. We obviously still have a lot of room for a big, but premium 2017 guards are less likely to be interested in an already crowded backcourt with Lovett, Ponds, and Simon.
In addition we’ve had what could probably be called pretty standard turnover under a new staff as players see the system and longer-term roster landscape start to materialize. Hence the need for a big next year which staff seems focused on trying to fill with short-term solution given later stage of this recruiting cycle. Again not atypical.
Think it’s fair to start to grade based upon 2018 recruiting results, which are obviously critical. At that point the classes should be fairly balanced, there shouldn’t be as much of a playing-time issue for incoming freshman in terms of guys only 1 class in front of them, and staff will have had a lot of time to recruit the kids they are interested in. As it stands now shouldn’t be much excuse not to have a strong class next year.
Even on this incomplete basis can’t see giving anything below a B+. Difficult to turn a team completely around in 1 year, and as it was just getting enough talent to go 7-11 in conference primarily relying on guys playing their first year for SJU is impressive. Probably more like A-, especially if Simon and Clark are similar range contributors as our four main guys from this past year.
What I anticipate will be our 6 best players (Lovett, Ponds, Simon, Ahmed, Clark, and Owens) next year as of now were secured in this staff’s first 12ish months on the job. This includes a mix of two 4-star guards, two transfers from two of the Top 10 programs in the country, a JUCO All-American Honorable Mention, and a less-heralded but great identification 6-11 transfer.
That’s amazing.
We’ve no doubt hit a little bit of a lull as we approach the 24 month mark which is not uncommon. For pretty much everyone but the top programs, collateral damage to bringing in good players who are likely to stick around more than one year is that the playing time conversation can be more challenging for the following year’s recruiting class. We obviously still have a lot of room for a big, but premium 2017 guards are less likely to be interested in an already crowded backcourt with Lovett, Ponds, and Simon.
In addition we’ve had what could probably be called pretty standard turnover under a new staff as players see the system and longer-term roster landscape start to materialize. Hence the need for a big next year which staff seems focused on trying to fill with short-term solution given later stage of this recruiting cycle. Again not atypical.
Think it’s fair to start to grade based upon 2018 recruiting results, which are obviously critical. At that point the classes should be fairly balanced, there shouldn’t be as much of a playing-time issue for incoming freshman in terms of guys only 1 class in front of them, and staff will have had a lot of time to recruit the kids they are interested in. As it stands now shouldn’t be much excuse not to have a strong class next year.
Even on this incomplete basis can’t see giving anything below a B+. Difficult to turn a team completely around in 1 year, and as it was just getting enough talent to go 7-11 in conference primarily relying on guys playing their first year for SJU is impressive. Probably more like A-, especially if Simon and Clark are similar range contributors as our four main guys from this past year.
Great post ^^