Isaiah Whitehead, SG (Seton Hall verbal)

[SJUalum98]

Right on cue.

And what's you guys take on this - would the Pitino's actually recruit against each other? I'd be more comfortable if it was Minny and not Louisville.

Ether way, glad to see Lavin went personally. Great sign!

It's a dog-eat-dog business, so there are gonna be times where they are gonna have to recruit against one another. I'm sure it's something they wanna do, but it's part of the business.

Like yourself, I'd rather face Minnesota than Louisville. But we've beaten out some good programs for recruits of late. What better way to land Whitehead by beating out Pitino (Rick, that is).

Maybe poor IW got phone calls & texts from a guy who identified himself as "Coach Pitino" and he though it was Louisville :lol:

 

[paultzman]

“@Isaiah_W15: All The Rumors About Me Signing To The Cuse Today Is False ✔

 

[paultzman]

“@AdamZagoria: Lavin, Pitino Watch Isaiah Whiteheadhttp://zagsblog.com/articles/lavin-pitino-watch-isaiah-whitehead/ @Isaiah_W15”

 

[paultzman]

"St. John’s head coach Steve Lavin and Minnesota head coach Richard Pitino visited with Lincoln star junior Isaiah Whitehead on Wednesday. The Johnnies, Syracuse and Louisville are recruiting the 6-foot-4 standout the hardest, his mother Ericka Rambert said."


Read more: RECRUITING CONFIDENTIAL: Inside Fordham's chase of NYC star Jon Severe - NYPOST.comhttp://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/colle..._fordham_FtC8007fW0NHGTbqBee1ZP#ixzz2RcJuUFbC

 

[usguard]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

 

[Moose]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

 

[L J S A]

usguard really needs to stop typing from his phone or iPad because his posts are a mess.

 

[usguard]

Went to msn clicked on sports and basketball recruiting .

 

[Class of 72]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

 

[Moose]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

 

[simplyred]

NYC is loaded in '14 and '15. That, along with Lavin's national reach, will do us just find. I can't believe people are still questioning Lavin's recruiting ability.

 

[Class of 72]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

 

[Moose]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

You are smart. You know that those have not been updated. Open period started last weekend.
Now back to negativity just for the sake of negativity.

 

[Jnaw17]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

Mudiay, Stanley Johnson, Isaiah Whitehead, Abdul-Malik Abu, Jared Terrell, Paschal Chukwu, Khadeen Carrington...I count seven that we're involved with. If some folks would actually pay attention to what they read on this board, they'd have most of the info that they need.

 

[Marillac]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Lavin hasn't signed a top recruit in almost two weeks. He's ripe for the picking for the critics. It just boggles my mind that people question this man's recruiting.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

Mudiay, Stanley Johnson, Isaiah Whitehead, Abdul-Malik Abu, Jared Terrell, Paschal Chukwu, Khadeen Carrington...I count seven that we're involved with. If some folks would actually pay attention to what they read on this board, they'd have most of the info that they need.

That's waaay to much to ask jnaw.

 

[Class of 72]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

You are smart. You know that those have not been updated. Open period started last weekend.
Now back to negativity just for the sake of negativity.

Not negativity......just an observation.
Yes, we have offered a couple of kids not reflected on the list.
What I was referencing was Usguard's notice of the ubiquitous schools like UK and Syracuse on many many recruits lists.
Those schools get on all the major recruits "early" while we arrive to dinner fashionably late. As long as we sign our targets I do not care but top players want to play with top players. Seeing our name on the lists of more top players sells other players. It's like smart kids who want to go to schools like Yale or Stanford with other smart kids.
If your program aspires to be a top 25 program and contend for a national title, you will only do it with elite players.

Now, back to the Scout list referenced by Usguard-----can you or any of the other folks here explain how wanting us involved with "more" players is negative???? A mantra used here frequently is if a poster disagrees with you---he is negative ---- if you are negative----you are being objective. Frankly, I do not give a crapolla.
Perhaps I should have said we should be involved with "fewer" players or more players in the bottom 50 and leave the top 50 to the schools that end up winning a national championship?

 

[Moose]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

You are smart. You know that those have not been updated. Open period started last weekend.
Now back to negativity just for the sake of negativity.

Not negativity......just an observation.
Yes, we have offered a couple of kids not reflected on the list.
What I was referencing was Usguard's notice of the ubiquitous schools like UK and Syracuse on many many recruits lists.
Those schools get on all the major recruits "early" while we arrive to dinner fashionably late. As long as we sign our targets I do not care but top players want to play with top players. Seeing our name on the lists of more top players sells other players. It's like smart kids who want to go to schools like Yale or Stanford with other smart kids.
If your program aspires to be a top 25 program and contend for a national title, you will only do it with elite players.

Now, back to the Scout list referenced by Usguard-----can you or any of the other folks here explain how wanting us involved with "more" players is negative???? A mantra used here frequently is if a poster disagrees with you---he is negative ---- if you are negative----you are being objective. Frankly, I do not give a crapolla.
Perhaps I should have said we should be involved with "fewer" players or more players in the bottom 50 and leave the top 50 to the schools that end up winning a national championship?

I'm not explaining anything to you.
Have a great evening.

 

[Jnaw17]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

You are smart. You know that those have not been updated. Open period started last weekend.
Now back to negativity just for the sake of negativity.

Not negativity......just an observation.
Yes, we have offered a couple of kids not reflected on the list.
What I was referencing was Usguard's notice of the ubiquitous schools like UK and Syracuse on many many recruits lists.
Those schools get on all the major recruits "early" while we arrive to dinner fashionably late. As long as we sign our targets I do not care but top players want to play with top players. Seeing our name on the lists of more top players sells other players. It's like smart kids who want to go to schools like Yale or Stanford with other smart kids.
If your program aspires to be a top 25 program and contend for a national title, you will only do it with elite players.

Now, back to the Scout list referenced by Usguard-----can you or any of the other folks here explain how wanting us involved with "more" players is negative???? A mantra used here frequently is if a poster disagrees with you---he is negative ---- if you are negative----you are being objective. Frankly, I do not give a crapolla.
Perhaps I should have said we should be involved with "fewer" players or more players in the bottom 50 and leave the top 50 to the schools that end up winning a national championship?

What makes Scout the best resource for determining who we're involved with? They believe Jordan is the 53rd best player coming out of HS, while Rivals and ESPN have him at 20 and 22, respectively.

Rivals and ESPN list us with several top 100 kids and Lavin continues to prove he can get these kids, early and late in the season. Names continue to pop up on this board every day and it's still early. Picking on Lavin's recruiting ability is ridiculous. He may not be on the list as much as Kentucky, but he also doesn't have the boosters that Cal does. He'll get quality players in here, just as he's done each of the last several seasons.

 

[Class of 72]

Hope coach and .staff are out their hitting the bricks? Looked at rivals saw serveral players no..one had us on their list Kentucky .Syracuse N Carolina etc . just to name a few.

What are you talking about?

Just spit it out Usguard!!!!
My guess is as it relates to IW he sees the usual big boys of recruiting involved.
If he is looking at the Scout rankings, he is also seeing us involved with a grand total of 2 top 100 players, both SG and no bigs, while Kentucky is involved with no less than TWELVE top 25 players and every big.
What he is also inferring is that in 2014 we could be losing 4 players but are only involved with two ranked players, neither of which has us their favorite.
What he is trying to say is we need to be involved with more elite players....period.
I agree....if that is what he is trying to say.

So all the players mentioned on this and the other board for the past 2 weeks was my imagination?

You must have some wild imagination!
Usguard mentions MSN/Scout. Go to it....pull up the 2014 class. Then scroll from #1 through #100.
In the list of the first 25, UK is involved with 12 of them. We are involved with one and down the list with IW.
Now, of that Scout list......please reveal your imaginary list.

You are smart. You know that those have not been updated. Open period started last weekend.
Now back to negativity just for the sake of negativity.

Not negativity......just an observation.
Yes, we have offered a couple of kids not reflected on the list.
What I was referencing was Usguard's notice of the ubiquitous schools like UK and Syracuse on many many recruits lists.
Those schools get on all the major recruits "early" while we arrive to dinner fashionably late. As long as we sign our targets I do not care but top players want to play with top players. Seeing our name on the lists of more top players sells other players. It's like smart kids who want to go to schools like Yale or Stanford with other smart kids.
If your program aspires to be a top 25 program and contend for a national title, you will only do it with elite players.

Now, back to the Scout list referenced by Usguard-----can you or any of the other folks here explain how wanting us involved with "more" players is negative???? A mantra used here frequently is if a poster disagrees with you---he is negative ---- if you are negative----you are being objective. Frankly, I do not give a crapolla.
Perhaps I should have said we should be involved with "fewer" players or more players in the bottom 50 and leave the top 50 to the schools that end up winning a national championship?

What makes Scout the best resource for determining who we're involved with? They believe Jordan is the 53rd best player coming out of HS, while Rivals and ESPN have him at 20 and 22, respectively.

Rivals and ESPN list us with several top 100 kids and Lavin continues to prove he can get these kids, early and late in the season. Names continue to pop up on this board every day and it's still early. Picking on Lavin's recruiting ability is ridiculous. He may not be on the list as much as Kentucky, but he also doesn't have the boosters that Cal does. He'll get quality players in here, just as he's done each of the last several seasons.

I agree with you.
However, boosters and recruits are a no-no.
Not since crazy Franny have we been involved with the talent level of recruits that coach Lavin has gotten to list SJ as a finalist. Mudiay is in everyone's top 20. Getting Jordan was huge.
It is not a question of recruiting "ability" as much as much as Lavin convincing more elites in the Mickey D category to make us one of their final selections.