Johnnies Season Preview Piece

I think we can call agree that Mike Anderson has had great success at his prior stops. But he was never able to get "over the top" at his previous jobs, and I think that has to do with his recruiting. Listen, I love that he recruits hard working lunch pail players that he develops well and fit his system, But, when push comes to shove, you need to bring in top talent along with those types of players to build a consistent winner. He seems to be great at getting the most out of these lower ranked players and developing them, but talent almost always wins out in college basketball. I hope we have a great season this year and he is able to get some quality recruits in here to really build this program into a sustained winner like we haven't seen in decades.
 
[quote="Logen" post=400924][quote="MCNPA" post=400920]I don’t disagree with Zaun that Anderson needs to land some studs. We are recruiting some under-ranked kids that are pretty talented. We still need to do better and in that respect I believe fans should have some expectations. It’s not wrong and Zaun isn’t incorrect. If we can win this way then fine, but agree we have a lot of ground to make up to be a great team.[/quote]

“a great team” ??? Our record over the last 20 years is 310-322, with a conference record of 128-202, comprised of 4 seasons with winning conference records. We have been to the tournament 4 times with 2 tournament wins over that period. We have been through scandal, ineligible players, and incompetent coaches.
So we finally get a true professional to lead the program, hired after the end of the recruiting cycle his first year and criticism leading into his second year because he hasn’t recruited any “studs” is warranted or has merit? What planet are you guys living on? CMA might never recruit the “studs” you guys like to drool over and we might never become “a great team” again but I for one will be happy to start with a hard working, team oriented group of young men that I can root for and see how things evolve. Every baby I’ve ever known had to learn to walk before they could run.[/quote]

That's not true...he does "recruit" them...the problem is he doesn't land them so far. Riley was the first real crack he had after having plenty of time to recruit him and being here a full year. We came close but missed out. Next up is Cuffe who we had a lot of time to recruit. We will see how that shakes out. The problem is that many fans want to only focus on the recruiting wins vs. the losses. Both count IMO. I've said this over and over, but you can be a fan and be more on the objective side in terms of judging coaches. Seems to be exclusive to our fanbase, never seen any other require that their coach is already amazing before proving anything concrete on the national level. CMA will have his chance and we all want the best for him.

I think the disconnect is that most of us know the recipe for a nationally relevant program that is routinely making tourneys and competing for conference championships. That recipe almost always includes very good recruiting. We can debate this until we are all blue in the face, but ESPN, Rivals, 247, etc. recruiting rankings would not exist at all if they truly meant nothing. I've said from day 1 that CMA's future here will depend a lot on his ability to recruit (mostly 3 star kids are great but you need the occasional 4's). But if we keep buying scratch offs hoping to get rich as our recruiting strategy, that is obviously a concern and even Paultz has hinted at this...I'm just more blunt. Yes it's still very early in his tenure. But the recruiting will need to pick up if we want to be truly relevant again. Ask any objective fan of some other program and almost all will agree with me.
 
Last edited:
I am not one to rationalize a recruiting loss like Riley in this case, but must say hoops guys I respect, who have seen both players a lot, are of opinion that Pinzon may offer more in long run. They reference his positional flexibility, savvy passing, better perimeter game and size. Landing LuHi kid is a plus as well.

I would like CMA win a battle for a signature type player like we did landing Harkless back when to set a tone, but no sense losing sleep over it. CMA is a professional coach who frankly we did not deserve to get considering our mediocrity for so long.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=400927][quote="Logen" post=400924][quote="MCNPA" post=400920]I don’t disagree with Zaun that Anderson needs to land some studs. We are recruiting some under-ranked kids that are pretty talented. We still need to do better and in that respect I believe fans should have some expectations. It’s not wrong and Zaun isn’t incorrect. If we can win this way then fine, but agree we have a lot of ground to make up to be a great team.[/quote]

“a great team” ??? Our record over the last 20 years is 310-322, with a conference record of 128-202, comprised of 4 seasons with winning conference records. We have been to the tournament 4 times with 2 tournament wins over that period. We have been through scandal, ineligible players, and incompetent coaches.
So we finally get a true professional to lead the program, hired after the end of the recruiting cycle his first year and criticism leading into his second year because he hasn’t recruited any “studs” is warranted or has merit? What planet are you guys living on? CMA might never recruit the “studs” you guys like to drool over and we might never become “a great team” again but I for one will be happy to start with a hard working, team oriented group of young men that I can root for and see how things evolve. Every baby I’ve ever known had to learn to walk before they could run.[/quote]

That's not true...he does "recruit" them...the problem is he doesn't land them so far. Riley was the first real crack he had after having plenty of time to recruit him and being here a full year. We came close but missed out. Next up is Cuffe who we had a lot of time to recruit. We will see how that shakes out. The problem is that many fans want to only focus on the recruiting wins vs. the losses. Both count IMO. I've said this over and over, but you can be a fan and be more on the objective side in terms of judging coaches. Seems to be exclusive to our fanbase, never seen any other require that their coach is already amazing before proving anything concrete on the national level. CMA will have his chance and we all want the best for him.

I think the disconnect is that most of us know the recipe for a nationally relevant program that is routinely making tourneys and competing for conference championships. That recipe almost always includes very good recruiting. We can debate this until we are all blue in the face, but ESPN, Rivals, 247, etc. recruiting rankings would not exist at all if they truly meant nothing. I've said from day 1 that CMA's future here will depend a lot on his ability to recruit (mostly 3 star kids are great but you need the occasional 4's). But if we keep buying scratch offs hoping to get rich as our recruiting strategy, that is obviously a concern and even Paultz has hinted at this...I'm just more blunt. Yes it's still very early in his tenure. But the recruiting will need to pick up if we want to be truly relevant again. Ask any objective fan of some other program and almost all will agree with me.[/quote]



Mike, here is why I disagree with you. From people I have spoken to, Riley is not better than Wusu, this may have been a consideration in his choosing not to come to St Johns. I also tried to explain to you in a previous post, that there are a number of factors to consider regarding Kyle Jr's decision. The main one being, how does granting all players an extra year of eligibility affect him.

What bothers me about some of your posts is the redundancy. You mentioned Kyle Jr in the post on legacy recruits, and now you mention him again in the Season preview after I had already attempted to explain to you the various scenarios his family is looking at.

I think Logen put things in perspective, until St Johns can prove to be a top 4 Big East program consistently, recruits are not going to be banging on our door. Coach Anderson has made progress. Those involved in NYC basketball talk about the development of Williams, Earlington, and Roberts. However, most rave about the difference in Julian's game from his senior year to the end of last year. This season should tell us a lot about the direction of the program. I, for one, am willing to wait until April to judge one way or the other.

I realize that we need 4 or 5 star recruits, but to refer to this in every thread is overkill. Ain't nothing changed in the past week.
 
Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?
 
[quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote] We could have gotten Kepnang and the complaint would be how come we don't have a top 15 recruit. We could finish third and the complaint will be why not second. Could finish 20-11 and complain that we should be 21-10. The response will always be some sort of passive aggressive.. yeah that's great but..
 
[quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote]

Having seen Riley play the answer from me is certainly no.
Much happier with Pinzon who I believe will suit our needs better.
 
[quote="SI1996" post=400932][quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote] We could have gotten Kepnang and the complaint would be how come we don't have a top 15 recruit. We could finish third and the complaint will be why not second. Could finish 20-11 and complain that we should be 21-10. The response will always be some sort of passive aggressive.. yeah that's great but..[/quote]

Yes he would have. Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good at least. But it's also about hype and getting the ball rolling with other major recruits. Paultz just alluded to Harkless who pretty much set the tone for Lavin. He was the first domino to fall I believe. So you can also get momentum from getting the bigger name kids nationally. There's a real chance that Pinzon will be better, but Pinzon is less athletic IMO and at least at this stage from what I've seen, a worse 3 pt shooter than Riley. I believe Pinzon had 1 game where he was red hot from 3 which helped his avg, but then the other games were not good 3 pt wise. Potential is there of course for Pinzon to develop a more consistent 3 pt shot.

Implying I will never be satisfied is totally untrue. I have said consistently that once CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit, I will gleefully acknowledge it and it will be direct evidence that he may be able to get more over time. I don't think we should even target 5*'s at this point unless there's a good chance they want to stay home and/or really want to come here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time IMO, because even if we get one, they are likely 1 and done. I'd rather the Nova model where you get some solid 3's you coach up to 4 level for consistency and experience...then occasionally get a major recruit to throw into the mix. I have no concerns with CMA getting the solid 3's he can possibly coach into 4's...but we will need some 4's out of HS to be difference makers in a conference like this. Find me a team in a conference that routinely recruited at the bottom, yet routinely made the tourney and routinely competed for top 3 in their conference. Doubt you can.

The definition of success at this point that would make me very satisfied is this:

1. CMA gets us to be a regular tourney team (about 60% of the time) and I don't care how we do in NCAA's for now.
2. CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit (3's the rest of the time are fine) and the ability to land one every 2-3 yrs.
3. CMA has us finishing in the top half of the conference every year (top 5).

Those are not wild expectations, especially if he's really a great coach. And I would be thrilled with them.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=400937][quote="SI1996" post=400932][quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote] We could have gotten Kepnang and the complaint would be how come we don't have a top 15 recruit. We could finish third and the complaint will be why not second. Could finish 20-11 and complain that we should be 21-10. The response will always be some sort of passive aggressive.. yeah that's great but..[/quote]

Yes he would have. Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good at least. But it's also about hype and getting the ball rolling with other major recruits. Paultz just alluded to Harkless who pretty much set the tone for Lavin. He was the first domino to fall I believe. So you can also get momentum from getting the bigger name kids nationally. There's a real chance that Pinzon will be better, but Pinzon is less athletic IMO and at least at this stage from what I've seen, a worse 3 pt shooter than Riley. I believe Pinzon had 1 game where he was red hot from 3 which helped his avg, but then the other games were not good 3 pt wise. Potential is there of course for Pinzon to develop a more consistent 3 pt shot.

Implying I will never be satisfied is totally untrue. I have said consistently that once CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit, I will gleefully acknowledge it and it will be direct evidence that he may be able to get more over time. I don't think we should even target 5*'s at this point unless there's a good chance they want to stay home and/or really want to come here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time IMO, because even if we get one, they are likely 1 and done. I'd rather the Nova model where you get some solid 3's you coach up to 4 level for consistency and experience...then occasionally get a major recruit to throw into the mix. I have no concerns with CMA getting the solid 3's he can possibly coach into 4's...but we will need some 4's out of HS to be difference makers in a conference like this. Find me a team in a conference that routinely recruited at the bottom, yet routinely made the tourney and routinely competed for top 3 in their conference. Doubt you can.

The definition of success at this point that would make me very satisfied is this:

1. CMA gets us to be a regular tourney team (about 60% of the time) and I don't care how we do in NCAA's for now.
2. CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit (3's the rest of the time are fine) and the ability to land one every 2-3 yrs.
3. CMA has us finishing in the top half of the conference every year (top 5).

Those are not wild expectations, especially if he's really a great coach. And I would be thrilled with them.[/quote]

I asked you if Riley would have been that signature recruit and you did answer yes which is great but I can tell you that as of right now that Rafael is the better player. Your statement of " Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good " only reinforces my stance as Jordan Riley has the potential to be a better player than Rafael but just doesn't have it all working at this time. Just simply say that you like a player better because you think he has more stars or hype and leave it at that because if Riley is the signature recruit that you crave ..then congratulate our staff for getting our first signature recruit in Rafael :)
 
I did really like the Pinzon get and we beat out legit competition to get him. Even better since it was a surprise. Just a comparison:

Riley: 3* (146th nationally) composite
Pinzon: 3* (183rd nationally) composite

They're definitely close. We will learn a lot this year about whether or not CMA can keep finding these kids who can perform with or better than the top half of the Big East and P5 type teams. One big positive about this staff is that even though we have missed our top recruit targets, we seem to get a plan B or C that wasn't too far off the top original target like we see above.
 
Last edited:
This ain't sour grapes, but since when did a top 150 kid(Riley) become a "signature recruit"? I would think the term "signature recruit" refers to a program changer type. By all accounts, Riley was not anywhere close to a program changer. Sorry we lost him, but he's already been replaced.
 
Matt Norlander of CBS Sports picks SJU No. 74 preseason. We should be better than that.
I'll take the under 74.
 
[quote="Monte" post=400940]This ain't sour grapes, but since when did a top 150 kid(Riley) become a "signature recruit"? I would think the term "signature recruit" refers to a program changer type. By all accounts, Riley was not anywhere close to a program changer. Sorry we lost him, but he's already been replaced.[/quote]

Technically, you're right. But then what does that say about recruiting if we lost out on a pretty big time kid 30 miles away who isn't that great but could be good? Goes both ways! Consensus 4 star kid once every 2-3 yrs...would think that's minimum for most big time programs to have much of a pulse. By the way, Riley supposedly posed as his father online to get people riled up about SJU to build up drama. Think we were used here. Crazy stuff.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=400949][quote="Monte" post=400940]This ain't sour grapes, but since when did a top 150 kid(Riley) become a "signature recruit"? I would think the term "signature recruit" refers to a program changer type. By all accounts, Riley was not anywhere close to a program changer. Sorry we lost him, but he's already been replaced.[/quote]

Technically, you're right. But then what does that say about recruiting if we lost out on a pretty big time kid 30 miles away who isn't that great but could be good? Goes both ways! Consensus 4 star kid once every 2-3 yrs...would think that's minimum for most big time programs to have much of a pulse. By the way, Riley supposedly posed as his father online to get people riled up about SJU to build up drama. Think we were used here. Crazy stuff.[/quote]

Fair enough, but Riley's behavior(if true) could be a sign of things to come with him. His recruitment, especially down the stretch, turned in to a bit of a circus. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from a top 25 kid, not a top 150 kid. No such thing with Pinzon. In fact, I don't recall any nonsense leading up to his announcement, and I don't believe he even held a press conference. As for their rankings, we're splitting hairs between top 150 and top 200. Same holds true for stars; high 3 Vs. low 4. Means nothing really. With regard to getting a 4 star kid every 2-3 years, gotta give CMA a pass on his first recruiting cycle. So theoretically he's in his 1st full recruiting cycle. Frankly, I think he and the staff are doing pretty damn good so far, all things considered. So he gets another 2 recruiting cycles to land a 4 star kid. I am relatively confident it'll happen sooner then later. His track record, and our track record(with prior coaches), says so.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=400949][quote="Monte" post=400940]This ain't sour grapes, but since when did a top 150 kid(Riley) become a "signature recruit"? I would think the term "signature recruit" refers to a program changer type. By all accounts, Riley was not anywhere close to a program changer. Sorry we lost him, but he's already been replaced.[/quote]

Technically, you're right. But then what does that say about recruiting if we lost out on a pretty big time kid 30 miles away who isn't that great but could be good? Goes both ways! Consensus 4 star kid once every 2-3 yrs...would think that's minimum for most big time programs to have much of a pulse. By the way, Riley supposedly posed as his father online to get people riled up about SJU to build up drama. Think we were used here. Crazy stuff.[/quote]

Allow things to play out. That's all several posters are asking or have alluded. If we're not winning, as well as not garnering 4 (or 5 star) players, then you'll have more merit and credibility when voicing your displeasure. To constantly harp on the same thing after only one season on the sidelines and actually one FULL recruiting cycle is rather premature. Not to mention, a season where it looked like we were at least headed to the NIT when most people and pundits didn't think we had that in us prior to the start of the season.

By the way, being I've only seen highlight clips and have read a few clippings of Riley and Pinzon (and per Happy's observation), it seems long-term Pinzon could end up being the better player. First of all, Pinzon is a 6'6" player who displays point guard skills. That in itself is a big plus IMO.

We'll see how things pan out on both of their collegiate careers. Regardless, just allow things to play out.
 
As we anxiously wait for the season to start, I got this pretty cool sticker in the mail. [attachment=1661]image05.jpeg[/attachment]
 
Last edited:
[quote="MJDinkins" post=400952][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400949][quote="Monte" post=400940]This ain't sour grapes, but since when did a top 150 kid(Riley) become a "signature recruit"? I would think the term "signature recruit" refers to a program changer type. By all accounts, Riley was not anywhere close to a program changer. Sorry we lost him, but he's already been replaced.[/quote]

Technically, you're right. But then what does that say about recruiting if we lost out on a pretty big time kid 30 miles away who isn't that great but could be good? Goes both ways! Consensus 4 star kid once every 2-3 yrs...would think that's minimum for most big time programs to have much of a pulse. By the way, Riley supposedly posed as his father online to get people riled up about SJU to build up drama. Think we were used here. Crazy stuff.[/quote]

Allow things to play out. That's all several posters are asking or have alluded. If we're not winning, as well as not garnering 4 (or 5 star) players, then you'll have more merit and credibility when voicing your displeasure. To constantly harp on the same thing after only one season on the sidelines and actually one FULL recruiting cycle is rather premature. Not to mention, a season where it looked like we were at least headed to the NIT when most people and pundits didn't think we had that in us prior to the start of the season.

By the way, being I've only seen highlight clips and have read a few clippings of Riley and Pinzon (and per Happy's observation), it seems long-term Pinzon could end up being the better player. First of all, Pinzon is a 6'6" player who displays point guard skills. That in itself is a big plus IMO.

We'll see how things pan out on both of their collegiate careers. Regardless, just allow things to play out.[/quote]

I just saw some new clips of Riley: Have to say, beast of an athlete and really quick going to the hole. I don’t think he has the skill set at his size that Pinzon hs, being even taller. Pinzon has a well developed skill set and for us I can see him being a really savy player. Riley more in the MacLung mold, although not as good of a shorter from what I’ve gathered, maybe better at getting to the hole.
 
[quote="Happy" post=400938][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400937][quote="SI1996" post=400932][quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote] We could have gotten Kepnang and the complaint would be how come we don't have a top 15 recruit. We could finish third and the complaint will be why not second. Could finish 20-11 and complain that we should be 21-10. The response will always be some sort of passive aggressive.. yeah that's great but..[/quote]

Yes he would have. Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good at least. But it's also about hype and getting the ball rolling with other major recruits. Paultz just alluded to Harkless who pretty much set the tone for Lavin. He was the first domino to fall I believe. So you can also get momentum from getting the bigger name kids nationally. There's a real chance that Pinzon will be better, but Pinzon is less athletic IMO and at least at this stage from what I've seen, a worse 3 pt shooter than Riley. I believe Pinzon had 1 game where he was red hot from 3 which helped his avg, but then the other games were not good 3 pt wise. Potential is there of course for Pinzon to develop a more consistent 3 pt shot.

Implying I will never be satisfied is totally untrue. I have said consistently that once CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit, I will gleefully acknowledge it and it will be direct evidence that he may be able to get more over time. I don't think we should even target 5*'s at this point unless there's a good chance they want to stay home and/or really want to come here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time IMO, because even if we get one, they are likely 1 and done. I'd rather the Nova model where you get some solid 3's you coach up to 4 level for consistency and experience...then occasionally get a major recruit to throw into the mix. I have no concerns with CMA getting the solid 3's he can possibly coach into 4's...but we will need some 4's out of HS to be difference makers in a conference like this. Find me a team in a conference that routinely recruited at the bottom, yet routinely made the tourney and routinely competed for top 3 in their conference. Doubt you can.

The definition of success at this point that would make me very satisfied is this:

1. CMA gets us to be a regular tourney team (about 60% of the time) and I don't care how we do in NCAA's for now.
2. CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit (3's the rest of the time are fine) and the ability to land one every 2-3 yrs.
3. CMA has us finishing in the top half of the conference every year (top 5).

Those are not wild expectations, especially if he's really a great coach. And I would be thrilled with them.[/quote]

I asked you if Riley would have been that signature recruit and you did answer yes which is great but I can tell you that as of right now that Rafael is the better player. Your statement of " Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good " only reinforces my stance as Jordan Riley has the potential to be a better player than Rafael but just doesn't have it all working at this time. Just simply say that you like a player better because you think he has more stars or hype and leave it at that because if Riley is the signature recruit that you crave ..then congratulate our staff for getting our first signature recruit in Rafael :)[/quote]

Respect your and other's opinions I have heard comparing Riley and Pinzon. Having seen both several times, I like Riley better but I have been wrong before.
 
Last edited:
[quote="SJU85" post=400961][quote="Happy" post=400938][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400937][quote="SI1996" post=400932][quote="Happy" post=400931][quote="Mike Zaun" post=400930]Panther, not true. Just false...we never finished top 4 outright in Big East under Lavin and Mullin and we got tons of 4-5 star kids between that period. I know we can say look how that turned out, and rightfully so, but doesn't mean we won't need better recruiting if we want to be relevant again. The season hasn't started yet, not sure why this is so taboo to mention. It's going to be a real concern until proven otherwise because that's how it works. You can't just throw something obviously untrue objectively like that out there and then say it's "repetitive" when you get a rebuttal to it.

Regarding Riley, you may be right. Pinzon was a very nice pickup IMO too. But time will tell. It may not have to be Cuffe, but eventually CMA needs that signature recruit. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.[/quote]

Would Jordan Riley have been that signature recruit for you?[/quote] We could have gotten Kepnang and the complaint would be how come we don't have a top 15 recruit. We could finish third and the complaint will be why not second. Could finish 20-11 and complain that we should be 21-10. The response will always be some sort of passive aggressive.. yeah that's great but..[/quote]

Yes he would have. Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good at least. But it's also about hype and getting the ball rolling with other major recruits. Paultz just alluded to Harkless who pretty much set the tone for Lavin. He was the first domino to fall I believe. So you can also get momentum from getting the bigger name kids nationally. There's a real chance that Pinzon will be better, but Pinzon is less athletic IMO and at least at this stage from what I've seen, a worse 3 pt shooter than Riley. I believe Pinzon had 1 game where he was red hot from 3 which helped his avg, but then the other games were not good 3 pt wise. Potential is there of course for Pinzon to develop a more consistent 3 pt shot.

Implying I will never be satisfied is totally untrue. I have said consistently that once CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit, I will gleefully acknowledge it and it will be direct evidence that he may be able to get more over time. I don't think we should even target 5*'s at this point unless there's a good chance they want to stay home and/or really want to come here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time IMO, because even if we get one, they are likely 1 and done. I'd rather the Nova model where you get some solid 3's you coach up to 4 level for consistency and experience...then occasionally get a major recruit to throw into the mix. I have no concerns with CMA getting the solid 3's he can possibly coach into 4's...but we will need some 4's out of HS to be difference makers in a conference like this. Find me a team in a conference that routinely recruited at the bottom, yet routinely made the tourney and routinely competed for top 3 in their conference. Doubt you can.

The definition of success at this point that would make me very satisfied is this:

1. CMA gets us to be a regular tourney team (about 60% of the time) and I don't care how we do in NCAA's for now.
2. CMA gets a consensus 4 star recruit (3's the rest of the time are fine) and the ability to land one every 2-3 yrs.
3. CMA has us finishing in the top half of the conference every year (top 5).

Those are not wild expectations, especially if he's really a great coach. And I would be thrilled with them.[/quote]

I asked you if Riley would have been that signature recruit and you did answer yes which is great but I can tell you that as of right now that Rafael is the better player. Your statement of " Recruiting is about more than just ensuring you get good players or hoping they turn out good " only reinforces my stance as Jordan Riley has the potential to be a better player than Rafael but just doesn't have it all working at this time. Just simply say that you like a player better because you think he has more stars or hype and leave it at that because if Riley is the signature recruit that you crave ..then congratulate our staff for getting our first signature recruit in Rafael :)[/quote]

Respect your and other's opinions I have heard comparing Riley and Pinzon. Having seen both several times, I like Riley better but I have been wrong before.[/quote]

Not a stretch to think Riley is the better player because he does have jaw dropping athleticism . I happen to like Rafael a little better due to the little things he does on the court. Incidentally I have also been wrong before and if you ask my wife she will tell you the same :) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top