Marvin Clark

We have no reason to question the staff's strategy in bringing in Clark and Simon.In year one SJU is getting a player three years out of high school with two years playing for an elite program and one year practicing with SJU (Clark) as compared to an18 year old high school grad.
In Simon SJU gets a player two years out of high school with one year's playing with an elite program and one year practicing with SJU.
This seems to be an easy choice for the 17-18 season and we can worry about 18-19 at a later date.
Click to expand...

You can't worry about 18-19 at a later date. College ball has carry over year to year more than building an NBA roster where you can buy out and trade players and offer more money to fill a need.

I'm disappointed how 17 hasn't panned out. Months ago we were all excited and talking about the 17 class we had time to recruit. Yes there might be more ships. In fact it's damn certain there will be as its college ball. But right now you have 1 ship in that class. You need steady flow of players each year to balance. Sure we can shift to 18. Would be great to lock people up a year in advance. But I don't see it happening because even an 18 kid isn't sure what kind of roster makeup we will have in 17. Too many moving parts still
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad move, just wondering and wanted to hear everyone's takes on what they thought the reasoning is. Slow day at the shop for me lol
Click to expand...

Up until a short while ago, I thought Clark made a lot of sense, but Simon didn't -- I think Clark is big enough to play PF at the collegiate level, and maybe his SF offensive skills will work better against PF defenders.

I thought there would not be enough room for Simon to make sense, but lately I'm getting the feeling Mussini takes a pro contract in Europe after this season, so Simon slides into his spot. If he can recapture his high school form, then I suppose losing Tucker(?) works out in the end.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad move, just wondering and wanted to hear everyone's takes on what they thought the reasoning is. Slow day at the shop for me lol
Click to expand...

Up until a short while ago, I thought Clark made a lot of sense, but Simon didn't -- I think Clark is big enough to play PF at the collegiate level, and maybe his SF offensive skills will work better against PF defenders.

I thought there would not be enough room for Simon to make sense, but lately I'm getting the feeling Mussini takes a pro contract in Europe after this season, so Simon slides into his spot. If he can recapture his high school form, then I suppose losing Tucker(?) works out in the end.
Click to expand...

Just as an aside, I have not seen Tucker play enough to voice an opinion, but must say I hear some pros, but a lot of cons from people I respect.
 
When I first read about Clark I had my doubts because "17 scolis are few and precious. But the more I read about him , the more I like. Strong, good rebounder and shooter w an excellent attitude.
Click to expand...

Love the fact that the kid is a high quality kid and comes from a top flight program. Sounds like he has a similar game to Kris Jenkins. But have similar question about why staff, as much as I trust them implicitly, would need to tie up 2 2017 scholis(including Simon) this early on kids who have showed promise, but haven't done it at this level. Again, trust the staff completely but was just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

My guess is they were not optimistic about 17 prospects.
Click to expand...

Optimistic or not, getting a 5-star kid from zona wi 3 years eligibility and a 4-star from Michigan state is a no brainer. It leaves us still with a ship or two left and fills our needs without having to swing and miss with 3-4 scholarships in that class.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but at this point since they've already played college ball their stars while in high school mean very little.
Click to expand...

I think all would agree that except for a chosen few most recruiting is a crapshoot. Tons of examples both ways, can't misses who missed and unknowns who became greats. Having said that, Mullin and co. get Clark and it appears Simon with a year to coach them up as opposed to maybe, possibly getting '17 recruits. I love the fact that we are building a very deep team because that creates incredibly competitive practices which hopefully, and normally, translates into games.
Click to expand...

Yes, dead on, spirited practices that translate to PT on game day. NOW we will (should) find out the full potential of Ellison and Mussini. Excited!
 
The key is if these 2 develop enough in the season off that they would be better than any recruits we could land in the 17 class that would have contributed right away. As Paultz and Happy mentioned things cooled dramatically with our hopes of landing 2017 monster class so we need to hope these kids develop in the next yea so they can be good contributors in 2017.

I will be very curious to see how Owens developed over the time off because that would be a very good indicator of what we could expect from the 2 transfers in 2017. High school rankings mean nothing since they already played a year in college

I'll be real happy of we get Livingston

In the meantime welcome Clark and soon to be Simon
 
Someone asked that msu guy on holyland if he thinks that Clark is a mid major talent

his response:
"I would say he is above mid major talent. He was on a stacked MSU roster and when he committed to transferring, MSU still had deyonta Davis on the roster who is now going to the draft as potential lottery and also have miles bridges coming in next year who will be probably a top 5 pick after his freshman year. So minutes were at a premium for him and wasn't looking good for next year at the time either. With him sitting out a year and having 2 years of eligibility after that he is going to be a great addition to St. Johns. Don't bother with what is said about him he will be great."
 
When I first read about Clark I had my doubts because "17 scolis are few and precious. But the more I read about him , the more I like. Strong, good rebounder and shooter w an excellent attitude.
Click to expand...

Love the fact that the kid is a high quality kid and comes from a top flight program. Sounds like he has a similar game to Kris Jenkins. But have similar question about why staff, as much as I trust them implicitly, would need to tie up 2 2017 scholis(including Simon) this early on kids who have showed promise, but haven't done it at this level. Again, trust the staff completely but was just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

My guess is they were not optimistic about 17 prospects.
Click to expand...

Optimistic or not, getting a 5-star kid from zona wi 3 years eligibility and a 4-star from Michigan state is a no brainer. It leaves us still with a ship or two left and fills our needs without having to swing and miss with 3-4 scholarships in that class.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but at this point since they've already played college ball their stars while in high school mean very little.
Click to expand...

I think all would agree that except for a chosen few most recruiting is a crapshoot. Tons of examples both ways, can't misses who missed and unknowns who became greats. Having said that, Mullin and co. get Clark and it appears Simon with a year to coach them up as opposed to maybe, possibly getting '17 recruits. I love the fact that we are building a very deep team because that creates incredibly competitive practices which hopefully, and normally, translates into games.
Click to expand...

Yes, dead on, spirited practices that translate to PT on game day. NOW we will (should) find out the full potential of Ellison and Mussini. Excited!
Click to expand...


Wow
Such a pleasure to read the preceding chain of posts from Logen Monte MCNPA Mr. P RS stJ Chris Mjmaherjr LJSA Oldschool...did I miss any...

Such a morning boost
compared to the past TWO DECADES ( with a few positive exceptions of course)

Now our " problems" have morphed from talented recruits not interested to which talented players will sign.
No more need to beg, hope & pray recruits to play in Queens...( Stephenson et al.)
All good!
Yes SJC...excited! And exciting!!
Clark seems like a dream from what he has endured in life!
Thanks for posts!
On to Thursday.
 
We have no reason to question the staff's strategy in bringing in Clark and Simon.In year one SJU is getting a player three years out of high school with two years playing for an elite program and one year practicing with SJU (Clark) as compared to an18 year old high school grad.
In Simon SJU gets a player two years out of high school with one year's playing with an elite program and one year practicing with SJU.
This seems to be an easy choice for the 17-18 season and we can worry about 18-19 at a later date.
Click to expand...

You can't worry about 18-19 at a later date. College ball has carry over year to year more than building an NBA roster where you can buy out and trade players and offer more money to fill a need.

I'm disappointed how 17 hasn't panned out. Months ago we were all excited and talking about the 17 class we had time to recruit. Yes there might be more ships. In fact it's damn certain there will be as its college ball. But right now you have 1 ship in that class. You need steady flow of players each year to balance. Sure we can shift to 18. Would be great to lock people up a year in advance. But I don't see it happening because even an 18 kid isn't sure what kind of roster makeup we will have in 17. Too many moving parts still
Click to expand...

Balancing a roster is going to be a long term proposition when you have to create one from scratch. It goes from immediate playing time being a huge selling point to it being a potential obstacle almost immediately when your first wave of players are talented which it certainly appears ours are. It seems we are intelligently employing a multi-level strategy of going after talented HS players but shifting quickly when that doesn't pan out. Obviously too early in the Mullin era to define the approach but I think they have done a remarkable job of filling the roster to date. Key of course is will that translate into wins.
 
We have no reason to question the staff's strategy in bringing in Clark and Simon.In year one SJU is getting a player three years out of high school with two years playing for an elite program and one year practicing with SJU (Clark) as compared to an18 year old high school grad.
In Simon SJU gets a player two years out of high school with one year's playing with an elite program and one year practicing with SJU.
This seems to be an easy choice for the 17-18 season and we can worry about 18-19 at a later date.
Click to expand...

You can't worry about 18-19 at a later date. College ball has carry over year to year more than building an NBA roster where you can buy out and trade players and offer more money to fill a need.

I'm disappointed how 17 hasn't panned out. Months ago we were all excited and talking about the 17 class we had time to recruit. Yes there might be more ships. In fact it's damn certain there will be as its college ball. But right now you have 1 ship in that class. You need steady flow of players each year to balance. Sure we can shift to 18. Would be great to lock people up a year in advance. But I don't see it happening because even an 18 kid isn't sure what kind of roster makeup we will have in 17. Too many moving parts still
Click to expand...

Balancing a roster is going to be a long term proposition when you have to create one from scratch. It goes from immediate playing time being a huge selling point to it being a potential obstacle almost immediately when your first wave of players are talented which it certainly appears ours are. It seems we are intelligently employing a multi-level strategy of going after talented HS players but shifting quickly when that doesn't pan out. Obviously too early in the Mullin era to define the approach but I think they have done a remarkable job of filling the roster to date. Key of course is will that translate into wins.
Click to expand...

My problem with being dependent on incoming transfers is that with the graduate transfer rules is that a kid like Clark locks you up for 3 years of Schollies but can walk after playing only 1 year. It's like getting a one and done but costs a heck of a lot more. Having one or two on a roster is fine but in the long term it isn't sustainable.
 
We have no reason to question the staff's strategy in bringing in Clark and Simon.In year one SJU is getting a player three years out of high school with two years playing for an elite program and one year practicing with SJU (Clark) as compared to an18 year old high school grad.
In Simon SJU gets a player two years out of high school with one year's playing with an elite program and one year practicing with SJU.
This seems to be an easy choice for the 17-18 season and we can worry about 18-19 at a later date.
Click to expand...

You can't worry about 18-19 at a later date. College ball has carry over year to year more than building an NBA roster where you can buy out and trade players and offer more money to fill a need.

I'm disappointed how 17 hasn't panned out. Months ago we were all excited and talking about the 17 class we had time to recruit. Yes there might be more ships. In fact it's damn certain there will be as its college ball. But right now you have 1 ship in that class. You need steady flow of players each year to balance. Sure we can shift to 18. Would be great to lock people up a year in advance. But I don't see it happening because even an 18 kid isn't sure what kind of roster makeup we will have in 17. Too many moving parts still
Click to expand...

Balancing a roster is going to be a long term proposition when you have to create one from scratch. It goes from immediate playing time being a huge selling point to it being a potential obstacle almost immediately when your first wave of players are talented which it certainly appears ours are. It seems we are intelligently employing a multi-level strategy of going after talented HS players but shifting quickly when that doesn't pan out. Obviously too early in the Mullin era to define the approach but I think they have done a remarkable job of filling the roster to date. Key of course is will that translate into wins.
Click to expand...

My problem with being dependent on incoming transfers is that with the graduate transfer rules is that a kid like Clark locks you up for 3 years of Schollies but can walk after playing only 1 year. It's like getting a one and done but costs a heck of a lot more. Having one or two on a roster is fine but in the long term it isn't sustainable.
Click to expand...

That is always a scare but in reality if he does leave he only locks up a scholly for two years
 
We have no reason to question the staff's strategy in bringing in Clark and Simon.In year one SJU is getting a player three years out of high school with two years playing for an elite program and one year practicing with SJU (Clark) as compared to an18 year old high school grad.
In Simon SJU gets a player two years out of high school with one year's playing with an elite program and one year practicing with SJU.
This seems to be an easy choice for the 17-18 season and we can worry about 18-19 at a later date.
Click to expand...

You can't worry about 18-19 at a later date. College ball has carry over year to year more than building an NBA roster where you can buy out and trade players and offer more money to fill a need.

I'm disappointed how 17 hasn't panned out. Months ago we were all excited and talking about the 17 class we had time to recruit. Yes there might be more ships. In fact it's damn certain there will be as its college ball. But right now you have 1 ship in that class. You need steady flow of players each year to balance. Sure we can shift to 18. Would be great to lock people up a year in advance. But I don't see it happening because even an 18 kid isn't sure what kind of roster makeup we will have in 17. Too many moving parts still
Click to expand...

Balancing a roster is going to be a long term proposition when you have to create one from scratch. It goes from immediate playing time being a huge selling point to it being a potential obstacle almost immediately when your first wave of players are talented which it certainly appears ours are. It seems we are intelligently employing a multi-level strategy of going after talented HS players but shifting quickly when that doesn't pan out. Obviously too early in the Mullin era to define the approach but I think they have done a remarkable job of filling the roster to date. Key of course is will that translate into wins.
Click to expand...

My problem with being dependent on incoming transfers is that with the graduate transfer rules is that a kid like Clark locks you up for 3 years of Schollies but can walk after playing only 1 year. It's like getting a one and done but costs a heck of a lot more. Having one or two on a roster is fine but in the long term it isn't sustainable.
Click to expand...

That is always a scare but in reality if he does leave he only locks up a scholly for two years
Click to expand...

Yes but you probably didn't recruit for his 3rd year so the staff will be behind the ball then.
 
Yes but you probably didn't recruit for his 3rd year so the staff will be behind the ball then.[/quote]

With the current staff, I can't imagine they'll be behind the ball on any transfer/recruiting situation.
 
I think people are manufacturing a problem where there really is none. Landing transfers like these are every bit as good as landing good 17' class players. Maybe even better. If we can't land 4 or 5 top 75 17' players, what's the difference with landing two top notch transfers, and still having a ship or two for 17' to use?

I think people are viewing it as s failure of some type, when I view it as just smart team building. I guarantee we will still have 2 scholarships for the 17' class anyway, and the perfect scenario is to not have to recruit more than 3 HS kids per class anyway.
 
I think people are manufacturing a problem where there really is none. Landing transfers like these are every bit as good as landing good 17' class players. Maybe even better. If we can't land 4 or 5 top 75 17' players, what's the difference with landing two top notch transfers, and still having a ship or two for 17' to use?

I think people are viewing it as s failure of some type, when I view it as just smart team building. I guarantee we will still have 2 scholarships for the 17' class anyway, and the perfect scenario is to not have to recruit more than 3 HS kids per class anyway.
Click to expand...

It appears only a few guys have concerns, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top