Success at the local level

ghostzapper

ghostzapper

Well-known member
2023 $upporter
The potential of rebuilding a program locally against teams with more resources and better track records for success has been discussed often on this site. In that context I wanted some thoughts on our program versus our local Big Ten entrant Rutgers. It appeared to me that Rutgers finding success in the Big Ten seemed a more daunting proposition than St. John's finding success in the Big East. That said Rutgers is improving and has cracked the top twenty in the national rankings.

On November 16, 2018 St. John's Coached by Chris Mullin met Rutgers Coached by Steve Pikiell down in Piscataway. On that night St. John's completely dominated the Scarlet Knights 84-65 (See Box Score Below). Two years later Chris Mullin has been replaced by Mike Anderson and Coach Pikiell has Rutgers on an improbable ascendancy.

The fortune of the two programs has shifted since that game. The question here: Is this just a snapshot of a moment in time or is Rutgers going to become an ongoing presence in the very competitive Big Ten? On the other side of the fence will St. John's ascend as well in the competitive Big East? In two seasons from now will we be the stronger local program again?

Coach Pikiell has done a great job but is it sustainable at Rutgers within the Big Ten Conference? Will Mike Anderson lead St. John's to places it hasn't been in the last twenty years?

[URL]https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId[/URL]=401082593
 
Last edited:
I say stick with the current team-COACH, AD, New President.
 
If 2 things converge in a major college program, you are likely to have a good season. First is recruiting 4* players out of high school, and second is having upperclassman lead the way.

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.

It helps that Pikiell is a good coach. He turned around a bottom feeding program at Stony Brook. One thing I never expected was Stony Brook in the NCAA. Now Pikiell is turning around Rutgers. It must be that Calhoun pedigree.
 
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=410138]If 2 things converge in a major college program, you are likely to have a good season. First is recruiting 4* players out of high school, and second is having upperclassman lead the way.

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.

It helps that Pikiell is a good coach. He turned around a bottom feeding program at Stony Brook. One thing I never expected was Stony Brook in the NCAA. Now Pikiell is turning around Rutgers. It must be that Calhoun pedigree.[/quote]

This has fast become an absolutely board crushing type post. NO ONE has argued you DON’T NEED better players to raise the competitive level of the program. What people have argued it is takes time, it doesn’t happen overnight and that is a fact. And every school and every situation is different,
Steve Pikiell turned around a “bottom feeding program” at Stony Brook after going 20-67 his first three years there but they stuck with him. Heck, they hired him with one year coaching experience at Wesleyan where he went 5-18, so they saw something in him and stuck to their guns and were rewarded. Rutgers endured three losing seasons, stuck with him and are being rewarded.
SJU has been a basketball cesspool forever, FOREVER. Lately, the program with those coveted 4* recruits of Lavin/Mullin were largely dysfunctional, dooming both of them to winding up exactly where they went, to barren rosters and more new coaches.
Everyone knows we need better players but you don’t get them by just wanting them. I again defy anyone to list the reasons that exist RIGHT NOW for big time players to choice SJU! Uh, the Garden, uh, the Garden........uh, the Garden. And that is NO reason in this day and age.
I don’t know if CMA is the answer; he was a very fortuitous choice that came out of left field after a dumpster dive of a coaching “search.” He inherited nothing, had a decent first year, and has started integrating his players this year.
So, personally, I am tired of the endless posts seemingly arguing that we need better players! Of course we do and I have not seen one person on the board saying we don’t. But I also don’t see one person giving tangible reasons why we should be getting those players NOW. As far as I can see, CMA and staff are building local relationships and that is where it starts and ends for a school like SJU, that has little else to sell realistically. Because we are not Georgetown, with its national academic recognition; we are not Xavier or Butler with their recent sustained record of basketball success. And on and on...We are SJU, and the unfortunate reality is 1985 and 1999 are distant memories and our rare, modest successes over the last 20 years have paled when compared to the failures. That is what we are and what CMA is faced with. And all the posts about how we need better players isn’t going to change that, time and hard honest work may. As far as I can tell in these times of glorified scrimmages and virtual scouting, CMA and staff are doing their part with the hard work. We know Father Time is doing his.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Logen" post=410148][quote="Ray Morgan" post=410138]If 2 things converge in a major college program, you are likely to have a good season. First is recruiting 4* players out of high school, and second is having upperclassman lead the way.

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.

It helps that Pikiell is a good coach. He turned around a bottom feeding program at Stony Brook. One thing I never expected was Stony Brook in the NCAA. Now Pikiell is turning around Rutgers. It must be that Calhoun pedigree.[/quote]

This has fast become an absolutely board crushing type post. NO ONE has argued you DON’T NEED better players to raise the competitive level of the program. What people have argued it is takes time, it doesn’t happen overnight and that is a fact. And every school and every situation is different,
Steve Pikiell turned around a “bottom feeding program” at Stony Brook after going 20-67 his first three years there but they stuck with him. Heck, they hired him with one year coaching experience at Wesleyan where he went 5-18, so they saw something in him and stuck to their guns and were rewarded.
SJU has been a basketball cesspool forever, FOREVER. Lately, the program with those coveted 4* recruits of Lavin/Mullin were largely dysfunctional, dooming both of them to winding up exactly where they went, to barren rosters and more new coaches.
Everyone knows we need better players but you don’t get them by just wanting them. I again defy anyone to list the reasons that exist RIGHT NOW for big time players to choice SJU! Uh, the Garden, uh, the Garden........uh, the Garden. And that is NO reason in this day and age.
I don’t know if CMA is the answer; he was a very fortuitous choice that came out of left field after a dumpster dive of a coaching “search.” He inherited nothing, had a decent first year, and has started integrating his players this year.
So, personally, I am tired of the endless posts seemingly arguing that we need better players! Of course we do and I have not seen one person on the board saying we don’t. But I also don’t see one person giving tangible reasons why we should be getting those players NOW. As far as I can see, CMA and staff are building local relationships and that is where it starts and ends for a school like SJU, that has little else to sell realistically. Because we are not Georgetown, with its national academic recognition; we are not Xavier or Butler with their recent sustained record of basketball success. We are SJU, and the unfortunate reality is 1985 and 1999 are distant memories and our rare, modest successes over the last 20 years have paled when compared to the failures. That is what we are and what CMA is faced with.[/quote]

Did I mention St. John's? No. Did I mention CMA, who I have praised on the board over and over. No. A poster asked about Pikiell. So I gave my reasons. He is recruiting well and has shown the ability to build a program which of course takes time. If that is too crushing for you, not much I can do about it.
 
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=410138]

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.
[/quote]

Where do you get that? I don't see that at all on 247 unless he landed a bunch of transfers. His first 3 classes had one 4* which is basically we have in MA's first 3 classes if you consider Posh was misclassified due to his injury.
 
[quote="Logen" post=410148][quote="Ray Morgan" post=410138]If 2 things converge in a major college program, you are likely to have a good season. First is recruiting 4* players out of high school, and second is having upperclassman lead the way.

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.

It helps that Pikiell is a good coach. He turned around a bottom feeding program at Stony Brook. One thing I never expected was Stony Brook in the NCAA. Now Pikiell is turning around Rutgers. It must be that Calhoun pedigree.[/quote]

This has fast become an absolutely board crushing type post. NO ONE has argued you DON’T NEED better players to raise the competitive level of the program. What people have argued it is takes time, it doesn’t happen overnight and that is a fact. And every school and every situation is different,
Steve Pikiell turned around a “bottom feeding program” at Stony Brook after going 20-67 his first three years there but they stuck with him. Heck, they hired him with one year coaching experience at Wesleyan where he went 5-18, so they saw something in him and stuck to their guns and were rewarded. Rutgers endured three losing seasons, stuck with him and are being rewarded.
SJU has been a basketball cesspool forever, FOREVER. Lately, the program with those coveted 4* recruits of Lavin/Mullin were largely dysfunctional, dooming both of them to winding up exactly where they went, to barren rosters and more new coaches.
Everyone knows we need better players but you don’t get them by just wanting them. I again defy anyone to list the reasons that exist RIGHT NOW for big time players to choice SJU! Uh, the Garden, uh, the Garden........uh, the Garden. And that is NO reason in this day and age.
I don’t know if CMA is the answer; he was a very fortuitous choice that came out of left field after a dumpster dive of a coaching “search.” He inherited nothing, had a decent first year, and has started integrating his players this year.
So, personally, I am tired of the endless posts seemingly arguing that we need better players! Of course we do and I have not seen one person on the board saying we don’t. But I also don’t see one person giving tangible reasons why we should be getting those players NOW. As far as I can see, CMA and staff are building local relationships and that is where it starts and ends for a school like SJU, that has little else to sell realistically. Because we are not Georgetown, with its national academic recognition; we are not Xavier or Butler with their recent sustained record of basketball success. And on and on...We are SJU, and the unfortunate reality is 1985 and 1999 are distant memories and our rare, modest successes over the last 20 years have paled when compared to the failures. That is what we are and what CMA is faced with. And all the posts about how we need better players isn’t going to change that, time and hard honest work may. As far as I can tell in these times of glorified scrimmages and virtual scouting, CMA and staff are doing their part with the hard work. We know Father Time is doing his.[/quote]

Why do you constantly say the 4 star recruits that Lavin and Mullin brought in were dysfunctional? A lot of them had solid careers here with lack of development. They both brought in talent but I don't think tis fair to downplay getting 4 star recruits because they weren't always developed properly by Lavin or Mullin. If we have a good coach and developer like Anderson, some of these 4 star kids could really thrive under him and I think thats what Ray was getting at and what the rest of us who may criticize CMAs recruiting are thinking.

Also, I'll give a reason why kids should want to choose SJU right now that isn't the Garden, ready for it? To play for CMA. As many of you always state, he's a great coach who develops well and has a great track record. He's won at Mizzou and Arkansas and never had a losing season in 18 years of coaching. Shouldn't that be enough to get some 4 star top 100 level talent?

As much as I'm critical of some of the recruiting thus far I do think CMA has done a really good job recruiting local talent. Julian, Posh, Wusu, Dunn, and I really like Pinzon and Drissa as well. All the coaches that I speak too around here really seem to have a great rapport with him and Van. Just need to keep the local talent coming and expand that around the country to add some top 100 level kids and we can really push ourselves to a top program IMO.
 
Last edited:
Agree with the local recruiting angle. Cma has landed a lot of good local kids and gotten involved with programs we haven’t cracked for years. It should fare well for us both now and down the line. The fact that we have two very good LuHi players coming in next year is a testament to that, and our roster has quite a few good nyc kids already. It’s a very good start. I feel Pinzon will add an offensive element that we don’t have as well. He’s an underrated kid.
 
Last edited:
New York City should be a drawer for European players. European players should be the answer to our lack of big men and 3 point shooting.
 
I believe Jon Rothstein pointed out that Pikell has succeeded by recruiting kids who may not have high rankings from the recruiting services, but who are fits for what he wants to do. He built his program with those kids, and then started to add more pieces. He is a very good coach with a well-defined plan for what he wants to do.

So if the point is "how do you have success in this area," we have two examples in Rutgers and Seton Hall to look at in coaches who had a plan, found players who fit that plan, knew their business, were given time to build their programs, and started adding more pieces once the foundation had been laid (Willard's approach to that last part being different/shadier than Pikell, but it wasn't illegal and it worked, so there's that).

If the point is "how do you recruit locally," that's a different question. The "local level" here, defined loosely, would be something like Rutgers, Seton Hall, and St. John's, and then everyone else in the metro area. But it isn't as though there are only 3 schools competing for local talent - the whole country is either recruiting this area or trying to (some more notably than others, like Syracuse and UConn).

It's important for any St. John's coach to have relationships with the locals so that when a potential star comes along they maybe have an edge in recruiting. And when you recruit city kids you know you're getting toughness. But there are players all over.
 
I've been a season ticket holder since I was a student and Carneseca was coach. Every single coaching decision made, even including Norm Roberts, had a basis that most fans agreed with at the time and each hire was made to improve the program. Every coach was paid more than his predecessor, except Roberts for sure, although plucking Fraschilla from a mid major may have gotten him a lower salary than Mahoney.

Even Mahoney was paid a lot more than Carnesecca accepted, and he was hired after just about every high level coach who was contacted and turned us down told the selection committee (headed by Frank Layden) to hire Mahoney. (Layden was a Vincentian school -Niagara - grad, coach of the Utah Jazz who maintained close ties to the Vincentian community)

I get really tired of the incessant bashing of this program and school. No one tried to sink this program, no one diminished its importance, and no one cheaped out on coaching salaries. Jarvis was paid double of what was paid Mahoney, Roberts strength was recruiting big names for Self (but got him a slightly lower salary than Jarvis for his inexperience as a HC), Lavin was paid triple Roberts, Mullin more than Lavin and CMA significantly more than Mullin.

Here's my beef. I can look at my own house and call it a dump, a craphole, a cesspool. But when someone outside my family does that I'm offended. Yea, you don't have to be an alumnus to root for our program. But if you come here an purport to root for our program, pointing out the deficiencies of our school, our program, and even the basketball and acumen of other posters here, I get irritated. That's not entirely correct, I get pissed.

I constantly remind my friend MC that St. John's basketball is sort of like the Notre Dame of NYC. When we win, everyone is a fan. Yes, there have been some great years by Metro area schools. Rutgers went deep into the tourney with Sellers a thousand years ago. Fordham once at least with Digger Phelps. CCNY before I was born. NYU with Satch Sanders when I was in diapers. When I was a kid both Manhattan (with Campion) and St. Peters (I think with Crotty) were competitive with us. Hofstra even passed us towards the end of the Wright era. Seton Hall is ahead of us now. But NO SCHOOL, not now and not ever, captivates the city's attention as when St. John's is great. It's the reason we hauled our best all time player from the West Coast to see if the brilliant cerebral, instinctively great play could translate to coaching. To call his tenure a total failure is a lie - more fans came out to see the 2018-19 Johnnies than at any time since 1992, and ended in a shaky NCAA bid.

I'm stopping short of tossing F bombs around in this post. We have some great fans of the program who post here. Some are great fans, and some are just followers. It's very easy in life to criticize everything around you - especially the things you cannot control. Honestly though, when I've done that, it not only affects everyone around me adversely, it eats at me. It's destructive. It's also boring as shit for others when I criticize everything and everyone. Maybe I think it makes me feel good, but it doesn't, and it doesn't make anyone around me feel good either.

Yes, this thread is about success at the local level. Everyone who recruits brings something different to the table, including CMA. In my experience with him, he is likeable, serious, warm, and very much driven to win. His character I believe is important to those kids who not only want a place that will allow them to showcase their talents, improve, and win, but a guy who legitimately is a father figure and mentor to kids in all ways. That's CMA to me at least.
 
Last edited:
lawmanfan wrote: I believe Jon Rothstein pointed out that Pikell has succeeded by recruiting kids who may not have high rankings from the recruiting services, but who are fits for what he wants to do. He built his program with those kids, and then started to add more pieces. He is a very good coach with a well-defined plan for what he wants to do.

So if the point is "how do you have success in this area," we have two examples in Rutgers and Seton Hall to look at in coaches who had a plan, found players who fit that plan, knew their business, were given time to build their programs, and started adding more pieces once the foundation had been laid (Willard's approach to that last part being different/shadier than Pikell, but it wasn't illegal and it worked, so there's that).

If the point is "how do you recruit locally," that's a different question. The "local level" here, defined loosely, would be something like Rutgers, Seton Hall, and St. John's, and then everyone else in the metro area. But it isn't as though there are only 3 schools competing for local talent - the whole country is either recruiting this area or trying to (some more notably than others, like Syracuse and UConn).

It's important for any St. John's coach to have relationships with the locals so that when a potential star comes along they maybe have an edge in recruiting. And when you recruit city kids you know you're getting toughness. But there are players all over.

In my initial post I never mentioned the word recruiting. Success to me is being relevant. Rutgers has not been a tournament team for a long time and I can't remember them being in the top twenty for the last forty years. They have turned it around and surprisingly have done it as a fish out of water Big Ten team. I am not speculating on the reasons why they have turned it around under Pikiell, but I ask if Rutgers can do this what does that say about the idea that some believe that St. John's can't?

In my initial post I proposed five questions.

1) Is this just a snapshot of a moment in time or is Rutgers going to become an ongoing presence in the very competitive Big Ten?
2) On the other side of the fence will St. John's ascend as well in the competitive Big East?
3) In two seasons from now will we be the stronger local program again?
4) Coach Pikiell has done a great job but is it sustainable at Rutgers within the Big Ten Conference?
5) Will Mike Anderson lead St. John's to places it hasn't been in the last twenty years?

I hope as this thread continues that those questions are explored.
 
Last edited:
Only The Shadow knows the answers to those questions, ghostzapper. Or maybe the Magic 8-Ball.

Rutgers has always been sort of a sleeping giant - they are the only state school in the area that has the resources and facilities of a Big 10 program (U Conn would also be in the conversation). So there's reason to believe that if Pikell can be a relevant destination for local players, Rutgers can stay relevant since it would have a resource pool that is not readily available to the other programs in that league. It would still be a tall order for them to be consistently at the top of that league, though, for the reasons you identify.

The Big East schools (except for UConn) are all fairly homogenous. So if St. John's can follow the Rutgers model (while competing with Rutgers for some of the same players, ultimately), there's no reason it can't be a top-half of the league program on a regular basis.

As I've posted before, I suspect the CMA ceiling may be Providence - the good news is Providence has made the NCAA's 5 of the last 6 years, the bad news being that it hasn't stayed very long in any of those years.
 
G Man asked where I got the rankings for the Rutgers recruits. I used Rivals and Verbal Commits where Rivals had no ranking. The team website said that Rutgers landed local 4* players in consecutive years in Harper Jr. and Mulcahy.  Omoruyi was a 4* out of Roselle Catholic.

For some reason, there are posters who think that praise for a coach other than CMA is a knock on CMA. That makes no sense. For the record, I think CMA was a great hire, and will do better than every coach since Jarvis. The situation at St. John's makes any coach hamstrung, for a number of reasons. CMA has to sell, as 1 poster said, himself, his style of play, and the values he has as a person. He is a quality human being that is bringing in quality young men, and that counts for a lot.
 
Last edited:
Ray Morgan" post=410149 said:
Logen" post=410148 said:
Ray Morgan" post=410138 said:
If 2 things converge in a major college program, you are likely to have a good season. First is recruiting 4* players out of high school, and second is having upperclassman lead the way.

Pikiell is killing it on the recruiting trail, especially considering it's Rutgers. His top 3 scorers were all 4* players in high school. Five of the 8 players getting over 10 minutes are 4* recruits. Posters may be sick of hearing this, and i understand why. To be at the top of a big time conference, you need 4* recruits. Not all 4*, but 3 or 4 of your top 7 is about right.

It helps that Pikiell is a good coach. He turned around a bottom feeding program at Stony Brook. One thing I never expected was Stony Brook in the NCAA. Now Pikiell is turning around Rutgers. It must be that Calhoun pedigree.
Click to expand...

This has fast become an absolutely board crushing type post. NO ONE has argued you DON’T NEED better players to raise the competitive level of the program. What people have argued it is takes time, it doesn’t happen overnight and that is a fact. And every school and every situation is different,
Steve Pikiell turned around a “bottom feeding program” at Stony Brook after going 20-67 his first three years there but they stuck with him. Heck, they hired him with one year coaching experience at Wesleyan where he went 5-18, so they saw something in him and stuck to their guns and were rewarded.
SJU has been a basketball cesspool forever, FOREVER. Lately, the program with those coveted 4* recruits of Lavin/Mullin were largely dysfunctional, dooming both of them to winding up exactly where they went, to barren rosters and more new coaches.
Everyone knows we need better players but you don’t get them by just wanting them. I again defy anyone to list the reasons that exist RIGHT NOW for big time players to choice SJU! Uh, the Garden, uh, the Garden........uh, the Garden. And that is NO reason in this day and age.
I don’t know if CMA is the answer; he was a very fortuitous choice that came out of left field after a dumpster dive of a coaching “search.” He inherited nothing, had a decent first year, and has started integrating his players this year.
So, personally, I am tired of the endless posts seemingly arguing that we need better players! Of course we do and I have not seen one person on the board saying we don’t. But I also don’t see one person giving tangible reasons why we should be getting those players NOW. As far as I can see, CMA and staff are building local relationships and that is where it starts and ends for a school like SJU, that has little else to sell realistically. Because we are not Georgetown, with its national academic recognition; we are not Xavier or Butler with their recent sustained record of basketball success. We are SJU, and the unfortunate reality is 1985 and 1999 are distant memories and our rare, modest successes over the last 20 years have paled when compared to the failures. That is what we are and what CMA is faced with.
Click to expand...

Did I mention St. John's? No. Did I mention CMA, who I have praised on the board over and over. No. A poster asked about Pikiell. So I gave my reasons. He is recruiting well and has shown the ability to build a program which of course takes time. If that is too crushing for you, not much I can do about it.

On a re-read, you are absolutely right and I was wrong in quoting your post as I did, my sincere apologies.
 
Click to expand...
 
The interesting aspect of recruiting to me is as fans, all we hear on this board is why we think kids should want to go to St John's or another school. Yet we pretty much never have heard candidly from kids what the most important qualities are to them. Most times you will never hear this. But surely there is a big disconnect between how we views this and what the kids want. 

I'd be interested to hear from those involved in coaching from this board to provide any insight into what is most important to kids theyve worked with. 
 
Room112" post=410200The interesting aspect of recruiting to me is as fans, all we hear on this board is why we think kids should want to go to St John's or another school. Yet we pretty much never have heard candidly from kids what the most important qualities are to them. Most times you will never hear this. But surely there is a big disconnect between how we views this and what the kids want. 

I'd be interested to hear from those involved in coaching from this board to provide any insight into what is most important to kids theyve worked with. 

A few years back, I had a conversation with Zed Key (former STJ recruit, now a freshman @Ohio State) and his father (as a faithful reader of Redmen.com, I knew STJ was recruiting him).   

He said Rutgers had great facilities, very impressive and their athletic dorms were separate from general student body which he liked.   Just to add a couple of points, Rutgers is a state school and in Big Ten get a ton of football money and tax funding.  Also, NJ is producing lots of high level D1 talent.  If ever there was a sleeping giant, Rutgers qualifies.  

I asked his father about St. Johns, he said they went to a game @MSG (maybe Duke? not sure) and said the atmosphere was amazing & unreal.  But then he said he had a UNC t-shirt on (which indicated to me he was never coming to St. Johns, that Zed would go the biggest program that offered him).
 
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I actually don't think recruiting local kids is that important in this digital landscape.  Also most talent is NOT coming out of NYC these days. 
 
Room112" post=410200 said:
The interesting aspect of recruiting to me is as fans, all we hear on this board is why we think kids should want to go to St John's or another school. Yet we pretty much never have heard candidly from kids what the most important qualities are to them. Most times you will never hear this. But surely there is a big disconnect between how we views this and what the kids want. 

I'd be interested to hear from those involved in coaching from this board to provide any insight into what is most important to kids theyve worked with. 


The kids that I have coached against or friends that have coached them in AAU or high school have told me that some of the higher level kids are wary of playing in CMAs system and how a defensive focused system will showcase their offensve skills. They are also wary of the lack of talent hes really sent to the NBA. They like him as. aperson but those are some of the questions thathave been raised.
 
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top