Let's talk about the 2016 recruiting class

[Rhavicc]

This is not totally right.

Matthews' rating dropped and stayed down mainly because he hasn't developed as a shooter.

His shooting is very good out to about 15 feet and then drops off, but so did MKG's. Not saying Matthews is as elite as MKG. Both have some similar skills, but MKG was more physically imposing. His overall skill and versatility definitely warrants a 5 star rating though. It got him there in the first place, and he lost absolutely no skill or athleticism in his time away.

 

[Rhavicc]

I agree Matthews is underrated, but he is not going to scare off Langford or Bridges, IMHO.

Also, I agree with this. Bridges is big, physical, athletic enough, and versatile enough to play the 4 as well if needed next season.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Adding Simmons, Langford, and Bridges would be incredible. With Ulis leading the way, that would be a hard team to guard. Practically playing four guards with Bridges having guard skills, but a frame that can guard a PF (he's virtually the same size as Winslow). Then Lee and Wynyard splitting time at the 5. That team could run the DDMO pretty well.

Starters
G Ulis(5'9, 155)
G Simmons(6'5, 170)
G Langford(6'6', 200)
F Bridges(6'6, 220)
F Lee(6'9, 220)

Key Reserves
F Wynyard(6'10, 260)
G Matthews(6'6, 190)
G Mulder(6'4, 190)

So give me all three of those guys and I feel pretty good about 2016-17.

 

[z71sab]

Giles is still very much in play for UK . In fact might even call UK the leader behind the scenes.

 

[mj2k10]

His shooting is very good out to about 15 feet and then drops off, but so did MKG's. Not saying Matthews is as elite as MKG. Both have some similar skills, but MKG was more physically imposing. His overall skill and versatility definitely warrants a 5 star rating though. It got him there in the first place, and he lost absolutely no skill or athleticism in his time away.

And yet there were plenty of chances for Matthews to be scouted after he was over his injury, and plenty of times he was scouted playing in the EYBL before his injury. And no one has him as a 5 star player.

You can't just automatically assume he's better than his rating. Which, BTW, is only bad in comparison to the typical Cal recruit. In the larger scheme of things, it's in the range where plenty of guys go on to be exceptional college players. We're not talking 3 star reach here, but we are talking about the difference between a certain pro, and a guy who will need to prove it before anyone in the NBA will be interested.

 

[kyhillbilly1]

I think what's important is that Murray wants to be the #1 pick in the draft, and our coach has had 2 guards who were the top pick in the draft, and has had the most top draft picks of any coach. I'm sure Murray recognizes that.

Murray is not #1 pick material regardless of how much you guys hype him up. He's not elite.

 

[Blue Decade]

My friend, it has nothing to do with wanting to push players out the door and everything to do with the realities of OAD and 2AD recruiting.

I would love nothing more than for Briscoe to stay 2 years and Ulis to stay four, but I suspect that one year ago many of you would also be saying it was crazy to project Booker/Lyles/Johnson as being gone. With as many offers as Cal has out to 2016 guards, I guarantee you he is projecting Briscoe and Ulis as possibly being gone this year.

The reality is that we don't have the luxury of waiting until next Spring to figure out who goes and who stays. Simmons, Monk, Bridges, Langford, Fultz, etc. all appear poised to commit early. We don't want to be in the position again of scrambling for late risers and JUCOs in the Spring.

The reality is we got caught out this year. Doral Moore would have committed if we had offered him last Summer, but we held off and he went to Wake Forest. Danjel Purifoy as well would have committed on the spot with an offer, but we didnt and he went to Auburn. When those two look like promising multi-year players next year .

My friend, it has nothing to do with wanting to push players out the door and everything to do with the realities of OAD and 2AD recruiting.

I would love nothing more than for Briscoe to stay 2 years and Ulis to stay four, but I suspect that one year ago many of you would also be saying it was crazy to project Booker/Lyles/Johnson as being gone. With as many offers as Cal has out to 2016 guards, I guarantee you he is projecting Briscoe and Ulis as possibly being gone this year.

The reality is that we don't have the luxury of waiting until next Spring to figure out who goes and who stays. Simmons, Monk, Bridges, Langford, Fultz, etc. all appear poised to commit early. We don't want to be in the position again of scrambling for late risers and JUCOs in the Spring.

The reality is we got caught out this year. Doral Moore would have committed if we had offered him last Summer, but we held off and he went to Wake Forest. Danjel Purifoy as well would have committed on the spot with an offer, but we didnt and he went to Auburn. When those two look like promising multi-year players next year while we're having issues with not enough bodies (if Murray doesn't come and Wynyard doesn't join team in January), remember that they could have been on our roster.

That isn't what I said. I never suggested anyone wants to push the players out the door. I agree that we could have accepted several other commitments in November. You misunderstood what I said, so I will say it again. When a players signs with Kentucky, I am only interested in his college basketball career in Lexington. I could not care less about what some internet talking head says about his NBA draft position before he ever participates in a Kentucky practice. Most of those guys don't have a clue. I don't understand the obsession with projecting a high school player's NBA draft position before he even plays in 1 college game. It's as if some people don't have anything better to do.

 

[Rhavicc]

Murray is not #1 pick material regardless of how much you guys hype him up. He's not elite.

I said he wants to be, I didn't say I agreed.

And yet there were plenty of chances for Matthews to be scouted after he was over his injury, and plenty of times he was scouted playing in the EYBL before his injury. And no one has him as a 5 star player.

You can't just automatically assume he's better than his rating. Which, BTW, is only bad in comparison to the typical Cal recruit. In the larger scheme of things, it's in the range where plenty of guys go on to be exceptional college players. We're not talking 3 star reach here, but we are talking about the difference between a certain pro, and a guy who will need to prove it before anyone in the NBA will be interested.

Agree to disagree then, that's that. Also, 5 stars does not mean "certain pro". Whoever told you that needs to apologize, because they lied through their teeth.
Your chances are limited though. All I'm say is that late in his EYBL season, he was averaging 25-30 point games, getting double-doubles, so on and so forth. Naturally, that should be enough to get a ranking boost, and it was not.
All that said, does him being a 4 star suck the life-force out of him? No. Should I care if he's a 4 star and not a 5 star then? No. Him being a 4 star takes nothing away from his ability. Apparently I'm not the only one who viewed him as underrated. Most around here do, and it seems like the Jordan All-American selection group agree that he's one of the best in the country, otherwise, they wouldn't have let him play in their main game.

 

[mj2k10]

I said he wants to be, I didn't say I agreed.




Agree to disagree then, that's that. Also, 5 stars does not mean "certain pro". Whoever told you that needs to apologize, because they lied through their teeth.
Your chances are limited though. All I'm say is that late in his EYBL season, he was averaging 25-30 point games, getting double-doubles, so on and so forth. Naturally, that should be enough to get a ranking boost, and it was not.
All that said, does him being a 4 star suck the life-force out of him? No. Should I care if he's a 4 star and not a 5 star then? No. Him being a 4 star takes nothing away from his ability. Apparently I'm not the only one who viewed him as underrated. Most around here do, and it seems like the Jordan All-American selection group agree that he's one of the best in the country, otherwise, they wouldn't have let him play in their main game.

The type of 5 star talent Cal recruits often absolutely does = (almost) certain pro.

Cal signs a ton of top 10 players. Top 10 recruits make the pros at an incredibly high rate. They are, by and large, guys that the NBA would be willing to draft straight out of HS if that was an option. Of the RSCI top 10 from 2009-2013, (50 guys total), as far as I know at least 33 are currently playing in the league. Of those, 10 are guys who played at UK.

When you get outside of that range, even for 5 stars? Yes, it's far less of a sure thing. Which, on a sidenote, is why I constantly argue with the impatient people who want to sign the first good guy who shows interest in UK, as opposed to waiting for the great guy who might not be willing to pull the trigger right away. That philosophy might have hurt UK this recruiting year, but it's also helped land guys like Brandon Knight, Julius Randle, and Nerlens Noel.

And my point about Matthews is that NOT everyone thinks he's underrated, because his ratings are pretty consistent with every scouting service. I hope he is underrated, and as I have faith in Cal's scouting ability, I think it's safe to assume that Cal signed him so early for a reason. But I;m not going to count on him playing like a top 15 recruit as a freshman, because that's just not what he is.

 

[bookerfan66]

Murray is not #1 pick material regardless of how much you guys hype him up. He's not elite.

He's not elite?How did you come to that brilliant observation?

 

[Rhavicc]

The type of 5 star talent Cal recruits often absolutely does = (almost) certain pro.

Cal signs a ton of top 10 players. Top 10 recruits make the pros at an incredibly high rate. They are, by and large, guys that the NBA would be willing to draft straight out of HS if that was an option. Of the RSCI top 10 from 2009-2013, (50 guys total), as far as I know at least 33 are currently playing in the league. Of those, 10 are guys who played at UK.

When you get outside of that range, even for 5 stars? Yes, it's far less of a sure thing. Which, on a sidenote, is why I constantly argue with the impatient people who want to sign the first good guy who shows interest in UK, as opposed to waiting for the great guy who might not be willing to pull the trigger right away. That philosophy might have hurt UK this recruiting year, but it's also helped land guys like Brandon Knight, Julius Randle, and Nerlens Noel.

And my point about Matthews is that NOT everyone thinks he's underrated, because his ratings are pretty consistent with every scouting service. I hope he is underrated, and as I have faith in Cal's scouting ability, I think it's safe to assume that Cal signed him so early for a reason. But I;m not going to count on him playing like a top 15 recruit as a freshman, because that's just not what he is.

MKG, before his offense started to come along, was often referred to as "bust". Now he got that ugly hitch out of his shot, and things have came along nicely, so he doesn't hear that so much anymore, but MKG, #2 player out of high school, and #2 pick in the draft, is an example that nobody is a sure thing in the NBA. It's an entirely different game, and many of the best college players have went on to produce nothing in the NBA.
There absolutely is no such thing as a sure thing in the NBA. I don't care about recruiting rankings out of high school going into college as it pertains to the NBA, because it's completely irrelevant.
I also wouldn't say that Matthews rankings are "consistent". Anywhere between 40 and 67 isn't necessarily "consistent".
I'm not saying count on his to be the best of the class, because he won't be, but I think you could put him in the top 30-35 of this class, run the season, and then look back and say that you were glad to ranked him in that area, because he lived up to that kind of performance.

 

[mj2k10]

MKG, before his offense started to come along, was often referred to as "bust". Now he got that ugly hitch out of his shot, and things have came along nicely, so he doesn't hear that so much anymore, but MKG, #2 player out of high school, and #2 pick in the draft, is an example that nobody is a sure thing in the NBA. It's an entirely different game, and many of the best college players have went on to produce nothing in the NBA.
There absolutely is no such thing as a sure thing in the NBA. I don't care about recruiting rankings out of high school going into college as it pertains to the NBA, because it's completely irrelevant.
I also wouldn't say that Matthews rankings are "consistent". Anywhere between 40 and 67 isn't necessarily "consistent".
I'm not saying count on his to be the best of the class, because he won't be, but I think you could put him in the top 30-35 of this class, run the season, and then look back and say that you were glad to ranked him in that area, because he lived up to that kind of performance.

By "sure thing", I mean to get a chance in the pros, not necessarily to be a good pro. Forget HS, you can take the top 10 college players in any given year, and it's likely that less than half will turn into good pros. But top 10 recruits are highly likely to get a chance.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Murray is ranked as a top 10 guard in a 2016 class that is filled to the brim with talented guards.

If he reclassifies, he will be one of the top 5 guards coming in.

I consider that elite.

 

[Fancatstik]

Jerry Meyer
@jerrymeyer247
Kentucky, Michigan St, Michigan, Iowa St & UNC are top 5 schools for 5-star SF bit.ly/1PFDFnG @ChrisFisher247 @SeanScherer247
9:12 AM - 24 May 2015
Miles Bridges names five

At 6-6, 218-pounds, Miles Bridges is one of the most physical scorers in 2016. The punishing scorer listed his top five schools for 247Sports at the Nike EYBL in Minneapolis.

Kentucky, Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa State and North Carolina are the five schools Bridges, who is out of Huntington (W.V.) Prep, is focused on. All but North Carolina, who just started recruiting Bridges, have offered.

Iowa and Missouri are secondary schools who are also involved with him.

Looking to make a decision in the fall or winter, Bridges plans on visiting all of his top five schools.

Ranked No. 21 in the 247Sports Composite, Bridges, who is originally from Flint, Michigan, had been view as a heavy Michigan State lean. But since Kentucky offered him late last month, the Wildcats have taken a slight lead over the Spartans in his Crystal Ball.

 

[KnowsAllTellsAll]

Jerry Meyer
@jerrymeyer247
Kentucky, Michigan St, Michigan, Iowa St & UNC are top 5 schools for 5-star SF bit.ly/1PFDFnG @ChrisFisher247 @SeanScherer247
9:12 AM - 24 May 2015
Miles Bridges names five

At 6-6, 218-pounds, Miles Bridges is one of the most physical scorers in 2016. The punishing scorer listed his top five schools for 247Sports at the Nike EYBL in Minneapolis.

Kentucky, Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa State and North Carolina are the five schools Bridges, who is out of Huntington (W.V.) Prep, is focused on. All but North Carolina, who just started recruiting Bridges, have offered.

Iowa and Missouri are secondary schools who are also involved with him.

Looking to make a decision in the fall or winter, Bridges plans on visiting all of his top five schools.

Ranked No. 21 in the 247Sports Composite, Bridges, who is originally from Flint, Michigan, had been view as a heavy Michigan State lean. But since Kentucky offered him late last month, the Wildcats have taken a slight lead over the Spartans in his Crystal Ball.

Isn't The Family a Michigan pipeline?

 

[mj2k10]

Isn't The Family a Michigan pipeline?

Maybe, but it can't be completely, because James Young played for them.

And, BTW, eat sh**, troll

 

[kyhillbilly1]

He's not elite?How did you come to that brilliant observation?

Well he obviously won't be the #1 pick. He also arguably won't be the best guard on our team. Not sure what you consider "elite" but I would consider elite to be a franchise type player like Wall, Cousins, Davis, etc. Though he may be very good, the kid isn't elite. Now, how did you come up with "your" brilliant observation that he is?

 

[KDcats11]

Well he obviously won't be the #1 pick. He also arguably won't be the best guard on our team. Not sure what you consider "elite" but I would consider elite to be a franchise type player like Wall, Cousins, Davis, etc. Though he may be very good, the kid isn't elite. Now, how did you come up with "your" brilliant observation that he is?

Ha, wow. So your definition of elite is only if a player is a future multiple-time NBA All-Star? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

[mj2k10]

Well he obviously won't be the #1 pick. He also arguably won't be the best guard on our team. Not sure what you consider "elite" but I would consider elite to be a franchise type player like Wall, Cousins, Davis, etc. Though he may be very good, the kid isn't elite. Now, how did you come up with "your" brilliant observation that he is?

You're clearly hoping.

Here are guys (the vast majority, in fact) who've put up big numbers for the World team in the Hoop Summit in recent years. Tell me what they have in common.
2014- Emmanuel Mudiay.
2013- Dante Exum, Dennis Schroder, Andrew Wiggins, Livio Jean-Charles
2012- Dario Saric
2011- Bismack Biyombo
2010- Enes Kanter, Nikola Mirotic
2009- Donatas Motiejunas
2007- Nicolas Batum

Wait, I'll tell you, since you clearly need some help getting things through your skull. Every single one of those guys is either already in the NBA, or about to be, as a 1st round pick.

Is Murray like John Wall? No, clearly not. But that's an incredibly ignorant standard for "elite". Murray doesn't need to be John Wall. He can be a lower lottery level type of talent, which can easily translate into him being a huge weapon for UK. And there's every reason to think that's exactly what he is- at minimum a mid-range 1st round pick, and a potentially huge piece of the puzzle for UK next year. Possibly more than that, but that's good enough.

 

[Gametown_baller]

I think Ulis, Mulder, Matthews returns and we sign Monk, Simmons, and bridges. I hope we can sign azuibuike, and get a couple more bigs

 

[bucsrule8872]

I think Ulis, Mulder, Matthews returns and we sign Monk, Simmons, and bridges. I hope we can sign azuibuike, and get a couple more bigs

I would be fine with that.

Starters
G Ulis
G Monk
G Simmons
F Bridges
C Azubuike

Key Reserves
G Mulder
G Matthews
F Wynyard

 

[kyhillbilly1]

You're clearly hoping.

Here are guys (the vast majority, in fact) who've put up big numbers for the World team in the Hoop Summit in recent years. Tell me what they have in common.
2014- Emmanuel Mudiay.
2013- Dante Exum, Dennis Schroder, Andrew Wiggins, Livio Jean-Charles
2012- Dario Saric
2011- Bismack Biyombo
2010- Enes Kanter, Nikola Mirotic
2009- Donatas Motiejunas
2007- Nicolas Batum

Wait, I'll tell you, since you clearly need some help getting things through your skull. Every single one of those guys is either already in the NBA, or about to be, as a 1st round pick.

Is Murray like John Wall? No, clearly not. But that's an incredibly ignorant standard for "elite". Murray doesn't need to be John Wall. He can be a lower lottery level type of talent, which can easily translate into him being a huge weapon for UK. And there's every reason to think that's exactly what he is- at minimum a mid-range 1st round pick, and a potentially huge piece of the puzzle for UK next year. Possibly more than that, but that's good enough.

I think you are proving my argument. Out of YOUR list, how many of those are "elite?" I would argue that out of your 11 players, maybe 2 or 3 are. A "mid" first round pick is what Lyles, Booker, Stein are, and Mr. those guys are sure not elite. Nobody is arguing that he won't be an asset to the team and a great player, he will and he can.
My skull must be unbelievably thick because I still fail to recognize what it is you've helped me with. So let me lay it out for ya again.
1. He is and will be a great player.
2. He will help out UK a ton and seems to be a good kid.
3. He will help UK make a run at a title or a FF is very realistic with him.
4. He will be possibly a mid range 1st round NBA pick.
and
5. He is NOT elite.

 

[Rhavicc]

I think you are proving my argument. Out of YOUR list, how many of those are "elite?" I would argue that out of your 11 players, maybe 2 or 3 are. A "mid" first round pick is what Lyles, Booker, Stein are, and Mr. those guys are sure not elite. Nobody is arguing that he won't be an asset to the team and a great player, he will and he can.
My skull must be unbelievably thick because I still fail to recognize what it is you've helped me with. So let me lay it out for ya again.
1. He is and will be a great player.
2. He will help out UK a ton and seems to be a good kid.
3. He will help UK make a run at a title or a FF is very realistic with him.
4. He will be possibly a mid range 1st round NBA pick.
and
5. He is NOT elite.

You deciding Murray's career for him before he ever steps foot on campus?
I'll tell you what all of those players have in common. They've all had the chance to prove themselves on a level above high school.
What they do in college (or some other equal level) has nothing to do with what they will do in the NBA. If John Wall was dropping 20 points and 17 assists while he was here, we would have breezed through the national title game.
Has an awful lot to do with the players around them too (See Kanter traded from Bucks to Thunder, where he began averaging very good numbers).
I agreed with your point a while back, but if the kid is good enough to be ranked top 10, and potentially the top shooting guard in the class, he's an elite player at that level.
How it translates to college is to be determined.

 

[mj2k10]

I think you are proving my argument. Out of YOUR list, how many of those are "elite?" I would argue that out of your 11 players, maybe 2 or 3 are. A "mid" first round pick is what Lyles, Booker, Stein are, and Mr. those guys are sure not elite. Nobody is arguing that he won't be an asset to the team and a great player, he will and he can.
My skull must be unbelievably thick because I still fail to recognize what it is you've helped me with. So let me lay it out for ya again.
1. He is and will be a great player.
2. He will help out UK a ton and seems to be a good kid.
3. He will help UK make a run at a title or a FF is very realistic with him.
4. He will be possibly a mid range 1st round NBA pick.
and
5. He is NOT elite.

I'll take 1-4, and chalk #5 up to your mental disabilities.

So we're cool. You agree that Murray is highly likely to be a major impact college player.

 

[kyhillbilly1]

I'll take 1-4, and chalk #5 up to your mental disabilities.

So we're cool. You agree that Murray is highly likely to be a major impact college player.

We will agree to disagree on the elite part but I sure hope we get him regardless, that's all that matters to me.

 

[jrpross]

I seriously doubt whether any of us have actually seen enough Murray to intelligently say for sure whether not he is an elite player.

 

[Nick Horvath]

Jackson seems likely to go the Mudiay route.

Will be interesting to see how Dukes year pans out though. Many of you who fretted about the impact of "platooning" on recruiting are misinterpreting why it hurt us. It wasn't because parents think it's going to be a routine thing at UK. It's because last year revealed the risk of OAD recruiting at any school.

If a bunch of guys who were supposed to be OAD come back (Harrison's/Dakari), then all of a sudden guys who signed early like Lyles, Booker, Ulis are playing 20 or so minutes a game instead of 35.

What happened at UK last year is going to affect Dukes recruiting next year as much as UKs. The Thornton signing already appears to have pushed Dennis Smith toward NCState, and Jayson Tatum has to be wondering how certain it is that Brandon Ingram is OAD.

I'd rather have a sophomore Thornton and a sophomore Ingram anyway, even if it pushes Dennis Smith and Jayson Tatum elsewhere.

Also, Thornton is not "supposed" to be 1-and-done. We are expecting Thornton to be at least a 2-year guy (we thought the same about Tyus Jones too, hence why we had to scramble and get Thornton to re-classify) and we're looking at Ingram as a likely 1-and-done, but it would not be shocking at all if he came back. The reality is that Ingram is about 190 pounds soaking wet, so unless he's a Kevin Durant-type scorer, it's easy to see him coming back for another year.

We (Duke) actually almost got caught under-estimating the 1-and-done thing. Going into this season, Okafor was the only freshman that we knew was for sure 1-and-done. Winslow started to blow up like 2/3 of the way through the season, and I bet Tyus would have come back had he not won Final Four MOP. We got lucky that Thornton could re-classify and that Brandon Ingram was still out there. Tyus Jones is especially the one we didn't expect to leave. We hadn't even sniffed a 2015 PG, and we probably would have recruited Briscoe or Brunson earlier had we anticipated Tyus being OAD.

My point is, we aren't telling Dennis Smith and Jayson Tatum that Thornton and Ingram will be gone. We don't base our whole recruiting and program on pushing players out the door after 1 year. We are trying to sell both Smith and Tatum on playing with Thornton and possibly Ingram. They might not buy it (I think Smith actually will be pushed elsewhere if/when Thornton comes back), but this is not going to be a potential "problem" for us either way. It wasn't a "problem" for Kentucky this year either, y'all just didn't get the job done.

I'll be completely fine with a sophomore Thornton and a sophomore Ingram, and if one or both of Smith and Tatum want to join in, then I'll take my chances with that too.