What would you prefer if you were coaching?

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

Would you pursue primarily the highest rated recruits regardless of how they fit your system? Or would you focus on players that are the best fit for your system regardless of ranking?

For instance, say there is a 5-star top 15 ranked point guard who will likely be a high draft pick after one year, but he's never run a system like Coach Cal's before and he's going to need a lot of teaching. Then there is also a 4-star top 60 point guard who has already proven to have mastered the dribble drive offense, but he's less athletic and not on any NBA draft boards. Which player would you pick and why?

 

[Mike-D]

Best fit. Skill > All. John Calipari may finally be learning that. Hopefully anyway. The days of 5 long athletes are gone. The best offense will win more times than not.

 

[Bluesnky]

If you actually land the players, you’re better off pursuing the highest rated players.

 

[STEVECAT]

I'd like to have a solid balance preferably. So I would pick the player that best fits with whatever roster is already constructed

 

[Kentucky fan 1989]

I want the best players.

 

[Mike-D]

I want the best players.

The best guards win in the ncaa tournament. Usually anyway. Go back to our last elite 8 loss to Auburn. Play makers win the biggest games. Still can't grasp why our Ulis Murray team lost in the 2nd round. Our bigs were awful, and Murray was off.

 

[Gromcat]

I don’t care about a ranking system at all, especially in the era of OAD. If a championship is your goal, you should first look at player retainment. You simply cannot win a championship without it.

The only time I would be interested in a recruit typically ranked 10-25, is if it’s to fill an immediate need from a gap when a certain player departure.

So far example I’ve got 4 junior starters and my power forward who I was expecting to be the starter transferred, I might plug in a raw talented recruit ranked 17th to fill the immediate need.

I think after that, the personalities of the players matters greatly. Do they play team basketball, are they selfish, are they looking toward the next step or do they respect the step they’re at. I wouldn’t want anyone who’s not interested in my team.

I would recruit the cream of the crop because they make an immediate impact if the attitude is there.

I would do my best to stay away from the fringe OAD recruits, guys ranked 10ish-25. I’d prefer to aim for the tip top and then 30-75.

I’d be the exact opposite of Cal.

 

[Gromcat]

I want the best players.

No offense, but this line of thinking is the reason Calipari’s system has not worked of late if winning championships is the right answer. IMO of course.

 

[Nbacats]

Would you pursue primarily the highest rated recruits regardless of how they fit your system? Or would you focus on players that are the best fit for your system regardless of ranking?

For instance, say there is a 5-star top 15 ranked point guard who will likely be a high draft pick after one year, but he's never run a system like Coach Cal's before and he's going to need a lot of teaching. Then there is also a 4-star top 60 point guard who has already proven to have mastered the dribble drive offense, but he's less athletic and not on any NBA draft boards. Which player would you pick and why?

Highly ranked that are the best fit for what is like to do, not necessarily for what I currently do.

 

[ORCAT]

I'd like to have a solid balance preferably. So I would pick the player that best fits with whatever roster is already constructed

I go along with this. I'd want to get our share of the top players available and then add talented skill guys who may stick around for several years. Get a good mix of super frosh talent and experienced skill players who aren't heading to the NBA after just a year.

 

[jmw23712]

Attitude and work ethic would play a big factor for me. How does a player handle criticism and losing? MKG wasn’t the best player but hated to lose. SGA wasn’t ranked crazy high but worked his tail off non stop in the gym.
Chemistry plays a huge role. Guys like Hagans and Fletcher are hard on a team because they think it should be all about them.

Recruiting would be harder than all the experts on here think. Cal recruits the highest rated players and they’re a bust and he needs fired for being a poor judge of talent. Cal recruits lower ranked players and he needs fired because he can’t get the big recruits anymore. I’m not one of those die hard Cal defenders, but there’s a reason no teams win the NCAA tourney 3 years in a row. Because picking the best 17 year olds to lead your team is difficult.

 

[Nbacats]

Attitude and work ethic would play a big factor for me. How does a player handle criticism and losing? MKG wasn’t the best player but hated to lose. SGA wasn’t ranked crazy high but worked his tail off non stop in the gym.
Chemistry plays a huge role. Guys like Hagans and Fletcher are hard on a team because they think it should be all about them.

Recruiting would be harder than all the experts on here think. Cal recruits the highest rated players and they’re a bust and he needs fired for being a poor judge of talent. Cal recruits lower ranked players and he needs fired because he can’t get the big recruits anymore. I’m not one of those die hard Cal defenders, but there’s a reason no teams win the NCAA tourney 3 years in a row. Because picking the best 17 year olds to lead your team is difficult.

Recruiting in sports has always will be hard as there really is no good indicator of how well a person is going to adapt to the jump in competition, not to mention the stark contrast in lifestyles and pressure from going HS to college and then college to pros.

Not like in the "real world" where you can go out and recruit people with a known track record of performing at comparable levels in other companies and industries, like say Pepsi recruiting a new CEO from Coca-Cola who has already lived the large and pressure-filled life of being a CEO, for one hypothetical example.

And even then companies still have misses. Not like companies or coaches are going to willingly recruit a guy who they know is just going to be a horrific fit and drags the team down.

 

[YardCat]

Give me 3 Top 60 players that have been here for a couple years and then add a couple top 15 guys to the mix. And build your bench with shooters and a couple high IQ bigs that box out but aren’t the most athletic. (Daniels, Hayes, Harrelson)

 

[JC CATS]

Would you pursue primarily the highest rated recruits regardless of how they fit your system? Or would you focus on players that are the best fit for your system regardless of ranking?

For instance, say there is a 5-star top 15 ranked point guard who will likely be a high draft pick after one year, but he's never run a system like Coach Cal's before and he's going to need a lot of teaching. Then there is also a 4-star top 60 point guard who has already proven to have mastered the dribble drive offense, but he's less athletic and not on any NBA draft boards. Which player would you pick and why?

Kind of a loaded question. Would you choose a beautiful woman who is going to destroy you emotionally, financially, and socially or an average looking woman who will treat you like a King? I am going to take the best talent and be flexible enough to tweak my system

 

[bucsrule8872]

I want five guys that can dribble and shoot. I would run a 4 out and 5 out offense. I want a mobile big man that can Pick and Roll or Pick and Pop. I sacrifice rebounding if I have to have a weakness. Run and gun. Try to create turnovers to make up for the lack of rebounding. That’s my preference.

 

[cats#1again]

Kids are evaluated on athletic ability plus talent
The only kids playing a ton as freshmen are gonna be athletic. Simple as that.
They can be taught defense at a faster clip. Those are your 5 star kids

 

[cats#1again]

Give me 5 guys with crazy speed and legnth.
I can muddy any game up and score 65 to win.
Defense is what wins games
Not 3 pt shooting

 

[bucsrule8872]

Give me 5 guys with crazy speed and legnth.
I can muddy any game up and score 65 to win.
Defense is what wins games
Not 3 pt shooting

It’s easier to teach shooters/scorers to play good defense than it is to teach athletic players offensive skills like shooting and ball handling, especially once you get to college level, IMHO.

 

[RunninRichie]

Give me 5 guys with crazy speed and legnth.
I can muddy any game up and score 65 to win.
Defense is what wins games
Not 3 pt shooting

Hey cal

 

[Backer cutter]

Would you pursue primarily the highest rated recruits regardless of how they fit your system? Or would you focus on players that are the best fit for your system regardless of ranking?

For instance, say there is a 5-star top 15 ranked point guard who will likely be a high draft pick after one year, but he's never run a system like Coach Cal's before and he's going to need a lot of teaching. Then there is also a 4-star top 60 point guard who has already proven to have mastered the dribble drive offense, but he's less athletic and not on any NBA draft boards. Which player would you pick and why?

Give me a recruiting class that wants to be at UK and nowhere else. I don’t give a shit what their rankings are.