Response Inside -- Temple Owls Basketball Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:28:53 03/13/02 Wed
Author: Keith90
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 66.89.216.98
Subject: Response Inside
In reply to: Lansing 's message, "Wasn't Greer the Pennsylvania Player of the Year as a senior?" on 20:18:28 03/12/02 Tue

Lansing,

You make valid points and you probably are a little more up on recruiting than I am (though I do my best to keep on top of it). But a few responses.

First, when I referred to low or unranked players I'm referring to national rankings. A majority of the top-100 players turn into pretty good college players (although there are certainly tons of busts too). It is much more of a crapshoot when you get into the next 100. Temple has had a lot of really good players who were not top-100 players. You asked for a recent example so I gave you Greer who was not top-100 on anybody's list and was recruited by A-10 schools and lower (a lot of that had to do with his build rather than his ability to score, but that is because there are a ton of high scoring small guards who can't cut it at the next level). Other lowranked "recent" players who turned into excellent college players how about Sanchez and Wadley? I won't go back into history but obviously McKie is the most glaring example.

I am a little troubled by things I have heard about Robinson but his high school coach and the Temple coaching staff believe he is a college 3 and they have seen him play a lot more than either of us so I have to trust their judgment. The fact he is playing the 4 in high school is of a concern but players in high school often play a position different to what they play in college. Wesby played closer to the basket in high school than he does now (though, I wish he would go closer to the basket instead of taking so many 3s). Also, remember Mik Kilgore? He played center in high school and ended up playing guard for part of his Temple career.

As to Murry, he was being recruited as a PG by most of the other schools recruiting him as well. At 6'-4" he likely wouldn't play PG in high school. Most high school PGs are under 6'-0" because usually the shortest guy on your team plays that position. I'm sure you have heard of Mustafa Shakur, probably even seen him play. He is being recruited as a PG. I have seen him play and he is very good but looks much more like a 2 or combo guard to me and a lot of other people who have seen him play recently. Schools project players at different positions than they play in high school all the time, I don't think this is unique to Temple.

Have there been recruiting issues the past couple years? Absolutely, we have barely missed on a lot of really good players and the few really good ones we have gotten (Hawkins and Karcher) seemed to have come in the backdoor. We can start a seperate thread on why the recruiting may have slipped a bit (though I certainly don't think it is as bad as some think it is - getting Butler was certainly a good get competing against some pretty good schools). But I'm not ready to write off Elliot and Murry (or even Smith) after one year in which the coaching staff (who admittedly is thin and should add at least one more assitant) had a lot of other things to worry about than player development (BTW, I partially blame Lyde for Elliot's slow progress, had he come in playing the way he should have from the beginning of the year I imagine Elliot would have seen more time on the floor and a lot of the time the coaching staff was spending with Lyde to get him out of his funk, could have been spent with Elliot).

I am hopeful about the future and the young players we have. Butler, assuming he plays to his billing (I know there are issues with motivation and desire sometimes), will give us a look at center that we haven't had since Causwell was on the team. Murry was the guy they wanted at PG and got him, hopefully he comes in next year and improves his PG skills (obviously, a player with a much higher pedigree, but remember how Brunson went from a 2 to a pretty good PG by his Jr. year). If not, they have a contingency plan in Biggers, who was ranked fairly high prior to his prep-school journeys. Polk looks like he is going to be an excellent player. Ingram was rated much higher than Elliot so let's see how he does. Also, the coaching staff expected Elliot to take a year or two to develop, let's see how he looks next year. Blackshear, who knows (I'm thinking Keaton Sanders), but at least he adds some fire to this team (something missing this year since Quincy's departure) and I'm sure will make the other 4s work hard in practice. Robinson will have a year to develop behind Wesby. I am optimistic about the makeup of the team over the next few years if these guys can develop. We have one of the most athletic teams I can recall under Chaney. Hopefully, these guys are more than just athletes and can play basketball.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]