minutes this coming season

Fryowa said:
The MELTDOWN here and other places when he snubbed Iowa was epic.

Further proof that star ratings are totally bogus once you get past the best 4-5 kids in a cycle. They're done by part time "reporters" who don't know squat about coaching or scouting and get paid a few cents per click. The bios of the rivals and 24/7 staff are so comical it's almost like they're fake.
Click to expand...
A much better indicator of talent is offers. TT had some legit programs coming after him hard. That tells me all I need to know.

I agree that the scouts are not experts. There is a lot of group think and echo chambers between the various services, and I think they mostly just look at offers as well. There is no way they are looking at actual tape beyond just the 5 star kids, and even if they were looking at tape, what expertise do they have to know if the kid is going to be great at the next level? Coaches in college and the NFL have like a 50% success rate in selecting players, and they do this for a living. Its all just educated guesswork.
 


Fryowa said:
The MELTDOWN here and other places when he snubbed Iowa was epic.

Further proof that star ratings are totally bogus once you get past the best 4-5 kids in a cycle. They're done by part time "reporters" who don't know squat about coaching or scouting and get paid a few cents per click. The bios of the rivals and 24/7 staff are so comical it's almost like they're fake.
Click to expand...
I think level of competition is a big factor. A kid like Foster was just bigger than almost everybody he faced. He was never challenged.
 


hawkdrummer1 said:
I think level of competition is a big factor. A kid like Foster was just bigger than almost everybody he faced. He was never challenged.
Click to expand...
Yeah as far as locally he wouldn't have had many 6'10 plus kids to bang with. But a kid like that woulda been doing the AAU thing and been going to those camps all over too playing against the top kids. Those summer camp AAU deals is when coaches largely do much of their evaluating. It's when coaches can actually go see em in person. They can't during the regular hoops seasons obviously. Fran rarely ever got to see his own kids in HS play.
 


Bigs have to be the hardest thing to judge. They are all likely dominant in the high school setting, so AAU ball is the best way to judge. However, they are still growing and whether they settle into a body where they are quick enough to play or not is hard to know.
 






My roommate in college was 6'9 and played hoops his first two years and then injury set in. He said he hated being that tall. You don't fit anywhere easily, especially planes, people stare at you all the time, ask dumb questions about being tall, etc. There are also more health issues for really tall people. I once asked him whether he would prefer to be 5'5 and he said yes. I think if I was 7 foot and could not make a living playing basketball, I would hate being that tall.
 


NorthKCHawk said:
My roommate in college was 6'9 and played hoops his first two years and then injury set in. He said he hated being that tall. You don't fit anywhere easily, especially planes, people stare at you all the time, ask dumb questions about being tall, etc. There are also more health issues for really tall people. I once asked him whether he would prefer to be 5'5 and he said yes. I think if I was 7 foot and could not make a living playing basketball, I would hate being that tall.
Click to expand...
I believe it. 6'9 is still pretty damn tall. It's just average amongst the trees in the basketball realm. So yeah unless you're making a hell of a nice living due to being that tall the tradeoffs probably wouldn't be worth it. But I'm sayin this as an under avg 5'8 white dude who was barely able to touch the rim back when I was in the best shape of my life.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top