Lets discuss recruiting

[Mgkcbb]

WARNING: Long Post

I have a real belief that many coaches, fans, etc do not understand the concept of recruiting to team build.

I have some examples I want to give here and hopefully people will read my post and discuss these things here with me.


So watching the Iowa-IU game last might sparked a thought in my head about recruiting rankings.

Here are the rankings of some star freshmen from around the conference who all play similar positions out on the wing.

So, as you see, Romeo Langford is rated much higher than the other 4 wings. However, Romeo Langford is a very likely one and done. So, even though he was very highly rated, he only helps for one year and has to be immediatelt replaced.

The other 4 all offer very good freshman seasons as well(some have even been better than Romeo Langford), but also appear to be multiple year players.

The question Im hoping will be debated here is this:

Who is really a more valuable recruit - Romeo Langford for one year or Wieskamp/Ayo/Henry/Muhammed for multiple years?

I genuinely feel like Henry will have a much better year for MSU later in his career than Romeo is having for an IU team that doesnt even appear tournament bound.

I genuinely feel like Iowa got the much better recruit in Wieskamp over Langford simply because they are similarly good(one could argue Wieskamp may have been better this year even) but Iowa gets multiple years, plus the growth that comes with that, while Indiana gets one freshman year of Langford, and the inexperience that comes with that.


Painter recently said - "You cant grow them if you cant keep them."

I believe he is onto something here. What, exactly, does one single five star one and done freshman offer a program if he isnt paired with other multiple 5 star one and done freshmen?


If Ayo Dosunmu leaves Illinois after this year, what exactly did Illinois benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.

If Romeo Langford leaves Indiana after tjis year, what exactly did Indiana benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.


On the other hand, Iowa and Ohio State have their Shooting guards for the future all while playing them major minutes and developing them along the way


Joe Wieskamp and Luther Muhammed should both be better and have a larger impact next year than Romeo was this season for Indiana, right?


I know on the surface this seems like a troll thread, but I think it's an interesting philosophical difference in IU recruiting Romeo Langford and then having to replace him next year as opposed to Iowa recruiting Jow Wieskamp, getting very good production this year, and both keeping and growing him next year as well.



What would or how would a single, random one and done help Purdue as opposed to a Trevion Williams type?

Would Purdue be better off or worse off RIGHT NOW if they had landed a flasy 5 star oad guard in Carsens class instead of him? A flashy 5 star OAD center in HAARMS class instead of him?

Seems unlikely to me.

Thoughts and/or Prayers?

 

[Fansince72]

I have to agree with your rationale. Give me a good 3 to 4 yr player who I can see progress into a great player. I need time to get to know them before they leave.

 

[Fansince72]

Wait a minute ,are you on the right board?

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

WARNING: Long Post

I have a real belief that many coaches, fans, etc do not understand the concept of recruiting to team build.

I have some examples I want to give here and hopefully people will read my post and discuss these things here with me.


So watching the Iowa-IU game last might sparked a thought in my head about recruiting rankings.

Here are the rankings of some star freshmen from around the conference who all play similar positions out on the wing.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

So, as you see, Romeo Langford is rated much higher than the other 4 wings. However, Romeo Langford is a very likely one and done. So, even though he was very highly rated, he only helps for one year and has to be immediatelt replaced.

The other 4 all offer very good freshman seasons as well(some have even been better than Romeo Langford), but also appear to be multiple year players.

The question Im hoping will be debated here is this:

Who is really a more valuable recruit - Romeo Langford for one year or Wieskamp/Ayo/Henry/Muhammed for multiple years?

I genuinely feel like Henry will have a much better year for MSU later in his career than Romeo is having for an IU team that doesnt even appear tournament bound.

I genuinely feel like Iowa got the much better recruit in Wieskamp over Langford simply because they are similarly good(one could argue Wieskamp may have been better this year even) but Iowa gets multiple years, plus the growth that comes with that, while Indiana gets one freshman year of Langford, and the inexperience that comes with that.


Painter recently said - "You cant grow them if you cant keep them."

I believe he is onto something here. What, exactly, does one single five star one and done freshman offer a program if he isnt paired with other multiple 5 star one and done freshmen?


If Ayo Dosunmu leaves Illinois after this year, what exactly did Illinois benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.

If Romeo Langford leaves Indiana after tjis year, what exactly did Indiana benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.


On the other hand, Iowa and Ohio State have their Shooting guards for the future all while playing them major minutes and developing them along the way


Joe Wieskamp and Luther Muhammed should both be better and have a larger impact next year than Romeo was this season for Indiana, right?


I know on the surface this seems like a troll thread, but I think it's an interesting philosophical difference in IU recruiting Romeo Langford and then having to replace him next year as opposed to Iowa recruiting Jow Wieskamp, getting very good production this year, and both keeping and growing him next year as well.



What would or how would a single, random one and done help Purdue as opposed to a Trevion Williams type?

Would Purdue be better off or worse off RIGHT NOW if they had landed a flasy 5 star oad guard in Carsens class instead of him? A flashy 5 star OAD center in HAARMS class instead of him?

Seems unlikely to me.

Thoughts and/or Prayers?

In theory you're not wrong but the goal of recruiting is to better your roster every year. You don't recruit one guy and then expect to recruit his back up the next 3 years because the average tenure of a college basketball player these days is only 2 years at one school. That is just the nature of the beast these days.

Honestly I think you need a mixture of both. You need to build your roster with the 3-4 year guys (like Muhammed and Wieskamp) but then you need the 5* guys to push you over the top.

Romeo and Indiana is chicken and egg in this situation. This was Archie's first full recruiting class after he inherited a roster to be frank wasn't all that talented. He HAD to get Romeo. With how underwhelming Indiana has been WITH Romeo, imagine just how plain awful they'd be without him, injuries or not. I'd imagine Indiana MAY look a little bit different this year if Romeo was playing in year 3 or 4 under Archie who had an established roster of recruits. Just an opinion, but Archie wasn't in a position to say no to Romeo Langford this year.

 

[SIBoiler2]

The one factor that ratings doesn't account for is the "give a crap" factor. Romeo doesn't appear to while others do. It doesn't matter how goid a kid is if he doesn't make any attempt to make the most of his time on campus. I'd rather have one year of a less talented kid that left it all on the court over multiple years of a more talented kid that sleep walks through his time.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Long way around the barn.....to state the obvious......of course 4 year players like Wisecamp are a better deal 90% of th he time.

A guy like biggie is the exception and CMP will take a guy like that when he CMP thinks he FITS with who he has already on the team.

 

[SIBoiler2]

In theory you're not wrong but the goal of recruiting is to better your roster every year. You don't recruit one guy and then expect to recruit his back up the next 3 years because the average tenure of a college basketball player these days is only 2 years at one school. That is just the nature of the beast these days.

Honestly I think you need a mixture of both. You need to build your roster with the 3-4 year guys (like Muhammed and Wieskamp) but then you need the 5* guys to push you over the top.

Romeo and Indiana is chicken and egg in this situation. This was Archie's first full recruiting class after he inherited a roster to be frank wasn't all that talented. He HAD to get Romeo. With how underwhelming Indiana has been WITH Romeo, imagine just how plain awful they'd be without him, injuries or not. I'd imagine Indiana MAY look a little bit different this year if Romeo was playing in year 3 or 4 under Archie who had an established roster of recruits. Just an opinion, but Archie wasn't in a position to say no to Romeo Langford this year.

To be fair Adidas wouldn't let Archie turn him down.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

The one factor that ratings doesn't account for is the "give a crap" factor. Romeo doesn't appear to while others do. It doesn't matter how goid a kid is if he doesn't make any attempt to make the most of his time on campus. I'd rather have one year of a less talented kid that left it all on the court over multiple years of a more talented kid that sleep walks through his time.

See I disagree with that. While Romeo may appear to not give a crap, you still can't deny his abilities to change a game. There aren't many players in the country, let alone freshman, who can go out there and give you 22 points on 11 shot attempts. That's just the reality. But at the same time I think there's multiple players on IU this year "who look like they don't give a crap" (on top of just some really poor talent) and it gets further magnified. Put Romeo on a more talented team and I think you see different results.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Good post.

Cal and Coach K have been successful with OAD talent because they also have gotten kids who stick around for multiple years. They have kids who build and develop skills and are ready when the time comes. The problem with Romeo going to IU was lack of talent around him and he isn't really an alpha dog to take over games.

The other issue is Romeo was really looking for a couch to crash on after the Louisville debacle and IU was the perfect fit.

You really need a mix of elite talent + roll players. Leadership and skill.

 

[Mgkcbb]

In theory you're not wrong but the goal of recruiting is to better your roster every year. You don't recruit one guy and then expect to recruit his back up the next 3 years because the average tenure of a college basketball player these days is only 2 years at one school. That is just the nature of the beast these days.

Honestly I think you need a mixture of both. You need to build your roster with the 3-4 year guys (like Muhammed and Wieskamp) but then you need the 5* guys to push you over the top.

Romeo and Indiana is chicken and egg in this situation. This was Archie's first full recruiting class after he inherited a roster to be frank wasn't all that talented. He HAD to get Romeo. With how underwhelming Indiana has been WITH Romeo, imagine just how plain awful they'd be without him, injuries or not. I'd imagine Indiana MAY look a little bit different this year if Romeo was playing in year 3 or 4 under Archie who had an established roster of recruits. Just an opinion, but Archie wasn't in a position to say no to Romeo Langford this year.

If Romeo doesnt even get Indiana to the tournament, and lets be honest here - theyre massive dogs to make it as of right now, how did he benefit Indiana rather than playing Damezi Anderson + another multi year frosh (who would've veen the recruit instead of Romeo) and gaining them experience in the off and def systems?


Ill use this example for iubb to clarify:


Imagine grabbing Romeo Langford the same year Victor Oladipo was a freshman and Romeo hogging all his minutes which proved valuable in Victors elite development.

Damezi Anderson could be playing 30 minutes per game right now and growing much more, instead Romeo is getting all these minutes invested into him and IU is going to miss the tournament all the same.

 

[Mgkcbb]

Long way around the barn.....to state the obvious......of course 4 year players like Wisecamp are a better deal 90% of th he time.

A guy like biggie is the exception and CMP will take a guy like that when he CMP thinks he FITS with who he has already on the team.

Biggie wasnt all that good as a frosh. If he would've been a OAD, Purdue would've been worse off. The fact is, he was a multi year player who benefitted Purdue greatly. (In my opinion)

 

[Wolegib]

The problem with your point is you do not take into consideration who the one and done player is replaced with. Against that one scholarship you could possibly have 4 one and done superstars who are far better than your 4 year players. Look at Duke and Zion. Zion will be goneafter this year, but next year his replacement will still be a lot better than any of those solid players you mentioned above.

This is the Phalicy of comparing the one and done with a 4 year player. To do an objective comparison you should look at the scholarship for 4 years. A case could be made rather than having Biggie for 2 years, Purdue had Biggie for 2 and Evan for 2 years.

Look at Kentucky. They basically replace their one and done with another one and done. The production they receive from their 4 one and dones will be far greater than what a normal player would contribute over 4 years.

 

[Spinn]

I think it all depends on the team structure they are recruited in. IU, Illinois has an unproven track record dealing with players like this. They don't have the supportinh cast to allow these kids to thrive at their own pace. MSU, Purdue (with Biggie) and even Maryland, Duke, Kentucky have all had better surrounding support systems that maximized the players abilities.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

If Romeo doesnt even get Indiana to the tournament, and lets be honest here - theyre massive dogs to make it as of right now, how did he benefit Indiana rather than playing Damezi Anderson + another multi year frosh (who would've veen the recruit instead of Romeo) and gaining them experience in the off and def systems?


Ill use this example for iubb to clarify:


Imagine grabbing Romeo Langford the same year Victor Oladipo was a freshman and Romeo hogging all his minutes which proved valuable in Victors elite development.

Damezi Anderson could be playing 30 minutes per game right now and growing much more, instead Romeo is getting all these minutes invested into him and IU is going to miss the tournament all the same.

There's been plenty of opportunity for Damezi to earn his playing time. IU has used heavy dosages of Durham/Green/McRoberts as a third guard paired with Phinisee and Romeo. He hasn't played because he's atrociously defensively. I don't buy the narrative that Romeo is halting Damezi's development because Damezi can't even beat out someone like Durham or Green.

And Romeo just doesn't represent this year. He represents Archie's ability to keep top talent home. Indiana not making the tournament this year would be extremely underwhelming result, but anyone who though that Indiana was a tournament team pre-Langford and then suddenly was a F4 caliber team once he committed is/was delusional. Outside Juwan Morgan, Indiana just didn't have a good roster coming into this year before Langford's commitment. You could argue that Romeo has likely at least given Archie another year before his seat really gets hot because this IU team without Romeo is a bottom feeder B10 team.

 

[Mgkcbb]

The problem with your point is you do not take into consideration who the one and done player is replaced with. Against that one scholarship you could possibly have 4 one and done superstars who are far better than your 4 year players. Look at Duke and Zion. Zion will be goneafter this year, but next year his replacement will still be a lot better than any of those solid players you mentioned above.

This is the Phalicy of comparing the one and done with a 4 year player. To do an objective comparison you should look at the scholarship for 4 years. A case could be made rather than having Biggie for 2 years, Purdue had Biggie for 2 and Evan for 2 years.

Look at Kentucky. They basically replace their one and done with another one and done. The production they receive from their 4 one and dones will be far greater than what a normal player would contribute over 4 years.

I get that UK and Duke can replace their OAD 5 stars with more every year - I'm talking Purdue specifically. Purdue will never be kanding 5 star one and dones year in and year out, so does it even make sense to recruit them at all by sacrificing valuable PT and development to a 4 star instead?

That is my question. I am open to debate. I think, besides Duke/Kansas/UK, most programs cant keep restocking 5 stars with more 5 stars if ther leave after one year.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

The problem with your point is you do not take into consideration who the one and done player is replaced with. Against that one scholarship you could possibly have 4 one and done superstars who are far better than your 4 year players. Look at Duke and Zion. Zion will be goneafter this year, but next year his replacement will still be a lot better than any of those solid players you mentioned above.

This is the Phalicy of comparing the one and done with a 4 year player. To do an objective comparison you should look at the scholarship for 4 years. A case could be made rather than having Biggie for 2 years, Purdue had Biggie for 2 and Evan for 2 years.

Look at Kentucky. They basically replace their one and done with another one and done. The production they receive from their 4 one and dones will be far greater than what a normal player would contribute over 4 years.

That's a very good point. If you're going to land a once in a blue moon 5* and don't do anything than yeah it's probably a waste. But IU is bringing in at least one 5* in TJD next year and possibly a second with Brooks. If you're replacing a 5* with another 5* then yeah, I don't think the trade off is as bad as the OP makes it out to be. Should be noted that Indiana had a pretty decent class prior to Langford. Definitely not world beaters, but I think Phinisee and Hunter (assuming he can get healthy) can play at an all-conference level as upperclassmen. It's not like Archie brought in a bunch of 5* this year and underachieved with no hope for the future either.

 

[Mgkcbb]

There's been plenty of opportunity for Damezi to earn his playing time. IU has used heavy dosages of Durham/Green/McRoberts as a third guard paired with Phinisee and Romeo. He hasn't played because he's atrociously defensively. I don't buy the narrative that Romeo is halting Damezi's development because Damezi can't even beat out someone like Durham or Green.

And Romeo just doesn't represent this year. He represents Archie's ability to keep top talent home. Indiana not making the tournament this year would be extremely underwhelming result, but anyone who though that Indiana was a tournament team pre-Langford and then suddenly was a F4 caliber team once he committed is/was delusional. Outside Juwan Morgan, Indiana just didn't have a good roster coming into this year before Langford's commitment. You could argue that Romeo has likely at least given Archie another year before his seat really gets hot because this IU team without Romeo is a bottom feeder B10 team.

You dont think Damezi would have improved playing more minutes and getting more film sessions highlighting his mistakes and getting coaching as opposed to spot playing?

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

You dont think Damezi would have improved playing more minutes and getting more film sessions highlighting his mistakes and getting coaching as opposed to spot playing?

He's had chances early in the year when guys like Durham and Green and McRoberts were out with various injuries. It's not like Damezi was't ever given a chance? IU plays a 3 guard set every game. It's not like Damezi is stuck only behind Romeo Langford.

 

[Hausta01]

Your premise that some could argue that Langford isn't that best freshman in the B1G while bringing up anyone besides Iggy Bradzekis is wrong. And Iggy is fading as the year goes on. Romeo has been the best freshman all year in the B1G. Others have had stretches where they were better, but overall Romeo has been best.

So are you asking would you sacrifice being better now, with Romeo, to be hopefully better later, with Aaron Henry?

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

The one factor that ratings doesn't account for is the "give a crap" factor. Romeo doesn't appear to while others do. It doesn't matter how goid a kid is if he doesn't make any attempt to make the most of his time on campus. I'd rather have one year of a less talented kid that left it all on the court over multiple years of a more talented kid that sleep walks through his time.

And it doesn't take in to account that what would the perception be if Archie 'benched' Romeo for an extended amount of time during a game? As silly as that may sound, some pine time would probably do Romeo good to see the game from the bench. Instead, I have seen him constantly complain and gripe while on the bench.

How many times have we seen Carsen get pulled by CMP due to poor shot selection or pressing too much and the two of them have a discussion? In fact, I distinctly remember last year the two of them having a very animated conversation (not yelling or being angry) about why CMP pulled Carsen out. THIS is the type of player CMP has said he wants to recruit and bring to campus....the kids that are high level ability BUT more than anything are high level attitude and character that aren't going to get their panties in a wad about being coached hard and so forth.

For the different types of coaches and players the programs bring in, here is an example. CMP made comments about his players effort, attention to detail, and buy in to what THE PROGRAM needed them to do after a loss to ND. Immediately after that, the team has seen a turn around with players who have appeared to buy in more and fulfill their roles.

On the other hand, Archie made very similar comments about his players lack of effort and desire and ability to buy in to what he was coaching....and immediately the team appeared to either bail OR just not follow through on that challenge. He then had to back track his comments bc, as some have pointed out, some one got a hold of him and said the players didn't appreciate the comments. REALLY?!?!?

Yeah, I'll take the man running the program in West Lafayette 100% of the time and not even question it because he was given the chance to remold and reshape the program when it wasn't what he wanted it to be....I don't think Archie has that type of patience from the administration nor do I think he has the coaching chops to do that.

 

[Mgkcbb]

Your premise that some could argue that Langford isn't that best freshman in the B1G while bringing up anyone besides Iggy Bradzekis is wrong. And Iggy is fading as the year goes on. Romeo has been the best freshman all year in the B1G. Others have had stretches where they were better, but overall Romeo has been best.

So are you asking would you sacrifice being better now, with Romeo, to be hopefully better later, with Aaron Henry?

Yes, would Indiana be better imfor the future moving forward if they had Joe Wieskamp or Aaron Henry instead of Romeo Langford? I believe the answer is yes.

 

[Wolegib]

It also depends on your objective. Do you want athletes to come , play and graduate? Or do you always want your team to be a final 4 contender?

The problem with recruiting the one and done is that it rarely works with having only one and done player on your team. Having only one often kills your team chemistry. To be successful you need 2-3 one and dones. Rather than having one adapt to your existing system, they then become the system and the other players become the role players and supporting roles. It's very hard fr a one and done player to contribute and succeed if he is the only one and done and you already have several seniors expecting to be the main stars. JJJ would not have enjoyed much success for Purdue last year. And Romeo would have been bad playing for Purdue this year competing with Carsen for being the star. It works a lot better if a one and done replaces a one and done.

 

[BoilerIron]

This has been debated over and over again.

IMO, you need to mix 3 and 4 year players in with guys who are elite instant impact players. This doesn't mean they need to be a 1 and done like a Romeo. Biggie was very good here. Should we not have recruited him, because it was obvious he wouldn't be a 4 year player?

The dream is that you get the elite talent that are 3 and 4 year players due to their size like Jalen Brunson and Yogi Ferrel. Those guys were dominant at the college level, but weren't physically gifted enough to make the jump in their 1st two years (Brunson 3 year player and Yogi 4). I don't see guys like Malik Hall and TJD leaving early. I think they are both elite talent that will be in college for 3 or 4 years.

With all that being said, if you can get a player like Romeo Langford who is a guaranteed one and done, you still take him 100% of the time.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

Yes, would Indiana be better imfor the future moving forward if they had Joe Wieskamp or Aaron Henry instead of Romeo Langford? I believe the answer is yes.

But you act like Indiana chose between Romeo and then Henry and Wieskamp. Who is to say Indiana can't get another 5* for 2019 (Brooks is in play still) or another solid 4 year player. Hell Indiana nearly had Henry and Romeo together and likely would have had Henry had Damezi and Hunter not committed 2 hours a part from one another. To be a good basketball team you don't need to find 4 or 5 4 year players every class. You need a mixture of 7-8 solid 3-4 year players and 2-3 5* or two and done players.

 

[StickPurdue]

I have to agree with your rationale. Give me a good 3 to 4 yr player who I can see progress into a great player. I need time to get to know them before they leave.

Nova has made their run by building the foundation and adding some short timers to mix in. Look how well Purdue is playing right now. They are extremely young. They will likely have their core for two more years. If they are able to add a player or two that can immediately impact ‘20, then obviously that would better serve the championship hopes.

Eastern and Haarms will likely both be here as seniors in that ‘20 year. If you can find a one and done that can push you over that edge, I think you have to take it. The problem is, you don’t want to turn down somebody that can help movIng Forward. Hopefully you have an extra spot to hang around late for the one and dones.

This that will help:

1)making some noise in the tournament this year. A final four could go a long way for players looking to stay and help build a program.

2)It also helps when Boilers do well in the NBA. Moore has been doing well, but could really use for Biggie to play well on his new team. Plus have Carsen go and have an impact at the next level.

3) Purdue did a very good job at improving Biggie and getting him to the next level. Purdue has done a very good job with Carsen, who wasn’t listed as a five star, but it was clear right away he was a five star talent. Now Purdue has Tre who looks like he will be the next star and Newman for next year. Both look like they could be five star talent. I really do think that Purdue having some individual stars helps. And when you look at the last four years, freshmen have have immediate impacts on all those teams. Painter has showed if you put the work in, you can play right away.

I like the pieces Painter has and it doesn’t appear that he has had any years where he whiffed on all of his recruits. Even with the ‘14 class commanding all the playing time. As a result, Purdue is in a good place. They aren’t in a place like IU where a five star had almost zero impact. I love that Purdue is loaded with sophomores and freshmen that are already proving that they can ball. It’s impossible not be be excited.

 

[FirstDownB]

WARNING: Long Post

I have a real belief that many coaches, fans, etc do not understand the concept of recruiting to team build.

I have some examples I want to give here and hopefully people will read my post and discuss these things here with me.


So watching the Iowa-IU game last might sparked a thought in my head about recruiting rankings.

Here are the rankings of some star freshmen from around the conference who all play similar positions out on the wing.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

So, as you see, Romeo Langford is rated much higher than the other 4 wings. However, Romeo Langford is a very likely one and done. So, even though he was very highly rated, he only helps for one year and has to be immediatelt replaced.

The other 4 all offer very good freshman seasons as well(some have even been better than Romeo Langford), but also appear to be multiple year players.

The question Im hoping will be debated here is this:

Who is really a more valuable recruit - Romeo Langford for one year or Wieskamp/Ayo/Henry/Muhammed for multiple years?

I genuinely feel like Henry will have a much better year for MSU later in his career than Romeo is having for an IU team that doesnt even appear tournament bound.

I genuinely feel like Iowa got the much better recruit in Wieskamp over Langford simply because they are similarly good(one could argue Wieskamp may have been better this year even) but Iowa gets multiple years, plus the growth that comes with that, while Indiana gets one freshman year of Langford, and the inexperience that comes with that.


Painter recently said - "You cant grow them if you cant keep them."

I believe he is onto something here. What, exactly, does one single five star one and done freshman offer a program if he isnt paired with other multiple 5 star one and done freshmen?


If Ayo Dosunmu leaves Illinois after this year, what exactly did Illinois benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.

If Romeo Langford leaves Indiana after tjis year, what exactly did Indiana benefit from having him? They arent making the tournament and now have to replace him.


On the other hand, Iowa and Ohio State have their Shooting guards for the future all while playing them major minutes and developing them along the way


Joe Wieskamp and Luther Muhammed should both be better and have a larger impact next year than Romeo was this season for Indiana, right?


I know on the surface this seems like a troll thread, but I think it's an interesting philosophical difference in IU recruiting Romeo Langford and then having to replace him next year as opposed to Iowa recruiting Jow Wieskamp, getting very good production this year, and both keeping and growing him next year as well.



What would or how would a single, random one and done help Purdue as opposed to a Trevion Williams type?

Would Purdue be better off or worse off RIGHT NOW if they had landed a flasy 5 star oad guard in Carsens class instead of him? A flashy 5 star OAD center in HAARMS class instead of him?

Seems unlikely to me.

Thoughts and/or Prayers?

I posted something similar a week or two ago comparing our freshman class with others. One takeaway I had was you never get full value (the best years) from a guy like Langford. You get their most undeveloped year(s). So, classes end up being much closer than they appear on paper because mature 3 and 4 stars are often better than freshman 5 stars unless that 5 star is out-of-this-world talented.

To me, a program like Purdue (or Villanova) are better off getting the best players that fit the system and are coachable. There are very few exceptions that have regular success with one-and-dones. Duke and Kentucky and...??

 

[Wolegib]

At the time we were sort of recruiting Romeo , I said he would be a bad fit for Purdue because he basically plays the same position as Carsen and there would not be enough minutes or shots to be able to satisfy either player.

However, if Purdue were to recruit a one and done SF or PF Where we currently have role players, I think it may work. Or next year if we are sure Carsen is leaving, A one and done player may be a good player to replace him.

The question becomes like Biggie, if you wait until he declares, how many elite one and done players are left to recruit? Does a one and done player typically wait for the pieces to fall before signing? Or do the best ones sign early? I know Romeo and Bowen both waited a long time. Brooks seems to be taking his time. But haven't most one and dones already signed?

This brings up another issue. Do you wait for Carsen to declare? Or do you over recruit with the thought that he will be gone?

 

[arcb102000]

I am not a fan of the OADs as the backbone of your team. My reason is that it seems that they have to be "purchased" for the most part and that a sea change in how society views this will necessitate the NCAA cracking down hard on violators, much more so than has been done in the past.

It is stated that the NCAA will not crack down on the "sacred cows" like Duke, UNC, UK, Kansas, etc. because they like the money that they generate via tv, royalties and other stuff. It seems to have been that way in the past. I suspect that it is changing now. Not to get all-political, but I think that the election of 2016 was a reaction against the perception that some people were able to skirt punishment for acts that others would be nailed for because they were among the elites and were therefore special. Studies demonstrated that certain candidates support was bi-modal while another's was more Gaussian when wealth was considered. If that analysis is true, then why is sport different from the rest of society? Would it not be reasonable to expect carry-over?

I do not know if this will be the case. However, often people are behind the curve when operating under the old rules when a new set has come to the fore and get very surprised. I just suspect that they will. At the end of the day, the NCAA sells a product to the public. If the public doesn't like it, then the tv ad $$ go down with the Nielsens. I don't think that they want that.

 

[C'ville Boiler]

Romeo has talent but what is their return on assets with him if he's one and done? As it stands now, nothing really. If he stays there next year and builds with some of their other guys,maybe some ROA. He will have to get better outside shot and more intestinal fortitude though. But no matter what, our Boilers will curb stomp them either way.

 

[Frankie611]

We need to stop comparing our roster to Iu. Iu is going to miss the tournament for the third year in a row. Look at Msu. They have a roster of #30-80 players. They get the occasional Miles Bridges and develop the diamond in the rough kids who are big contributors in years 3 and 4. The problem we have had for many years is that our top kid is ranked #90. Yes, he can develop into a great player. The problem has always been we try to take a Wheeler and replace Vince Edwards when we should be replacing him with a Louis King type talent. Wheeler will be great, but there is too much talent drop off to be competitive every single year when you constantly rebuild. This year seems to be breaking the mold. I am optimistic.

 

[rjmpu82]

I personally just don't see Langford getting major minutes in the NBA next year. Athletic, yes. But he is not a great shooter and someone with equal athleticism gives him problems at this point. I understand the NBA draft is based a lot on potential. He is talented player. He has not been a program changer this year and he won't be a franchise changer at the next level. There is a MAJOR drop off from Duke's 2 freshman and Langford.

 

[dwhitebash11]

I think it comes down to Painters pitch. He's being honest with the recruits, and you HAVE to respect that about a coach, and more importantly, a man.

I've said it all along, I think Painter tells the 5* recruits the same things as the 3* recruits, which is something along these lines.

"I'll utilize your strengths to the max, while hiding your weaknesses. But, you have to trust me, play my level of defense, and play for the team, not yourself. If you are not hustling, I'll bench you for the backup. If you are out there for yourself, you'll be riding the pine. But if you trust me, your teammates, do what I say and execute how we've practiced, then you will find yourself in the top25, fighting for a big ten championship, and a possibly a final four opportunity. But most importantly, you'll learn to respect yourself, your family, your friends, the fans, and your teammates. You'll leave not only as an eternal member of the Boilermaker family, but as a man who can hold his head up and be proud of what you just accomplished as a team, and a man."

Just ask PJ Thompson about it.

I truly believe Painter does everything right in coaching. The fact that he stays very competitive in this league with his style of coaching, tells you how good of a coach he really is. Not many kids can handle his style now days.

 

[Purdue85]

I personally just don't see Langford getting major minutes in the NBA next year. Athletic, yes. But he is not a great shooter and someone with equal athleticism gives him problems at this point. I understand the NBA draft is based a lot on potential. He is talented player. He has not been a program changer this year and he won't be a franchise changer at the next level. There is a MAJOR drop off from Duke's 2 freshman and Langford.

to your point ... and not a knock on Nojel ... he's going to face elite defenders/athletes every flippin' game in the NBA. Nojel shut him down. the NBA will shut him down IF(!) he doesn't significantly amp-up his game.

 

[arcb102000]

to your point ... and not a knock on Nojel ... he's going to face elite defenders/athletes every flippin' game in the NBA. Nojel shut him down. the NBA will shut him down IF(!) he doesn't significantly amp-up his game.

IU fans, one in particular, posting here still say that he is Top5. I agree with you and think that's crazy. I see great risk for the GM thst drafts him that high.

 

[Emartin70287]

Good post.

Cal and Coach K have been successful with OAD talent because they also have gotten kids who stick around for multiple years. They have kids who build and develop skills and are ready when the time comes. The problem with Romeo going to IU was lack of talent around him and he isn't really an alpha dog to take over games.

The other issue is Romeo was really looking for a couch to crash on after the Louisville debacle and IU was the perfect fit.

You really need a mix of elite talent + roll players. Leadership and skill.

Idk how IU was a perfect fit, that's where he landed obviously. He would have fit in better literally anywhere else.

 

[SIBoiler2]

IU fans, one in particular, posting here still say that he is Top5. I agree with you and think that's crazy. I see great risk for the GM thst drafts him that high.

Based on HS he was a top 5 coming to IU. His game hasn't matured this year while guys like Morant have upped theirs appreciably. His likelihood to be drafted as high ha diminished and it's largely due to his perceived lack of drive and work ethic.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Good post.

Cal and Coach K have been successful with OAD talent because they also have gotten kids who stick around for multiple years. They have kids who build and develop skills and are ready when the time comes. The problem with Romeo going to IU was lack of talent around him and he isn't really an alpha dog to take over games.

The other issue is Romeo was really looking for a couch to crash on after the Louisville debacle and IU was the perfect fit.

You really need a mix of elite talent + roll players. Leadership and skill.

...and the problem the OP eluded to, having to replace the OAD, is what Cal and Mike do regularly, and not just one at a time. Just a few can do it.

 

[Do Dah Day]

...and the problem the OP eluded to, having to replace the OAD, is what Cal and Mike do regularly, and not just one at a time. Just a few can do it.

Oh hell - give me a freaking money-tree and even I could do it ... probly without my dentures in

 

[New Pal Boiler]

This has been debated over and over again.

IMO, you need to mix 3 and 4 year players in with guys who are elite instant impact players. This doesn't mean they need to be a 1 and done like a Romeo. Biggie was very good here. Should we not have recruited him, because it was obvious he wouldn't be a 4 year player?

The dream is that you get the elite talent that are 3 and 4 year players due to their size like Jalen Brunson and Yogi Ferrel. Those guys were dominant at the college level, but weren't physically gifted enough to make the jump in their 1st two years (Brunson 3 year player and Yogi 4). I don't see guys like Malik Hall and TJD leaving early. I think they are both elite talent that will be in college for 3 or 4 years.

With all that being said, if you can get a player like Romeo Langford who is a guaranteed one and done, you still take him 100% of the time.

TJD is overrated. I’d rather have Tre.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

...and the problem the OP eluded to, having to replace the OAD, is what Cal and Mike do regularly, and not just one at a time. Just a few can do it.

Agreed with the OP.

Look at Izzo and his inability to convert elite talent into tournament success year over year.