Savion Flagg offered for 2017
- Thread starter PU52Chevy
- Start date
He's Randall's son. We're bringing him in for the mullet and he's got some skills that might translate if we can control his temper.
But on a more serious note, it sounds like he won't be a 2 star for long (not that it matters).
http://vype.com/houston/2016/04/08/savion-flagg-a-changed-man-after-overseas-experience/
In fact, he's not according to this:
https://basketballrecruiting.n.rivals.com/news/uaa-figueroa-on-fire
http://vype.com/houston/2016/04/08/savion-flagg-a-changed-man-after-overseas-experience/
In fact, he's not according to this:
https://basketballrecruiting.n.rivals.com/news/uaa-figueroa-on-fire
I'm concerned that this could be the beginning of a trend. And my comments have nothing to do with Flagg. He actually sounds like a fast riser that may be very worthy of an offer. But what does this tell us about Painter's confidence level with Wilkes or Kyle Young? MSU offered Young yesterday and we offer Flagg today. Hmmm? The trend I'm talking about are these plan "B" offers that signal doubt about the recruits we've targeted for years, many of whom are in our backyard. I hope this is a one off but if you see new 2017 offers at this point for a SG and a big, it does not bode well for Painter's most critical class in his tenure.
You may be right, or maybe Painter is realizing that he may have more scholarships to offer in 2017 than he originally planned on having. Could be 4 or 5 instead of 2 or 3.
I'm not supporting either position on this, but would you rather have a player like this (and C. Edwards seems similar) who is on the rise, probably "gettable," and who will stay 4 or 5 years ... or a high 4 to 5 star who will be lucky to stay 2 years. I see good and bad in both ... depending a bit on who is left on your roster.
We were never getting Wilkes and Young was a long shot before today. This is another solid offer for a kid who is rising fast and is "gettable." He could (maybe) be great for us and STAY for his Sr. year.
He plays at our sister school down here in Alvin/Manvel just a few miles South of Houston. He is a get and will only get better at a school not known for BB right now! Nolan Ryan attended HS there, FYI!
Agreed with everything stated here. Flagg could be on the rise, but 2017 is so crucial for CMP and this program, with so much talent in the state of Indiana.
WHo is "all" this talent? Wilkes, Scruggs, Jackson, Williams ..... then who? The first two are going blue-blood, so that leaves two players ... is this right?
Zach Gunn of HSE has IU and Butler offers. Not highly rated but those are quality offers. Justin Roberts is top 150 per 24/7 and his crystal ball is Purdue.
That's my point. We didn't offer Gunn and Roberts is down in the 30's as best PG. The fact that Wilkes and Scruggs are very good is great, but they are going to Kansas and KY or similar places. Every thread on this board talks about the incredible class of '17 and how they're in our backyard and we better get at least two of them. But two of them are in MICH and MSU's backyard. Two are in OSU's backyard. Two are in Ilinois' backyard. And we haven't mentioned ND, Butler, Louisville, Xavier, or IU.
I'm excited about recruiting great players and being in on them, but I don't agree with the comments about such a great class in Indiana if we are thinking of players we truly have a chance at.
Simple as this...if Purdue ever hopes to be amongst the likes of the alleged blueblood programs that you allude to, never mind compete with them on the floor, then it has to get to a point where it competes with them off of the floor and where it is indeed in the mix for guys of that caliber that are literally in their own backyard.
Purdue is not going into Champaign (or Chicago for that matter) and getting guys that Illinois wants...or Columbus, OH...or Michigan...and it sure as heck needs to be able to beat out schools like Xavier and Butler...the fact that it has not is what has prevented it from having success nationally...if the trend continues in recruiting, it will continue where it matters on the floor as well.
PG Quentin Goodin got a Purdue offer but chose Xavier
C Joey Brunk got a Purdue offer but chose Butler
No one is saying we are losing recruits to those school consistently, but rather that Purdue needs to be the preferred choice for recruits over those schools.
I agree that Purdue while being able to recruit solid 4 star players (like Hammons, Edwards, etc.) is good, they need to be able to recruit blue chip 5 star guys more often than they do if they want to compete for a Final Four and a National Championship. I think Painters knows that, but the question becomes, how do we do it?
Trevon bluiett, jp macura those two come to mind right now
With the current parody in the sport, mid-sized schools compete very well with the larger schools. Schools like Xavier and Butler are on equal footing with Purdue and other BIG schools in many respects when it comes to recruiting. Their facilities are as nice in many cases, their coaching staffs as competant, and their campuses are as attractive. TV exposure is about the same. When you look through NBA rosters, smaller schools are well represented.
I know the idea that Xavier can take recruits we want seems all wrong, but the reality is that basketball recruiting is fairly democratic. In fact, many kids find smaller schools more attractive from a social standpoint. That said, I agree with the idea that we need to get the blue chip recruits, regardless, if we intend to compete with the top of the basketball schools.
I know the idea that Xavier can take recruits we want seems all wrong, but the reality is that basketball recruiting is fairly democratic. In fact, many kids find smaller schools more attractive from a social standpoint. That said, I agree with the idea that we need to get the blue chip recruits, regardless, if we intend to compete with the top of the basketball schools.
You are correct. LOL I am sitting here trying to do real work - the stuff I get paid to do, and play with the message board.
I also like the way this turned out and will leave it as-is because it probabaly speaks more about the current system than I intended.
Thanks for the correction!
I think Painter learned from "the dark years" when he went for plan A guys only and when they went elsewhere, he ended up with guys like Jacob Lawson.
I agree with this. Just because Painter needs to compete for top 50 players doesn't mean that Purdue should only offer top 50 players. For all we know, Flagg could be another Vince Edwards type contributor. If so, not offering Flagg because Painter wants Wilkes would be like not offering VE because Painter wanted Bates-Diop.
So essentially you want Painter to just offer "A-list" first option guys and no one else? Don't quite get that logic and it's clear that you don't have a grasp on how recruiting works. Flagg was offered over the weekend and NOT in response to MSU offering Kyle Young. So that point is completely false. Purdue needs to recruit these Plan-B type players. Why wouldn't they? Remember a couple years ago when they struck out with all their "A-listers" and had to settle for Jacob Lawson and Donnie Hale? No thanks. You need to be flexible and have a backup plan if things don't go originally as planned. It says nothing about the "state of the program" because we are offering other guys in 2017. Just an odd comment all together & it makes me laugh to see some of the people liking it.
And look how that one turned out. Bates-Diop is an all world athlete but an average basketball player at this point. Edwards is a great mix of the two and will most likely be the better contributor in his time in college. I'd rather have Edwards all day.
I think we will have 4-5 scholies to offer going into 2017....why not take a few solid program guys and augment with 1-2 top 40 guys?
Outside of Duke in 2015 and Kentucky the year they had AD, MKG and like 4-5 other REALLY good 1 and dones, most teams don't win the NCAAs because of lack of experience....no matter how good their players are.
I agree that we need to be more competitive with top level prospects but realistically we aren't going to outrecruit Duke, Kansas and Kentucky but I don't think we should keep losing battles to Xavier, MSU and other teams that are on our level or should be on our level.
There's a difference between "getting a Purdue offer" and Purdue offering and heavily recruiting them.
I watched Brunk a lot this year and I never was really that impressed. His ranking plummeted this senior season and I'm not too disappointed we didn't land him.
Only recruit we ever really "lost" to Butler or Xavier was Trevon Blueitt.
Also do you really think Purdue could ever get to the point where it recruits 5-stars consistently year in and year out? Maybe. It's possible, but there is a difference between 'probable' and 'possible'. There's a lot going against Purdue in recruiting and it is just a fact. Stringent academic standards, West Lafayette is average, nothing really flashy about Purdue, etc.... This isn't a 5-star destination type program, it never was and I don't think it ever will be. I don't agree with you that you need a bunch of 5-stars to compete for a FF or National Championship. How many 5 stars did Villanova have? One. & the rest of those guys were developed 4-star, middle of the pack, upperclassmen who took that team all the way. That's the way Purdue can and will be successful. Not by striking out with 5-stars because the blue bloods will have a firm grasp on those.
See above. '77 caught the error, but I left it as-is because I thought it was funny enough.
We lost Gordon Hayward and Matt Howard to Butler. Two great CBB players that could of made us great. Sure they are a while ago but Butler still took them and they were some incredible players
Gordon Hayward wasn't even ranked coming out of high school and Matt Howard was in the 2007 class where we signed the baby boilers + Scott Martin. No room for him. So I'm not sure how we lost those two to Butler when at the time we got the better end of the deal.
This is what kinda cracks me up about this forum, if Painter hadn't of offered him and he continues to rise people would be screaming "why didn't Painter offer!"
And that's why the posters on here offer a PARODY of the talking head EXPERTS on TV.
First a disclaimer. I admit I am jumping the gun on my paranoia for this recruiting class. But this class will determine the future of the program beyond the 2014 class. We could either stay in the top 20 consistently and take our shot in the tourney year after year or potentially return to 2012/2013 levels. Part of my concern comes from the "dark days" as they were called from 2008 thru 2011 when Purdue landed exactly 1 consensus top 100 recruit and our recruits averaged a ranking of 225 over that span. Painter has offered 15 recruits for 2017. Almost all are 4 star. I think that is a large enough base to work from and hopefully land 2 or 3 of these targets. There are many reasons why I expect Painter to put together a quality class. 1) The importance of this class and the length of time that he's known that 2) The improved recruiting budget 3) The amount of talent in geographical areas where he's been successful in the past. 4) The program is trending up. 5) The available PT for these players coming into the program. When I see him coming off groups of players that he's been targeting for years and offering lower profile recruits at this stage (Jacob Lawson is a great example) I don't think it's unreasonable to raise an eyebrow. I'm going to support Painter, sit back and let this play out, because I am a bit premature.
Similar threads
Purdue recruiting June 14th Final OV Primer: Who is on commit watch?
