Recruiting links - UPDATED
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
It is unrealistic right now to expect Pitt to recruit at the level of UNC, Duke or Kentucky - they don't as a program have the consistency or cache to win those battles. At its best point over the past 17 years, I think recruiting was good, but not great and certainly not elite. Recent recruiting has been below fan expectations based on who came in during prime years, how they developed and what the result on the floor was. It was tough to give the previous coach a pass on bad recruiting, and I agree that it doesn't seem much different for KS. I'm willing to give the players a chance to develop and show something to the fans that helps give people something to cheer about. I'm looking forward to the unexpected surprise of a young player emerging and giving the University something to be proud of. I know considerably less than the staff does about most of these guys, but as I said, I am willing to give them the chance to earn praise for their play.
It is what it is ! Let's hope it improves , but this isn't an issue that just happened under KS .
A reminder in case people have forgotten:
ACC recruiting under Jamie Dixon and staff: 18 players over 4 seasons - 8 freshmen, 3 grad transfers - 2 regular transfers - 5 junior college transfers - That is 8 freshmen/10 transfers
M.Young - C.Johnson - R.Luther - J.Artis (one left the program - two had major attitude problems)
Newkirk - D.Wilson - Kithcart - Manigault (all left the program)
R.Maia - S.Smith - Nelson- Odoba (all fairly ineffective)
S.Jeter - D.Randall (both disappointing)
J.Uchebo - T.Haughton - J.Milligan - R.Nix - C.Clark (next to nothing gained here)
How many consensus 100 recruits are in that group? (recruited while we still had a decent roster)
I don't see a net at all - I see lightly recruited local kids (save one) - a bunch of transfer reaches (some with an injury or behavioral history) and 5(over 4 seasons) non-local kids (only one of who panned out)
Last edited:
Why do people say sh!t like this? Literally no one expects that. We can't even recruit to the level of Providence or Western Kentucky.
So many people on here create completely false narratives. Posts and created arguments like this are terrible.
I have been intentionally staying out of everything right now but if you think that Sterling Smith and SHELDON JETER were disappointing or ineffective ACC recruits then I really can't do anything for you.
Smith was a totally average grad transfer and Jeter was an upper echelon two way forward.
My memory my be faulty, but I believe Smith played well in the OC. I wanted to see him continue that. I felt he should have been allowed to continue to play, but his playing time greatly diminished.
I believe he became reluctant to shoot in the second half of the conference schedule and as a result played less and less. He became a total non factor.
I certainly would argue Jeter was upper echelon anything. I know people on this board complained about both his defense (Bethlehemjohn and Harve)and his consistency.
After seeing some of his good games, I always thought there might have been more there. That is why I said disappointing.
Last edited:
I don't know about you, but that seems like less than the average grad transfer to me.
Last edited:
This kind of describes what I feel about Sheldon Jeter(certainly not upper echelon):
Last edited:
You're doing some serious splitting of hairs there thirteenNINE, Gary mentions 18 guys and is fairly accurate on all of them and you counter with Sterling and and Sheldon.
I think he's very reasonable categorizing Sterling as 'fairly ineffective'.
I agree he is underselling Sheldon somewhat but it is ironic that what may be the best case to dispute was originally a KStallings recruit to Vandy.
Overall, I think Gary's main point is spot on. We have all this over the top complaining about our current recruiting. Yeah it would be nice if it was more than just a little better than it is, but it's no major downer when compared to what we're accustomed to.
Stallings is lucky the "I'll f'n kill you" incident didn't end his career. Or did it?
So we upgraded by staying flat in recruiting and worse at in game coaching. Only Pitt could make such a move.
You must have misinterpreted my post, I never said we stayed flat in recruiting or worse at in game coaching.
So when you say no major downer compared to what we're accustomed to, you meant these 1-2 star players are better than the 1-2 star players we are used to getting?
While I may agree or disagree with some of these characterizations, I would say that it's hard to blame Dixon for certain players leaving the program when it's pretty clear that if Dixon had stayed, they wouldn't have left.
Also, I don't really care what colleges they ended up at, given that Dixon is the better coach I believe that Manigault and Kithcart would have been much further along had Dixon stayed here, much. Clark, who would have been a damn good player and Pitt had to beat out Oregon for, the injury was just so unfortunate.
As for the grad transfers...unless you get the high, high end ones, that's sort of the expectation for ACC grad transfers from smaller leagues. They all were contributors on a team that made the tournament. Will boykins score more than those guys out of necessity...id say probably so, but that doesn't mean he's the better player.
As for recruiting rankings, Young and Wilson are higher ranked than anything Stallings has brought in. Carr and Golden are probably going to be KS best recruits in years 1 and 2, but they are 150ish recruits. I'm just stunned that neither KS, nor one of the 5 assistants he's had in 2 seasons, has had a top 100 player on their hip. That always happenes when coaches take over new jobs. Not here.
But...I get it. The recruiting was not nearly good enough. I have no idea what Jamie would have brought in for 2017, but it probably would have been about the same rankings as the Stallings class (wouldn't have been the volume of recruits though, as I expect at least 4 players would be here that are not). But the bill of goods we were sold by barnes, and by KS, was that now that he is unshackled from the restrictions of Vandy, look out. Well, that hasn't really panned out. Maybe it is because everyone knows he's gone in 2 years. Maybe he just isn't as good a recruiter as we hoped.
You won't get an argument from me that the recruiting was acceptable under Dixon, but in my mind, the results (60% NCAA births even in his worst 5 year stretch) still spoke to a program with a coach in Dixon that would never go completely off the rails like it is now. And, because we essentially got rid of our best coach ever because he couldn't recruit, the expectations for the new guy should be higher...but the results so far are not there.
Agree - If Stallings can not recruit better (and I don't mean by recruiting rankings) than the ACC Dixon, he has no chance to succeed.
We have yet to see a Stallings recruit play at Pitt.
How about play on the court?
I judge players pretty quickly( maybe even too quickly), but not until I have seen them play 10 games or so.
I judge players pretty quickly( maybe even too quickly), but not until I have seen them play 10 games or so.[/QUOTE]
Gary, that's certainly a fair approach. Of course it's only August so all we can do is debate class rankings and potential. If he had landed just one of these other top targets then these discussions might be totally different.
Gary, that's certainly a fair approach. Of course it's only August so all we can do is debate class rankings and potential. If he had landed just one of these other top targets then these discussions might be totally different.
So, it is up to your impartial assessment of their play against cupcakes, on a terrible team? And if they don't play in those first 10 games, they are terrible? What if they play 15 minutes? I just want to make sure we all know what to expect.
I said 10 games whenever they occur. 10 games of not mop up duty. 10 games where they play enough to see enough. I am not talking about having a total impression of what their career will amount to, I am talking about judging if they have tools, intangibles and potential.
Oh. You seem to have judged a few of the "Dixon recruits" based on far less than "10 games where they play enough to see enough" so I just wanted to make sure what the criteria was.
I think I saw Nix, Milligan, Wilson and Kithcart plenty enough.
Clark never played but came with 2 knee injuries.
I did not see enough of Manigault to form a judgement, but it is clear that Stallings had seen enough to form a judgement.
Haughton never saw the court. I guess Dixon made a judgement. (though a very late one)
All the other transfers played enough to judge.
So, who are the Dixon recruits I did not see enough of to fit my criteria?
Last edited:
Dixon left for another opportunity. We did not get rid of him. I refuse to allow others rewrite history.
Let me see if I understand. It is premature to draw conclusions on the outgoing class even though they didn't distinguish themselves in practice or when they stepped on the court but it is OK to write off the incoming class before actually seeing them play. Got it.
Who said either? He didn't. I didn't. However, Stallings gets no credit (at all) for his evaluation "in practice" or on the recruiting trail, at this point. Until he is at least a .500 coach at Pitt, the skepticism of his ability to coach and recruit will be 100%. So far his results are awful.
I still disagree completely here, I'm only highlighting the two most egregious examples on that list.
Sterling Smith was brought in as a one year rental to fill a huge hole in perimeter defense on a team that could already score. He came in, didn't rock the boat, made open threes at a 40% clip and was our second best defensive player by the numbers. For a grad transfer from the SWAC that is a huge win and a very effective player on a tournament team.
Sheldon Jeter is just insanely underrated by most Pitt fans because it seemed like he could have done more offensively (and honestly he probably could have last year but I don't think that Stallings Ball benefited him at all) but over the past two seasons he was an above average to an elite multi-position frontcourt defender on a very bad defensive basketball team. In 15/16 he led the team in defensive rating, box score plus/minus, win share/40 minutes, and PER. There was definitely a drop off last year when Stallings came to town but he still led the team in defensive rating by a large margin as well as being second in box score plus/minus and third in win share/40. Jeter was basically the consummate glue guy and ranked highly in the ACC in all of your classic glue guy stats. He just never was quite as consistent on the offensive end of the court as we wanted him to be.
All this being said, however, recruiting was definitely not where we wanted it to be at the end under Dixon and he definitely tried to paper over the cracks pretty hard with one year rentals and JUCO players like notable bust Tyrone Haughton. Even when recruiting was below par though he was STILL landing more top 200 players than Stallings who is also papering over cracks with one year rentals and JUCO players. We have essentially replaced one problem with a nearly identical problem and I do think that we are well within our rights to panic a little bit here when we sign JUCO centers who averaged 4 points per game last year.
3 points a game but who's counting.
That seals his career
I guess there is not much chance he will work out better than that 3 star, heralded shot blocker Tyrone Haughton.
(I looked for his defensive rating, box score plus/minus, win share/40 minutes, and PER. I could not find it anywhere.)
Last edited:
