2023 prospects and offers - Page 3

WTSooner · 08-17-2021, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachTalk

I get what you’re saying but a final 4 run and sweet 16 with “those” kids says otherwise.

I don't agree with that. I know he did it twice, and that certainly counts for something, but he didn't become some great coach these last 4 years that he wasn't before. Perfect storm. Great team chemistry. I honestly believe the big center was a big part of his success (which makes me excited for T. Groves).

It's fine to be optimistic.....I am too, but those Loyola runs certainly had some luck to them. They outperformed their regular season performances against weaker competition. And don't forget the other two years between those runs.

Again, I'm not dogging Moser. The hire has grown on me, especially with a couple of the assistants we were able to land, which I was/am hoping helps with recruiting talent. My original post was just raising a question about our offers. There have been a lot of them. Some, like you said, in the top 50 or so of their classes. And some, that don't appear to have much in the way of recruiting activity/ratings as of yet. Maybe their ratings go up. Maybe they don't. Just making an observation.

skyvue · 08-17-2021, 06:33 PM

Mason's a three-star and was ranked around 250, I think, but reports from practice say he's looking great.

I for one wish recruiting rankings -- and especially the star ratings -- had never been invented.

sheepdogs1 · 08-17-2021, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyvue

Mason's a three-star and was ranked around 250, I think, but reports from practice say he's looking great.

I for one wish recruiting rankings -- and especially the star ratings -- had never been invented.

Problem is there are likely too many prospects for coaching staffs to sift through.

StoopsBros · 08-17-2021, 08:06 PM

Embedded Tweet

hoopsaustin · 08-17-2021, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAIA All-Star

Embedded Tweet

He looks teeny.. i hope the dude shoots %40+ from 3. Has decent offers. I wouldn't hate. I think we need to take local guys often

okccpa · 08-17-2021, 09:13 PM

https://247sports.com/college/iowa/A...ry--168296609/

"No discussion about the top pure shooter in the class of 2023 can be held without bringing up 6-foot-3 Parker Friedrichsen of the Tulsa Hawks," wrote 247Sports' Eric Bossi.

CoachTalk · 08-17-2021, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyvue

Mason's a three-star and was ranked around 250, I think, but reports from practice say he's looking great.

I for one wish recruiting rankings -- and especially the star ratings -- had never been invented.

Cj will be the best pup to play this year. Starts by conference IMO. If not sooner.

skyvue · 08-18-2021, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachTalk

Cj will be the best pup to play this year. Starts by conference IMO. If not sooner.

That's what I was expecting. It was a practice report here that suggested Mason was further along.

CoachTalk · 08-18-2021, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

I don't agree with that. I know he did it twice, and that certainly counts for something, but he didn't become some great coach these last 4 years that he wasn't before. Perfect storm. Great team chemistry. I honestly believe the big center was a big part of his success (which makes me excited for T. Groves).

It's fine to be optimistic.....I am too, but those Loyola runs certainly had some luck to them. They outperformed their regular season performances against weaker competition. And don't forget the other two years between those runs.

Again, I'm not dogging Moser. The hire has grown on me, especially with a couple of the assistants we were able to land, which I was/am hoping helps with recruiting talent. My original post was just raising a question about our offers. There have been a lot of them. Some, like you said, in the top 50 or so of their classes. And some, that don't appear to have much in the way of recruiting activity/ratings as of yet. Maybe their ratings go up. Maybe they don't. Just making an observation.

Mark few and scott drew will be in early September. Guess they don’t like rivals and ESPN and 24/7 star rankings.

22 class is hard to judge him on. 23 and beyond are more indicative IMO.

pnkranger · 08-18-2021, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachTalk

Cj will be the best pup to play this year. Starts by conference IMO. If not sooner.

Hard to beat the kind of physicality he brings. I've been a bit worried about speed with him. He's not the fastest. Gonna have to show he can guard quickness. If he can do that, he'll be on the floor.

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

I don't agree with that. I know he did it twice, and that certainly counts for something, but he didn't become some great coach these last 4 years that he wasn't before. Perfect storm. Great team chemistry. I honestly believe the big center was a big part of his success (which makes me excited for T. Groves).

It's fine to be optimistic.....I am too, but those Loyola runs certainly had some luck to them. They outperformed their regular season performances against weaker competition. And don't forget the other two years between those runs.

Again, I'm not dogging Moser. The hire has grown on me, especially with a couple of the assistants we were able to land, which I was/am hoping helps with recruiting talent. My original post was just raising a question about our offers. There have been a lot of them. Some, like you said, in the top 50 or so of their classes. And some, that don't appear to have much in the way of recruiting activity/ratings as of yet. Maybe their ratings go up. Maybe they don't. Just making an observation.

For a group of people who hail Kelvin Sampson so much, how do we get caught up in all this "ranking" BS. The best coaches find kids who fit there system (and look for the best athletes they can get).

We have proven over the course of most of your lifetimes that we aren't successfully recruiting against Kansa, Duke, etc consistently any more than they are against us in football. I'd much rather have a guy here who has a plan...has proven success with that plan and doesn't put all their eggs in one basket then get stuck later on.

We don't have to have 10 top 50 guys to be a really good team. I love that Moser singles out guys who play for winners....who fit a specific skill set......who fit his style and attitude. That goes a LOOOOOONG way in basketball. Plus, those guys will be here for more than one year and you can build around them.

Let Moser do his job and build this the right way.

sheepdogs1 · 08-18-2021, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaSooner

For a group of people who hail Kelvin Sampson so much, how do we get caught up in all this "ranking" BS. The best coaches find kids who fit there system (and look for the best athletes they can get).

We have proven over the course of most of your lifetimes that we aren't successfully recruiting against Kansa, Duke, etc consistently any more than they are against us in football. I'd much rather have a guy here who has a plan...has proven success with that plan and doesn't put all their eggs in one basket then get stuck later on.

We don't have to have 10 top 50 guys to be a really good team. I love that Moser singles out guys who play for winners....who fit a specific skill set......who fit his style and attitude. That goes a LOOOOOONG way in basketball. Plus, those guys will be here for more than one year and you can build around them.

Let Moser do his job and build this the right way.

In other words "the sum of the parts" matters.

BoulderSooner · 08-18-2021, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdogs1

Are you speaking of the student from Bixby? If by chance that is correct what kind of ballplayer is he on defense? I mention this because Phipps was labeled as a proficient shooter, but was he a strength or a liability from a defensive angle.

if Phipps had stuck around he would have been a major contributor by his 3rd year at OU ...

which is how it should be for lots of guys ..

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdogs1

In other words "the sum of the parts" matters.

It does matter. Look at the teams that are stacked with top 50-types who underachieved the last few years....including UNC, Duke, Kentucky, etc. Then look at the "cinderella" type teams full of multi-year guys and "projects"....like Wichita States, Butlers, Loyolas ....heck, even Houston did it with a bunch of lunch pail type guys. Give me those types. Yes, it is fun to have the 5 star guys but build a team with system guys and get the occasional top 50-top 25 guys and be successful long-term.

To be honest....I liked Lon but I did NOT like his offensive system....it left a lot to be desired for me.....defense was great.....I think Moser's offense will be better.....just give him a chance to get his guys in (top 25 or not) and see how he does.

WTSooner · 08-18-2021, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachTalk

Mark few and scott drew will be in early September.

Will be what?

WTSooner · 08-18-2021, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaSooner

For a group of people who hail Kelvin Sampson so much, how do we get caught up in all this "ranking" BS. The best coaches find kids who fit there system (and look for the best athletes they can get).

We have proven over the course of most of your lifetimes that we aren't successfully recruiting against Kansa, Duke, etc consistently any more than they are against us in football. I'd much rather have a guy here who has a plan...has proven success with that plan and doesn't put all their eggs in one basket then get stuck later on.

We don't have to have 10 top 50 guys to be a really good team. I love that Moser singles out guys who play for winners....who fit a specific skill set......who fit his style and attitude. That goes a LOOOOOONG way in basketball. Plus, those guys will be here for more than one year and you can build around them.

Let Moser do his job and build this the right way.

Give me a break. Not a fan on this site that hasn't been saying we need more talent multiple times over the last decade or two. Nobody is asking for 10 top 50 guys, so stop exaggerating to try and make a point that doesn't need to be made.

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

Give me a break. Not a fan on this site that hasn't been saying we need more talent multiple times over the last decade or two. Nobody is asking for 10 top 50 guys, so stop exaggerating to try and make a point that doesn't need to be made.

stop acting like you need a roster full of top 20 guys to compete.

find Kelvin's best teams and see how many national top 50 guys are on it.

You try to chalk up success of mid majors to "luck"......did you ever think the system has a lot to do with it and identifying talent that fits?

I didn't exaggerate anything I said...I gave you examples.

WichitaSooner · 08-18-2021, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaSooner

stop acting like you need a roster full of top 20 guys to compete.

find Kelvin's best teams and see how many national top 50 guys are on it.

You try to chalk up success of mid majors to "luck"......did you ever think the system has a lot to do with it and identifying talent that fits?

I didn't exaggerate anything I said...I gave you examples.

He won’t ever be happy unless whoever the OU coach is at any given moment recruits the exact players Kelvin recruits, plays the exact style, and hires Hollis, Quannas, and Kellen as assistants.

Moser has already offered tons of highly rated kids, so his entire premise is ludicrous.

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

He won’t ever be happy unless whoever the OU coach is at any given moment recruits the exact players Kelvin recruits, plays the exact style, and hires Hollis, Quannas, and Kellen as assistants.

Moser has already offered tons of highly rated kids, so his entire premise is ludicrous.

agreed

thebigabd · 08-18-2021, 01:34 PM

Not even sure why you offer fringe guys or lower rated players with the transfer portal being what it is... If you don't get some stud the traditional way, just fill up with transfers.

WTSooner · 08-18-2021, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebigabd

Not even sure why you offer fringe guys or lower rated players with the transfer portal being what it is... If you don't get some stud the traditional way, just fill up with transfers.

THAT was closer to my point than the other discussion. Top 50? Top 20? Kelvin Sampson? I never mentioned any of them in my original post.

I just thought it odd that we've already offered so many low/unranked kids. I'm not ignoring the fact that we've offered some highly ranked kids, but that just makes it even odder that we're already offering a bunch of kids that in my mind, we probably shouldn't be.

We only stand to lose 3 kids with each of the next two classes. That doesn't open up a ton of scholarships that we should be throwing them around, already (2023) to some kids. Just an observation. Just something to discuss. But of course, some folks have to start in with the personal attacks instead of talking basketball. They'll also be the first to complain the first time you (thebigabd) try to discuss another team as well. Let's just sit here in silence. lmao

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

THAT was closer to my point than the other discussion. Top 50? Top 20? Kelvin Sampson? I never mentioned any of them in my original post.

I just thought it odd that we've already offered so many low/unranked kids. I'm not ignoring the fact that we've offered some highly ranked kids, but that just makes it even odder that we're already offering a bunch of kids that in my mind, we probably shouldn't be.

We only stand to lose 3 kids with each of the next two classes. That doesn't open up a ton of scholarships that we should be throwing them around, already (2023) to some kids. Just an observation. Just something to discuss. But of course, some folks have to start in with the personal attacks instead of talking basketball. They'll also be the first to complain the first time you (thebigabd) try to discuss another team as well. Let's just sit here in silence. lmao

it also fits right to my point. You communicate and offer some diamonds in the rough, etc...doesn't mean you fill up with those guys or even take them immediately....but you have to lay the groundwork. If a guy fits what you need and fits into the culture of your program maybe you prefer a guy ranked 125 vs one ranked 55? who knows.....a coach knows what fits and what it will take to be successful within his system.

Noone attacked you WT....there wasn't a personal attack. I made points and used examples of what I was talking about with the blue bloods and the mid-majors.

I mean, honestly, what makes you think we are consistently beating out KU, UK, Duke, UNC and those schools for top tier guys. KU has been a thorn in our side for higher ranked kids we were in on. YOU used Loyola, etc as examples of "luck" to go far in the tournament. There is very little luck involved in winning 20+ games at any level in college basketball. EVERY team needs some luck in the tournament...but the vast majority of the teams there for legit reasons....and if they make it to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond they are there because they are legit...not because they are lucky.

WTSooner · 08-18-2021, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaSooner

it also fits right to my point. You communicate and offer some diamonds in the rough, etc...doesn't mean you fill up with those guys or even take them immediately....but you have to lay the groundwork. If a guy fits what you need and fits into the culture of your program maybe you prefer a guy ranked 125 vs one ranked 55? who knows.....a coach knows what fits and what it will take to be successful within his system.

Noone attacked you WT....there wasn't a personal attack. I made points and used examples of what I was talking about with the blue bloods and the mid-majors.

I mean, honestly, what makes you think we are consistently beating out KU, UK, Duke, UNC and those schools for top tier guys. KU has been a thorn in our side for higher ranked kids we were in on. YOU used Loyola, etc as examples of "luck" to go far in the tournament. There is very little luck involved in winning 20+ games at any level in college basketball. EVERY team needs some luck in the tournament...but the vast majority of the teams there for legit reasons....and if they make it to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond they are there because they are legit...not because they are lucky.

AGAIN.....where did I ever say anything about top tier guys? And beating out KU, UK, Duke, and UNC?

You are STILL trying to make this about something it is not. Read my words, and stop injecting other stuff into it. I haven't said half the stuff you are arguing.

There is a HUGE gap between top 25 kids and unranked kids. HUGE.

CoachTalk · 08-18-2021, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

Will be what?

Will be in Bixby to see him.

NorthCarolinaSooner · 08-18-2021, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSooner

AGAIN.....where did I ever say anything about top tier guys? And beating out KU, UK, Duke, and UNC?

You are STILL trying to make this about something it is not. Read my words, and stop injecting other stuff into it. I haven't said half the stuff you are arguing.

There is a HUGE gap between top 25 kids and unranked kids. HUGE.

You need to refer to my first post. It was a broad based post to multiple people on the board...not you specifically...I did quote your post in it but it was just making a point about several guys on here who complain about recruiting....not you specifically. That probably started part of our miscommunication/disagreement.