Eddie's time was up. Chances are he'd be gone by Bullock's sophomore season. At least with Pikiell, Bullock will have at least three years of development from the same coach. That's just one reason.
Bullock officially offered today
- Thread starter SirScarlet
- Start date
It was clear to many of us that Eddie couldn't win even with higher ranked kids. We didn't see it happening with unranked players.
If he missed it, he wouldn't be alone. Rather than teasing a response from someone, then running away from your point and making him feel like he wasted his time responding, engage him. If this was to be your reply to an inevitable response like his, don't make the point in the first place or don't make it in a vague, passively-aggressive way that gives you a back-door exit from the debate room.
Look guys. Why make this more complicated than it has to be. Forget about anyone's agenda. The answer to BK's question is easy. RESULTS.
Given the opportunities presented to them, one coach has gotten results and one hasn't. So, until proven otherwise, the coach with the successful track record will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Double standard is by BK. He's whiney because he doesn't like anyone being impressed by Pikiell's week #1 verbal compared to many of the verbals that BK's man, Jordan, was getting in classes #3 and 4.
Hell, yeah, we would have been excited if Eddie had reeled in a Jersey kid like Bullock in his first class instead of D'von Campbell. And, if you remember, most of us were impressed that he was able to land Okoro, an NYC kid, in that class.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/3/26...roselle-catholics-matt-bullock-receives-offer
This article makes those of you trying to shoot down the significance of this commit sound so.....so.....so bad. wow.
it also makes Jordan's scouting sound absolutely terrible.
This article makes those of you trying to shoot down the significance of this commit sound so.....so.....so bad. wow.
it also makes Jordan's scouting sound absolutely terrible.
many of us actually questioned why RU wasnt offering this guy seeing he really wanted to go here and comparing this guy to what was coming in and their offers, you would think this guy could offer something different and help us. I agree that we need to treat this somewhat cautiously but I would rather have a guy from NJ at a top program who actively wanted to come here over the flyers that Jordan has taken on guys and who he has proven he couldnt coach them out of a bag
I'm glad a Jersey talent was offered and he accepted the offer received.
But wonder if Jordan had offered a similar talent from another State , what would be the reaction by some that felt he was a terrible recruiter .
Hope I don't get attacked as a whiner and Jordie for asking.
For me, Bullock being a Jersey HS player makes his offer a good one and his accepting it the start of RU MBB mining its own state for the HS talent it should be getting over other local P-5 programs.
But Rutgers must , in a couple of years, become a player when it comes to recruiting the top NJ HS talent and those in the States close to New Jersey.
But wonder if Jordan had offered a similar talent from another State , what would be the reaction by some that felt he was a terrible recruiter .
Hope I don't get attacked as a whiner and Jordie for asking.
For me, Bullock being a Jersey HS player makes his offer a good one and his accepting it the start of RU MBB mining its own state for the HS talent it should be getting over other local P-5 programs.
But Rutgers must , in a couple of years, become a player when it comes to recruiting the top NJ HS talent and those in the States close to New Jersey.
It would've been easier to sell taking a guy lacking offers from a top powerhouse in jersey than the random no name recruits he had coming in from all over.
To me, the whole key is the coaching. I look at a guy like Bullock and think, "This guy could be a monster. He could be the guy other teams hate play against." But he needs a team of coaches who care about him and know what they're doing. My hope is that that will be who are coaches are. I'm always hopeful (thought Rice was going to get us there when he was first hired), but I'm really hopeful with Pikiell. Really want to see a great recruiter and a great developer of players join the staff.
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/steve-pikiells-first-move-shows-its-a-new-era-for-rutgers-hoops/
Yesterdays NY Post. Sorry if linking a New York newspaper is considered bad form here. A lot of positive headlines all around though lately for Rutgers. Hope it translates into helping players want to come here.
Yesterdays NY Post. Sorry if linking a New York newspaper is considered bad form here. A lot of positive headlines all around though lately for Rutgers. Hope it translates into helping players want to come here.
It is great to see the exposure in the NY Post too. Maybe we are making a dent.
BK - you pose a fair question - one that likely does not have a universal answer -
Clearly there were some who had gotten to the point where ANYTHING Jordan was going to be subject to criticism - (granted, some were at that point on day one) - and they would pounce on this commit as something did not conform to "conventional wisdom" and did not measure up to the "ideal"
... the ranks of those who felt this way seem to have mushroomed as time went by and as it be came more and more clear (after a short three years) that Jordan's path to success was going to depend on EJ obtaining the very best caliber of 'conventional' players at all positions - in essence, a Jordan team would be little more than the sum of its parts (if that) ... so the assessment of a prospect for a Jordan led team boiled down to some pretty simple calculus - Few stars=BAD / many stars=GOOD ... to put it another way - Eddie Jordan, as great as he is in terms of Rutgers basketball playing history, did not distinguish himself as being a clever, resourceful, creative MacGyver-like coach - who could employ brilliant strategy, utilize unconventional / under rated players & win games with finesse - if Eddie was going to win a battle, he was going to generally need to have bigger & better conventional weapons than his opponent
Now a new coach tends to get the benefit of the doubt - especially when he can point to a record of turning around bleak programs & of having coaxed pleasantly surprising results out of a collection of unremarkable prospects.
Another key part of the picture - while not totally conclusive, it does seem that Pikiell is an innovative coach who has been able to produce TEAMS that are far greater than the simple sum of their parts.
The other factor is timing - it is now late, late March of 2016 ... EJ was recruiting for the 2016 class of recruits Rutgers for the past 3 years - - at this point most 2016 recruits are spoken for - EJ's 'body of work' for the 2016 class was essentially done ... and was not really impressive - If, late in the process, EJ were to pick up a somewhat out-of-the-box talent, the response would be why? why did it take so long?
..... but then on the other hand, when a new coach like Pikiell comes in and is on the job for less than a week, - and manages to make connections and find a player from a traditional NJ basketball power to add to the team - it is legitimate to judge it a bit differently.
With due respect will disagree. You are either a high level college basketball player or you aren't. All the coaching in the world won't take an athlete who simply can't compete at the highest level and make him a player. I'm sure you'll find a couple of exceptions but they are rare
What is clear is that there are plenty of times when coaches misjudge and do not think a player is a high level athlete (and don't offer) and later on it becomes clear that they ARE a high level athlete
Or more commonly ,which has happened countless times in the last 20 years at RU--a coach thinks that a player is a high level basketball player and it turns out they are not
Let's hope Bullock is a player and that many coaches missed the boat here.
Patrick -- RU has a lengthy list of kids that pretty obviously fell into the category of "not D-1 baller" -- Justin Sofman, Muhamed Hasani, Austin Carroll, Justin Goode -- that no coach would turn into a BE or B1G contributor. Everyone seemed to know that at the time each signed his NLI except the then current Rutgers staff.
Bullock is a player. The hope is that his flaw of being a tweener that turned off P5 staffs can be converted into a positive with a good S&C, development of his skills and the right scheme to take advantage of potential mismatches. Better programs didn't need to invest the time in a kid like Bullock. Rutgers has no choice but to try.
Bullock is a player. The hope is that his flaw of being a tweener that turned off P5 staffs can be converted into a positive with a good S&C, development of his skills and the right scheme to take advantage of potential mismatches. Better programs didn't need to invest the time in a kid like Bullock. Rutgers has no choice but to try.
In your first paragraph, you list players that were obviously not even close to being B1G or Big East players. But there's way, way more just-not-talented-enough players than that in RU's history, and they often aren't quite as obvious. The current roster has a good number of not-good-enough-for-the-B1G players, not just the recently transferred Goode.
Your second paragraph simply describes in more detail what Patrick is saying won't matter with lots and lots of players who simply aren't B1G talent. Coaching helps. And there may be some borderline players or those who were crazy undeveloped and undercoached and who could then possibly be coached up to be able to compete in a top league. But that doesn't change the main point that, for the most part, you have the talent or you don't.
Frankly, a kid like Bullock, if the consensus of every other basketball program and all their coaches from top conferences is right, seems less likely to be the exception who can be coached-up to compete in the B1G from a place where he once wasn't. He's already well coached, coming out of a top HS program. He's already a smart and hard-working player, given everything we've read.
Rather, I think our real hope is that all those other schools simply got it wrong and over-weighted the deficiencies in size and speed and undervalued his other skills and ability to, as you mention, take advantage of mismatches. But if that happens, I doubt it will be because he was suddenly coached into being able to do that. It will be because he had the talent to do so all the time.
I think Bullock's contribution will be on coach. He comes in w/rep of heart, toughness, and smarts. I think it'll be about creating and recognizing matchup advantages. If he's too slow to handle some guards, he can be too strong for them to handle. If he's too small to handle big 3s and 4s, he can take them outside for j shot or take them off dribble. I like the kid. Great sixth man/situational addition.
Lots of guys in this year's NCAA's and NIT who are the wrong size. but have hustle, smarts and want to--all of which Bullock apparently has. Those guys are faring well, so no reason Bullock cannot. Good first recruit. We can expect him to be pesky on defense and a smart offensive player.
TL
TL
I think the main reason people aren't ripping Pikiell for getting Bullock(with his offer list being what it is) is that he is from a major power in NJ, not some out of the way school in North Carolina. Knowing the guy is good enough to start on a team that won multiple championships. Plus, you recruit with an eye to the future. (Create a pipeline to Roselle Catholic, etc)
Let me ask you this. If it's so obvious and he was at a high-profile school that any major program would notice, why did no other major program offer?
He's perceived as not having a position in college at the high major level.
He's built more like a tallish linebacker or TE recruit than a basketball player. He has all the intangibles, toughness, leadership etc., and he's skilled. But as college hoops players go he has thick legs and short arms. He doesn't fit the mold.
The NBA is full of guys that are the wrong size for their position--as Sir Charles was. It isn't always about pure physical attributes.
TL
TL
Not sure about full of it, but I agree that they are there. I'm simply pointing out that of the people who do this for a living, that is the people whose jobs are on the line when they choose players to offer and those not to offer, not a single one of them that is a major program other than RU offered Bullock. To me, that means more than any opinion I might read on here.
Now, Pikiell may be right, and he's certainly in a situation that might make a gamble worth it. But when I read that the offer was a "no brainer" or that he's going to be good on this board, I take that with a grain of salt. And, since I try to avoid salt, I don't take it at all. While I'm all behind hoping that Pikiell got it right, there's nothing here that makes that a slum dunk or anything close to it.
