ADVERTISEMENT

Frankie Policelli to visit Friday

Just a quick analysis. Policelli has long arms.He looks to be about 6 8. He is not extremely explosive, but he takes committed strides and is able to score against a bump. He can also dribble at an above average level for a kid his size. Policelli has a decent stroke, at times it looks like he pushes too much, and the ball starts in front of his body, but it is a somewhat quick release.

He does not jump out at you as a HM player, but there definitely is potential. Has a kind of a slow, decisive way to his game. He is also an above average passer for his size and position, and I am sure that is what jumps out to the coaches.

4 year player. His game could use speeding up, and that kind of places a ceiling on it temporarily. If he makes proper decisions, I do not mind the speed. Still, Policelli can be worked with and can be seen as another glue player who is willing to pass, has an average to above average shot. I could see why Rutgers extended an offer.
 
George Washington, Rhode Island, VCU, Iona, Washington. Quality programs have offered. Looks like Frankie's got a nice stroke - not supreme athleticism (based on the videos I watched). @Russ Wood any insights would be appreciated here!
 
Just watched some vid. Well he's certainly not a dunker. Doesn't seem to get off the ground much at all, doesnt look to drive. At least, per a short highlight reel, has a nice midrange jumpet, shows some good court vision when passing to cutters, and shows some good instincts on the defensive end when blocking shots. Gotta love his length. Seems like more of a cerebral player. Not much wow factor in his game at all, doesnt show a tremendous handle, but thats ok. If he comes in mostly as a shooter, esp. midrange, with that length, we could really have something to work with.
 
Based on who he is offered and who has signed I think it is clear the staff is going a different direction on what the roster should look like. it won't be long before the "poor shooting" or "short" monikers are lifted from the program.
 
We will see. Austin Carrol could shoot too. That's great but if you don't have the speed and athleticism to go with it you won't be much of a factor in big ten play.

There are no shortcuts. No secret formulas. We either recruit consistently in the top 150 or we will never win. That doesn't mean every single player has to be a top 150 recruit but certainly the majority need to be.
 
If this kid was a transfer after spending a year at another program, I personally would not look at him. As a 4 year player, redshirt, there is potential. I fully trust the staff. Best to Policelli as he tries to find his place.
 
The rumor was that's syracuse was going to get involved, which probably explains the Washington offer with hopkins headed there.
 
We will see. Austin Carrol could shoot too. That's great but if you don't have the speed and athleticism to go with it you won't be much of a factor in big ten play.

There are no shortcuts. No secret formulas. We either recruit consistently in the top 150 or we will never win. That doesn't mean every single player has to be a top 150 recruit but certainly the majority need to be.

I agree 100% that there are no shortcuts. I disagree with everything else. How many coaching staffs are we going to need to see fail before we realize something different needs to be done.

Continue to fish from the Top 150 and land ultra flawed players and lose and then be out a job in 4 years.
 
And by the way Seton Hall is the perfect example. They started recuiting in the top 150 consistently and bam tourney team despite Willard being just an ok coach.
 
And by the way Seton Hall is the perfect example. They started recuiting in the top 150 consistently and bam tourney team despite Willard being just an ok coach.

Definitely true. Willard is very much just an okay coach. Pikiell will get there within three years. Also, the SHU-Rutgers games will be competitive from here on out.
 
The key has never been recruiting, you only need one batch of 3 to 4 year players to carry a program ala Seton Hall or others and you can get where you need to go.

The other key RU has lacked was consistent recruiting across 3 to 4 classes, since 40% of the recruits in the Top 150 "bust" or don't play to their ranking/potential. If you don't have specific roles and a game plan for the Top 9-10 players in your program, you are more likely to fail in your rebuild.

RU also (similar to football), has selected poor coaching staffs in the majority of the last 2 decades of play....if they had a decent HC (Waters/Rice), then the assistants or other things entered the picture.....if they had one very good recruiting class, the remainder of the parts weren't Top 150 players, they were so far away from a competitive level, that you had no depth to fall back on.

This type of recruit is what RU typically misses out on, because they chased a higher ranked kid, thinking of the quick fix or microwave mentality of the program....when you miss kids that land at St. Joes or elsewhere and you don't have a developmental program and a role, the win-loss record doesn't improve.

I have no idea about whether it's Policelli or Jimmy Nichols or Samba Diallo or Mo Kelly or any of the wings being evaluated.....the bottom line is the player has to be solid enough or decent enough to add value, so there is more than one thing the player brings to the table.

RU historically has been a poor passing team and you can have athletes, but if they aren't comfortable with playmaking, then it does you no good....Policelli is safe enough with a lot of upside to improve RU, but so are a lot of the targets on the board. His game translates to how we played this past year on both ends of the court. I think he's a definite player that can help RU get out of the bottom quarter of the league, because he understands how to play the game, despite not being the explosive leaper like some other prospects rated higher, that frankly, just don't understand game-situations/concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutger80 and LC-88
all of them

This.

Top 150 players we've gotten in Rivals Era:

Quincy Douby(4)
Marquis Webb
Anthony Farmer
JR Inman(4)
Jaron Griffin
Hamady N'Diaye(4)
Corey Chandler(4)
Mike Rosario(4)
Greg Echenique(4)
Dane Miller(4)
Eli Carter
Jerome Seagears(4)
Myles Mack
Greg Lewis
Kadeem Jack(4)
Dwayne Foreman
Corey Sanders(4)

We've averaged about 1 150 player per class. We were doing better until the Jordan era where we only got 2 Rivals 150 players.
 
This.

Top 150 players we've gotten in Rivals Era:

Quincy Douby(4)
Marquis Webb
Anthony Farmer
JR Inman(4)
Jaron Griffin
Hamady N'Diaye(4)
Corey Chandler(4)
Mike Rosario(4)
Greg Echenique(4)
Dane Miller(4)
Eli Carter
Jerome Seagears(4)
Myles Mack
Greg Lewis
Kadeem Jack(4)
Dwayne Foreman
Corey Sanders(4)

We've averaged about 1 150 player per class. We were doing better until the Jordan era where we only got 2 Rivals 150 players.
And is it coincidence that the best team we had had 6 top 150 players and Ricky Shield who I can't find his ranking but I would bet he was ranked high and/or had multiple P5 offers. And even that team was only an NIT team. The reason it was an NIT team was because we needed about 3 other top 150 recruits to make it an NCAA team. He was close. Real close. The Bailey class killed our chance.
 
Last edited:
And is it coincidence that the best team we had had 5 top 150 players. And even that team was only an NIT team.

Douby was a unique player, so while a 150 type of kid, probably played at the right school and became the focal point of the offense to likely play to a Top 40 level nationally....I would stretch that to a Top 200 level vs 150, but that's just my own way of not necessarily seeing a drastic difference between player 151 and player 200 on a national recruiting ranking.

If you land 6 Top 150 kids over a 3 year span (or 2 a year/recruiting class), things typically should improve enough to sustain itself....the key is when you get to Year 4, can you duplicate it and get it to the point where you have 8 Top 150 caliber kids on your roster all across three or 4 recruiting classes.

The remaining 5 scholarship players then have to be at least serviceable or with a defined role on the roster, so if they are a starter, they do one or two things well like defend/rebound or pass...they don't all have to be starting caliber scoring threats.

I would not look at "top 150", I would just simplify it and ask yourself, can this prospect crack your current Top 8 or 9 man rotation each and every game?? If the answer is Yes, then you can recruit the prospect regardless of whether the player is an immediate starter....if you get to Year 4 of a regime and you find it harder to automatically plug in a player as a freshman into your Top 8-9 rotation, then you have the depth/quality seasoning to get the program moving forward.
 
Douby was a unique player, so while a 150 type of kid, probably played at the right school and became the focal point of the offense to likely play to a Top 40 level nationally....I would stretch that to a Top 200 level vs 150, but that's just my own way of not necessarily seeing a drastic difference between player 151 and player 200 on a national recruiting ranking.

If you land 6 Top 150 kids over a 3 year span (or 2 a year/recruiting class), things typically should improve enough to sustain itself....the key is when you get to Year 4, can you duplicate it and get it to the point where you have 8 Top 150 caliber kids on your roster all across three or 4 recruiting classes.

The remaining 5 scholarship players then have to be at least serviceable or with a defined role on the roster, so if they are a starter, they do one or two things well like defend/rebound or pass...they don't all have to be starting caliber scoring threats.

I would not look at "top 150", I would just simplify it and ask yourself, can this prospect crack your current Top 8 or 9 man rotation each and every game?? If the answer is Yes, then you can recruit the prospect regardless of whether the player is an immediate starter....if you get to Year 4 of a regime and you find it harder to automatically plug in a player as a freshman into your Top 8-9 rotation, then you have the depth/quality seasoning to get the program moving forward.
Honestly I disagree with a lot of this post but don't feel like breaking it down starting with Douby. Bottom line I just showed how recruiting in the top 150 will make your team better. The more you do it the better you will be and you aren't making the tournament without doing it. Pike doesn't have to do it to say take us to a 500 record but he will have to do it before we have a winning record and he certainly has to do it before we go to the NCAAs.
 
To me recruiting means attempts and not just successes. Pole in the water.

The results are either no fish or fish that shouldn't be in the top 150. Undersized, or can't shot, or bad teammates, or a combination of both.
 
You will never find a coach that is not recruiting in the top 150. We are all over Mathis. We were recruiting Reid hard. I am sure we are on the other top 150 NJ recruits as well. And your post makes zero sense. We have had solid to very good players come out of our top 150 recruits and we have had some busts just like every other program.
 
And is it coincidence that the best team we had had 6 top 150 players and Ricky Shield who I can't find his ranking but I would bet he was ranked high and/or had multiple P5 offers. And even that team was only an NIT team. The reason it was an NIT team was because we needed about 3 other top 150 recruits to make it an NCAA team. He was close. Real close. The Bailey class killed our chance.
Nice point. Not only does it highlight that many of those 150s were clustered on one team, but it also shows that 1 per recruiting class is not enough. RU is competing to get one of the top 45-50ish teams in the country to get into the NCAAs. If it's average haul is only 1 of the top 150 each year, or less, it ain't getting there, not even close. There's no margin for error on the recruits. They all have to be winners, which rarely happens. No matter the arguments that are pasted together to try to explain that RU isn't going to need top talent, it's going to need top talent.
 
The list doesn't include players like James Beatty, Mike Coburn, Gilvydas Biruta, Mike Poole, Adrian Hill, and Austin Johnson who were not in the Rivals Top 150, but were also better contributors than players on that 150 list.

You only see what you want to see willis, which is negativity, and that players outside the Top 150 are worthless.
 
The list doesn't include players like James Beatty, Mike Coburn, Gilvydas Biruta, Mike Poole, Adrian Hill, and Austin Johnson who were not in the Rivals Top 150, but were also better contributors than players on that 150 list.

You only see what you want to see willis, which is negativity, and that players outside the Top 150 are worthless.

When you have limited knowledge of the game negativity is all you have to offer.
 
ADVERTISEMENT