Rivals now lists him as 6-7.When did he shrink 2"? There should be a uniform system for reporting heights.With Thiam there remain 4 open sships.With no srs I would give 1 to a 5th yr grad;1 to a strong transfer;1 to a frosh,if any 3 stars or better left and put 1 in mothball. That would give coach at least 2 for 2017 and at least 3 for 2018.
Thiam and scholarships
- Thread starter wrsu/74
- Start date
I don't agree. Leaving one scholarship open and taking one transfer to sit out next season will leave us with no more than 11 scholarship players to be able to play in games next season. We have taken this route too often and when guys get injured we are too thin. I think we must have a minimum of 12 scholarship players to be able to suit up for games next season. We usually have at least one guy that we lose to transfer or such each year. If we leave one open or take a 5th year grad student we will probably have at least 2 scholarships for 2017 and maybe more with a transfer . We must worry about the now at this time.
I had heard that Thiam had actually grown taller and might even be 6'10". Which is really true?
I had heard that Thiam had actually grown taller and might even be 6'10". Which is really true?
IMO, Gotta have two open spots going into the Fall signing period. Maybe two 5th year grads or 1 grad and leave an open spot. I don't think we oversign and hope (force) a transfer out.....like Duke. If we think Sanders is gone after his 2nd year that leaves a 3rd spot.
I think we take as many grad transfers as needed to fill our roster for next year. Hopefully a couple more 4 year kids but don't overreach to get them. I am less concerned about that with this staff. If you take a transfer you better be sure they are worth tying up a scholarship for an extra year. Hughes Duncan and Mitchell come to mind.
This. Did you guys actually watch last season? I don't care how we do it but we need 12 players min...we need at least one more big man 4 year guy and then we can fill out with a couple 5th year guys.
The scale used must be rigged against Rutgers.Its truly mindboggling that accurate measurements of height and weight are so hard to obtain regardless of the sport.
with thiam and bullock...we have enough players...but we have no depth
ADD as many 5th year players as possible
Save FOUR ships for next year...when the whole team returns (except for any 5th year players)...unless something good land in the lap...I would avoid transfers that aren't 5th year guys unless something that can really help...don't want to overload classes again...
Next year
Sr- NONE
Jr-Freeman/Johnson/WIllams
So-Sanders/Laurent/Diallo/Doorson
Fr-Thiam/Bullock
ADD as many 5th year players as possible
Save FOUR ships for next year...when the whole team returns (except for any 5th year players)...unless something good land in the lap...I would avoid transfers that aren't 5th year guys unless something that can really help...don't want to overload classes again...
Next year
Sr- NONE
Jr-Freeman/Johnson/WIllams
So-Sanders/Laurent/Diallo/Doorson
Fr-Thiam/Bullock
This team will most definitely be shorthanded for the 2016-17 season.
The type of players available to HC's hired in March/April are not likely to offer much help. These are the Robert Lumpkins', Frank Mitchell's, JJ Morre's, Craig Brown's, Kerwin Okoro's and D'Von Campbell's of the college basketball landscape. Sure a Junior Etou may be out there. Maybe a Mike Poole. If you are extremely fortunate maybe you can find a Jerome Coleman. But those three are the exceptions certainly not the rule. And finding FOUR of them? I just don't see it.
Folks believing, or worse expecting, Coach Pikiell to fill four scholarships in the next 6 weeks with players that can "really help" I believe are setting themselves up for disappointment.
The type of players available to HC's hired in March/April are not likely to offer much help. These are the Robert Lumpkins', Frank Mitchell's, JJ Morre's, Craig Brown's, Kerwin Okoro's and D'Von Campbell's of the college basketball landscape. Sure a Junior Etou may be out there. Maybe a Mike Poole. If you are extremely fortunate maybe you can find a Jerome Coleman. But those three are the exceptions certainly not the rule. And finding FOUR of them? I just don't see it.
Folks believing, or worse expecting, Coach Pikiell to fill four scholarships in the next 6 weeks with players that can "really help" I believe are setting themselves up for disappointment.
JJ Moore was a really solid player. Rutgers would be extremely fortunate to land someone of his caliber at this point. But I agree with your overall point here
JJ Moore was about "getting his". If he scored 12 a game the guy JJ was guarding was scoring 15-20. He averaged zero f--ks given per game on defense. How much of that was on Moore versus how much was on Eddie is certainly a worthy topic.
I used Moore as, I thought, a pretty good example of a type that's available. Some of these available kids may be somewhat highly regarded kids out of HS who never lived up to billing at their first school. Many will come to a school like Rutgers for one reason..."to get theirs". I am not denying JJ Moore wasn't a better CBB player than a Craig Brown. But "me first" guys like Moore aren't making Rutgers any better than Craig Brown would. Get a kid with Moore's ability to "buy in" and I agree you may have something.
Kids like Poole or Etou or Coleman help. They can make a Rutgers team better. Not so much kids like JJ Moore. And there are many more JJ Moore's and Robert Lumpkins out there right now than there are Junior Etou's and Jerome Coleman's.
Last edited:
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
A lot of this is true but Craig Brown was one of the worst D1 players I've ever seen. He would have had more success on our football team...and Jordan started him for a while...lol
Craig Brown? I wrote this before in Jordan's first season RU was playing pretty well at UCONN. Mack goes to bench and Brown comes in and misses I am pretty sure 3 straight shots. Mack comes back in and lead for UCONN went from 4 to like 10. That is how bad bench was and Brown was a Rice recruit.
Yes I did. And more important than the number of players available was the quality of the players available. That's why the coach is gone.
Word is that he grew since this was posted and is now very close to 6'10".
So whats the difference between having to play walkons last year because of injuries and having to play walkons this year because of injuries if it happens. The "quality" will still be the same
Really. Walkons will magically become B1G level talent under Pike. This is about how many scholarship level players we need not who is a better coach.
It's the quality of the remainder of the team that is the real problem. It isn't going to be fixed this year, and the unending string of quality 5th year transfers that you suggest RU can get isn't real. Nor, frankly, is the string of any recruits that can be gotten right now.
Next year will be bad. RU can't get players to fix that right now, and giving away scholarships just to fill out a roster isn't the answer. Whether walk-ons or last-minute players off the recruiting scrap heap, it won't matter. Next recruiting season we'll have an opportunity to get talented players.
Actually I have said that the #1 priority is a freshman big man that can steal some minutes this year but really be a productive player by his senior season like say a Joynes type.
But your argument is flawed...we are gonna suck anyway so screw it the first 15 fans in the arena get a game jersey? 5th year seniors don't cost anything and you can get people that may not be first team big ten but can at least contribute. This year is not about being a final four team but if we give people just enough that fans and recruits can see what could be then we can really get the train going. Don't undersell that.
Don't assume there are no players out there that are good players. You can get quality players late - if you have a staff that can identify them and develop them. I hope we keep Thiam and think there will be a couple of solid additions as well. Keep the faith. We have a staff that will not be outworked and will actually bring in kids they feel they can develop.
That's right. There's a flock of 5th year seniors out there who RU will get and who will appreciably improve the team.
I am in favor of getting 5th year graduate seniors so that Pikeill can buy a year to fill those same scholarships. Also, you can maybe get a 2017 player to re-classify to 2016, but for the most part it seems the 5th year seniors are the immediate solution
I don't see anyone saying that they would be season changes. Still they allow the staff to field a full team, and their spots become available for 2017 recruits.
Just not sure what folks expect the Omari Grier's and Robert Lumpkins' and Vince Garrett's are going to add to the 2016-2017 Rutgers basketball team.
I applaud the staff for landing Bullock. I am hoping he can have a "Mike-Poole-like" impact as a frosh. I understand we are going to be shorthanded next year. That is the hand Coach Pikiell was dealt. If Pikiell or Knight or Hobbs have a relationship with a kid or two they think can help for '16 (and hopefully beyond) then by all means go for it. If the staff like Thiam then I hope they are focusing/expending their efforts on keeping him.
But, other than that I hope Coach Pikiell and Hobbs and Knight and Young are figuring out how to bring in an impact frosh class for the '17-'18 season rather than a stopgap kid or two. The class of '17 is going to help Rutgers a whole heck of a lot more than anything that can be "grabbed off the waiver wire" right now.
Bringing in a 5th grad has no impact on the staff's ability to bring in an impact frosh for the '17-'18 season. At worst you have an experienced guy who helps the team develop by being a good practice player.
A 5th year grad brings depth for next year and a free scholarship for 2017
Until the Program gets up and running I'm in favor of taking a 5th year guy every year.
It's a 1 year deal and it doesn't impact your recruiting.
The problem is in many cases good players coming from poor teams want to go to a place where they have a legit chance to make the NCAA's.
It's a 1 year deal and it doesn't impact your recruiting.
The problem is in many cases good players coming from poor teams want to go to a place where they have a legit chance to make the NCAA's.
Even if next year is a basic write off, it will interesting to see how the new staff does with less then B1G talent compared to the last 3 years. You can only do so much if you can't attract upper tier recruits so it's a slow go, but any fan wants to see some progress. When was the last time you saw a major college player take a foul shot and miss the rim but hit the backboard. All the games I've ever watched, I have NEVER seen that happen until this year. Puzzling ???
I'm fine with next year being a write-off...to a point but what's wrong with trying to be respectable after this disastrous season. We haven't even been competitive for 3 years and it would be nice to go into the next recruiting season with some excitmeent. I'm not talking 15 wins...just competitiveness. Some real coaching, defense, Sanders, and a couple of 5th year seniors and maybe the RAC won't be a morgue next season.
Last edited:
I hope there is a Jeff Greer-type of player like Bannon landed as his first recruit in the spring...
Who are the 5th year players available? Name, school, height, shooting percentage, 3 point shooting percentage, defensive ability, last years scoring average, last years rebounding average and overall talent level......................nevermind
Our coaches don't look at stats or read a message board to determine who to go after.
You are talking about pouring over hours of film, visiting the kid, his family, getting a feel if a kid is the right fit, understanding his academic aspirations, his reasons for seeking a grad transfer etc. etc. Then selling him on Rutgers. Lets say it is somewhere between 70-100 hours to properly evaluate and build a relationship with a kid. Fair? And I imagine if that is the path you take you are talking about multiple kids to review not just hope to go "1 for 1", right?
Not saying the staff shouldn't explore these options, but I guess my point is would I rather have the staff spend those hours on the level of kid you get in a grad transfer to Rutgers or spend those hours "getting in" with a 2017 or 2018 kid, his coaches, advisors, family, etc.
Time is not an infinite commodity (well I guess theoretically it is, but our staff's time isn't).
Similar threads
