We have another burger - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We have another burger (/thread-23992.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We have another burger (/thread-23992.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: We have another burger - SkiBum80 - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 03:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:Sorry, but I respectfully disagree(01-27-2023, 04:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One other comment about Haase. I think you can and should be able to have a competitive basketball team with mostly solid three star players and a couple of 4* and one headliner, as Haase has. A starting five of two three star players, two four star players and a five star player should not be near the bottom of the Pac-12. Like, even if you look at our competitor's high school ratings, we still have comparable talent to them, not talent that would lose 0-5 to them.
Not that I disagree, but it should be noted that our starting five is NOT two three star players, two four star players, and a five star players.
It's FOUR three star players and a five star player. Silva does not start (and only played a whopping 9 minutes against Chicago State). The other four star - Jaylen Thompson - isn't even playing this season. He's redshirting.
I have no trouble believing a starting rotation of FOUR three star players and a five star player could absolutely be near the bottom of the Pac-12.
Raynaud is a frequent starter now and if USA HS origin he’d have been at least a 4star.
So our starting is most reasonably a 5, a 4, and 3 3’s. Comparable to some other pac 12’s and arguably better than some like Cal who Buried us.
Fortunately we seem to have taken a page outta Stanford WBB and playing w more intensity tonight
RE: We have another burger - BostonCard - 01-28-2023
Stanford’s recruiting classes since 2019:
2019: 7th in the PAC-12; 4* (1, Terry), 3* (2)
2020: 3rd in the PAC-12; 5* (1, Williams), 3* (4)
2021: 2nd in the PAC-12; 5* (1, Ingram), 4* (1, Silva), 3* (1)
2022: 8th in the PAC-12; 4* (1, Thompson), 3* (1)
BC
In four years, we’ve recruited five players that are four or more star players, including two five-star players. Our average recruiting class was fifth in the conference, yet we just played Cal to escape the conference cellar. No one is saying that Haase has the talent that should compete for the title, but is it too much to ask for to have the team compete for a .500 conference record?
Part of the problem is that two of the five declared for the NBA, though other schools lose players to the NBA as well. Yes, other schools can replenish some talent through the transfer portal, though they probably lose more talent to the portal as well. I think part of it is that players don’t develop, so there’s no upshot for NBA prospects to stay at Stanford. I think also that Haase spends so much time trying to recruit whales, including, perhaps, the rumor that he wrote Williams a handwritten letter daily, that the classes tend to be unbalanced, with one or two headliners, who may not stick around long, and a bunch of plan B’s.
In any case, I struggle to see how the current roster can be in the bottom quartile of PAC-12 rosters, though I could be convinced if you added up the other pac-12 rosters and showed that through retaining their top end players and picking up new ones in the transfer portal, that even Cal and OSU have comparable talent.
BC