We don't need a 4-star big man

[duncanlamb]

We really don't need a 3 or 4 star big man to win..All we need a big man who with a good work ethic and allow the coaching staff to develop his Post game? Mike Schlegel didn't come to VCU as Coordinated well polished big man...In all honesty, he was pretty much a "stiff" his freshmen year. But He was physical, had a great work ethic and became a really good big-man.

 

[Mistachill]

Schlegel played here 25 years ago. No we don't "need" a 3 or 4 star big man to be successful, but it sure helps to have talent in the paint.

If its a choice between just finding somebody to just get by with versus a guy who can provide an additional weapon offensively and (more importantly) defensively, I
say go for the talent.

 

[BradRamFan]

We really don't need a 3 or 4 star big man to win..All we need a big man who with a good work ethic and allow the coaching staff to develop his Post game? Mike Schlegel didn't come to VCU as Coordinated well polished big man...In all honesty, he was pretty much a "stiff" his freshmen year. But He was physical, had a great work ethic and became a really good big-man.

I really like Schlegel...he improved each and every year along with all the rest of our team. But do we want to get someone in who is going to take 3-4 years to get where we want him? Sure, many players will take awhile to get productive but I'd like someone who can continue our upward progress at it's current state.

 

[RamJamFan]

I believe we do need a 4 star big, but if we don't get one we can go an alternate "role player" or "player development" route. The coaches can see/assess that option best.

If we don't get our big men targets for 2010, it doesn't appear it will be due to anything VCU did wrong. We are chasing the correct quality players for our future program, and school capabilities.

I really like the coaching staff's recruiting focus. They are going after quality bigmen, i.e., Bradley, LuLanne, etc, but in a rifle not shotgun approach [targeting key guys, doing due diligence on them, and building a relationship].

These 3 & 4 star big men are all highly sought after because their size/athleticism makes them unique. This means we often may not get those we are interested in, which is the typical annual process for all top 50 programs.

IF we don't get what we want this year I would like to see us hold the scholarship, and start now pursuing quality big men for next year. Another year of Coach Smart relationship/recruiting/on-court marketing will only add to credibility and opportunity for next year. Larry Sanders won't hurt either.

Meanwhile, I hope the coaches stay the course. The future belongs to the Rams. The future will include another very high quality big man!

 

[mwalvlior]

do we need one, maybe not. but with our history of developing players who coming in were under the radar and considered projects makes it exciting to most of us about the possibilities for what we could produce with a player who was deemed to be at a higher level the day they step on campus.

 

[ramramthankyoumaam]

I don't think the question is whether we need one or not, of course we would love to have one. You don't need one as demonstrated by our 2006-2007 squad that beat Duke, and took Pitt to OT. That was not a big squad. No certifiable center. Fameni 6-7, Anderson, 6-7. But what you did have on that time was a heck of a number of great athletes (Pella-Rossa, Shuler) and a couple of athletic shooters (Walker, Maynor). I believe that year we were near tops in 3-pt field goal defense nationally, and had a killer press; a testament to these quick athletes ability to get out and run and guard the perimeter.

We've got a lot of quick athletic talent in these new guards, offensively and defensively and I'd like to see similar statistics for this bunch. I can't help but to think how far these kids could have gone with a 4 star center. You never can tell. Doesn't make sense not to aim high and try and get a good big man.

If I'm not mistaken the George Mason team that went to the Final Four didn't have a lot of interior height (Jai Lewis was pretty hefty down low though). They did have a lot of athletic kids who had the right chemistry at the right time to make a statement that you don't need one. But I'd argue it happens a lot more often with a good big man then without one.

 

[Wolfpack Ram]

Let's not get carried away with the make up of George Mason's team the year they went to the final four. Mason going to the final four was like winning the million dollar lottery. It was a fluke! What did they do with the same players before that run? What did they do after that run? They just got unbelievably hot at the right time. How many times have they been back to the NCAA's since the final four run? Once, and I believe they got pasted. How many CAA regular season championships have they won since then? Zero!

 

[AG_fan]

Gotta respectfully disagree, Wolfpack. Maybe I could've called it a fluke if they'd beaten Michigan State OR North Carolina OR UConn, but to beat all three in a span of two weeks? No way you can take that accomplishment away from those guys.

Back to the original point of the thread, we obviously do not NEED a 4-star big man to be successful. History is littered with examples of 4-star big men who never panned out and spent most of their time on the bench, as well as teams without them that overachieved and surprised everyone.

The "star" system is a joke anyway. Most college coaches don't use it at all while recruiting, and those who do are asking to fail because the system for rating HS basketball players is incredibly subjective.

 

[Wolfpack Ram]

Gotta respectfully disagree, Wolfpack. Maybe I could've called it a fluke if they'd beaten Michigan State OR North Carolina OR UConn, but to beat all three in a span of two weeks? No way you can take that accomplishment away from those guys.

Back to the original point of the thread, we obviously do not NEED a 4-star big man to be successful. History is littered with examples of 4-star big men who never panned out and spent most of their time on the bench, as well as teams without them that overachieved and surprised everyone.

The "star" system is a joke anyway. Most college coaches don't use it at all while recruiting, and those who do are asking to fail because the system for rating HS basketball players is incredibly subjective.

I'm not taking what they did away from them. I'm saying the chances of them doing it again are slim to none. There have been lot's of lower tier teams get hot for a short period of time and pull off upsets. Even William & Mary did it to a degree in the CAA tournament 2 years ago. My point is what did Mason do before that run and what have they done since that run? I don't think anyone can make a comparison to that team and try to copy that team as a recipe for accomplishing the same thing. Just like Davidson's run was with a totally different makeup of players. Davidson's run though was probably more legit in that their program has had national success before and after their run in the NCAA's a couple of years ago. Mason can't say that.

 

[Mistachill]

I agree with AG, just because something is not likely to happen again doesn't mean it was luck. In fact, I would argue that Villanova beating Georgetown (shooting 79% from the field) was more of a fluke than GMU going to the final four. Getting hot for four straight game is not a fluke or luck in my book.

Wolf, I think when you inject the words "fluke" and "luck" you are taking something away from them.

 

[Wolfpack Ram]

If I am going to pattern my program after another program, I am going to look at a program that has had success over a period of time, not one tournament. Ramramthankyouman was making a comparison to Mason's final four run and the fact that they did not have a lot of interior height. That is what I was responding to.

My hat is off to what Mason did in that tournament, but I'll ask the question again. What has Mason done since that tournament to prove it was not a fluke?

 

[xjohnx]

What has Mason done since that tournament to prove it was not a fluke?

They only lost to us by 21 in the CAA finals last year. That's a pretty impressive feat.

 

[VRam]

I agree with AG, just because something is not likely to happen again doesn't mean it was luck. In fact, I would argue that Villanova beating Georgetown (shooting 79% from the field) was more of a fluke than GMU going to the final four. Getting hot for four straight game is not a fluke or luck in my book.

Wolf, I think when you inject the words "fluke" and "luck" you are taking something away from them.

That year Villanova got a couple lucky calls at the end of regulation just to get into OT against Dayton in the first round. They should have been bounced in the first round. Everybody needs a little luck.

 

[Whoooosh]

I don't think we need a 4-star big man, but it would be nice, as many have said. However, it only took LS1 a year or so to gain his own posse, can't argue with that kind of improvement.

 

[RamBo]

Yeah- I'd take a little here from just about what all of you have said. Then I'll blend it together into my own post! I guess that's sophisticated plagiarism!

First of all.... I would NEVER call Mike Schlegel a stiff. As a young man, if my memory is correct, he was a very accomplished athlete. He was a big-time football player (QB) out of Long Island, who was also an excellent basketball player, and a very solid recruit. No- he wasn't Michael Jordan coming out of high school, and not even an ACC or SEC type recruit. But he had good pedigree. And he played quite a bit as a freshman. If I'm not mistaken, he even started some.

Lamb started as a frosh, at the point, with Monty Knight at the 2. Calvin wasn't even starting yet. Corker was getting minutes, and of course, you had big Kenny Stancell at the 5. I believe Mike started at the 4 spot for much of that season. He was no super-star as a freshman, which of course, is the norm. But he helped us a ton, and of course, everyone is right- he developed, worked his tail off, did what the Coaches asked of him, and wound up being one heck of a college bsaketball player. All that- and he was constantly over-matched as a center, by bigger, often quicker athletes.

In my opinion, Mike Schlegel was the proto-type 4. He probably could have gone down as one of, if not the best, power forward in VCU history. Unfortunately for him, he was forced into playing the center spot for his last 3 years. And he did one heck of a job. The truth is that in 85' if we really had a solid center, and could have had Mike at the 4, I bet we could have been in the Final-4. That's not taking anything away from Neil Wake or Robert Dickerson. They were solid- one on O, and one on the defensive end. But you play with what you have- and the best that you've got. And that's exactly what JD did.

I agree with a bunch of you. We SHOULD be going after 4-star big men. We all just have to understand we won't get em' all. But we can land one here and there, and we can land tons of guards and swing-men. That's who we are. That's what we do. In the meantime, while you're looking for the Sheron Mills' and the Larry Sanders' of the world, you take the guys you can get. You win, and you try to elevate. You try to land a few Michael Bradleys along the way. If you don't try, then you'll never sign any of them.

Look at the 07' squad: When you've got Maynor, Walker, Pellot Rosa, and Shuler coming at guys... then guess what? You can get by with Will Fameni at the 5 spot. The truth is he was another guy that would have been a fantastic P/F with someone, but was forced into having to play the center spot. And Mike Anderson? Probably more of a 3 type guy. But he was so athletic, you could get away with him at the 4, and Fameni was "strong and solid." So you got away with him as the 5. But the real reason it worked, was b'c we had an AWESOME back-4, and we had fantastic chemistry, with a combinationm of knock-out D, and excellent offense from those back-4. That team was awesome. Should have been ranked in the Top-25 for sure.

So yeah- go after every 4-star big you can- and 4-star whatevers for that matter. But we absolutely do not have to have that to win. Sure would be nice though!