2023 Recruiting: Gavin Griffiths back from injury...

[superjohn]

It’s not “competition” in the traditional sense. We can keep hoping and praying that some rich dude/s want to invest millions of dollars over time into 17 year olds to play at their favorite university, but until we see proof of that, I’m skeptical it’s happening for us. The Edwards and Griffiths recruitments are telling a very obvious story imo. I think we’re in for a reality check pretty soon, unless we suddenly start pulling top 40 kids again, but we aren’t competing for any right now.


@UConnStats is very reliable. I don’t see why you’d put any insider over another on this board as of right now. It’s very clear nobody is getting direct info like we did during the Ollie days.

We aren't competing for any right now? Why was Miranda on campus today?

 

[navery12]

I think we’re in for a reality check pretty soon, unless we suddenly start pulling top 40 kids again, but we aren’t competing for any right now.

We literally have a top 40 recruit with interest from Kentucky on campus right now

 

[Jbirdp5]

Sure. And playing catch-up like that isn't going to work for many (or most) recruits.

That’s assuming we are not on him much, which is hard to know at this point with him not playing

 

[Huskyforlife]

We aren't competing for any right now? Why was Miranda on campus today?

We literally have a top 40 recruit with interest from Kentucky on campus right now

It seems like Kentucky has moved on, maybe we’ll get lucky and nobody with a bigger bag gets/stays involved. Why did we get cut by Edwards and seemingly move on from Griffiths? Don’t give me any “Hurley doesn’t want them” nonsense.

 

[navery12]

It seems like Kentucky has moved on, maybe we’ll get lucky and nobody with a bigger bag gets/stays involved. Why did we get cut by Edwards and seemingly move on from Griffiths? Don’t give me any “Hurley doesn’t want them” nonsense.

No I don't buy the Hurley doesn't want them nonsense, I don't even buy that we've moved on from Griffiths when we were connected to him as recently as a few weeks ago. Honestly I think you're wildly overreacting to this NIL thing, the sky doesn't need to be falling every time a top 25 recruit doesn't choose UConn. Kids just aren't a match every time

 

[superjohn]

It seems like Kentucky has moved on, maybe we’ll get lucky and nobody with a bigger bag gets/stays involved. Why did we get cut by Edwards and seemingly move on from Griffiths? Don’t give me any “Hurley doesn’t want them” nonsense.

I don't believe we moved on from Griffiths. I think Corey Floyd happened with Edwards.

 

[Jbirdp5]

It seems like Kentucky has moved on, maybe we’ll get lucky and nobody with a bigger bag gets/stays involved. Why did we get cut by Edwards and seemingly move on from Griffiths? Don’t give me any “Hurley doesn’t want them” nonsense.

You seem very pessimistic about our recruiting in general, while I think our results have given us reason to be optimistic with the way we recruit.

 

[Huskyforlife]

No I don't buy the Hurley doesn't want them nonsense, I don't even buy that we've moved on from Griffiths when we were connected to him as recently as a few weeks ago. Honestly I think you're wildly overreacting to this NIL thing, the sky doesn't need to be falling every time a top 25 recruit doesn't choose UConn. Kids just aren't a match every time

I don’t think the sky is falling, the Newton and Alleyne commitments mean to me we must have something enticing in place for recruits and transfers to some extent. Not losing any of our core guys reinforces this belief.

Buuuut, on the other hand. We were cut from a kid we were recruiting very heavily for a long time out of nowhere, with the most likely explanation being we couldn't keep up with whatever he’s being offered by the Kentuckys of the world.

And even if you want to throw out the blue blood programs and their crazy booster support. Can we even compete with the type of support programs like Alabama/Michigan/LSU/etc have? Cause that’s our competition for Gavin based on recent offers.

Kids this talented always fit. I don’t believe in them being a bad fit here.

What this means to me is we’re probably going to have to pick our targets carefully. I doubt every single top 100 recruit is going to get huge NIL deals, so we compete for recruits that schools aren’t overspending on. Same with transfers. This doesn’t mean we can’t compete and contend for whatever measure of success you prefer. Id assume we’re better off than most major conference programs, but not the biggest money athletics schools. Jmo.

 

[navery12]

I don’t think the sky is falling, the Newton and Alleyne commitments mean to me we must have something enticing in place for recruits and transfers to some extent. Not losing any of our core guys reinforces this belief.

Buuuut, on the other hand. We were cut from a kid we were recruiting very heavily for a long time out of nowhere, with the most likely explanation being we couldn't keep up with whatever he’s being offered by the Kentuckys of the world.

And even if you want to throw out the blue blood programs and their crazy booster support. Can we even compete with the type of support programs like Alabama/Michigan/LSU/etc have? Cause that’s our competition for Gavin based on recent offers.

Kids this talented always fit. I don’t believe in them being a bad fit here.

What this means to me is we’re probably going to have to pick our targets carefully. I doubt every single top 100 recruit is going to get huge NIL deals, so we compete for recruits that schools aren’t overspending on. Same with transfers. This doesn’t mean we can’t compete and contend for whatever measure of success you prefer. Id assume we’re better off than most major conference programs, but not the biggest money athletics schools. Jmo.

Yeah there's a bunch of assumptions and leaps you're making in here that just don't remotely register with me. I don't think we're gonna compete for 5* guys with Kentucky anytime soon but there's no reason to think we can't keep focusing on the 30-50 ranked recruits like we've been doing recently. I think we can compete financially with the schools going after kids in that range

 

[runner11]

No I don't buy the Hurley doesn't want them nonsense, I don't even buy that we've moved on from Griffiths when we were connected to him as recently as a few weeks ago. Honestly I think you're wildly overreacting to this NIL thing, the sky doesn't need to be falling every time a top 25 recruit doesn't choose UConn. Kids just aren't a match every time

I think we have gotten carried away with this Griffiths narrative. What we have heard is that he really likes PC and is interested in playing with TBB, who we don't seem to be pursuing hard.

He may be a hard pull but we want to see a full court press.

 

[runner11]

Disagree completely. Shooting is easier to learn. All the lower level teams and Ivy teams are loaded with shooters. They can't defend the way we'd want. The athleticism isn't there. Obviously, I am not saying Griffiths is that kind of player, he wouldn't be so highly rated. But there are great shooters that will end up at Yale, U Maine etc.

I think it's easy to turn somebody into a shooter who can make open 3s with their feet set. But that is a lot different than a kid with size who we can run off screens.

 

[superjohn]

Disagree completely. Shooting is easier to learn. All the lower level teams and Ivy teams are loaded with shooters. They can't defend the way we'd want. The athleticism isn't there. Obviously, I am not saying Griffiths is that kind of player, he wouldn't be so highly rated. But there are great shooters that will end up at Yale, U Maine etc.

It's not, as you understand we're talking about highest level D1 players, they can be taught to play good defense. The kids who end up in the Ivies and Maine are obviously different, they rarely have the athleticism to play at the highest level. It's why they end up going to Maine and Brown. A lot of those kids have the shooting to play high D1 but they wouldn't be able to guard anyone or get their shot off. It's easier to teach high level athletes how to play good defense than it is to turn them into good shooters.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's not, as you understand we're talking about highest level D1 players, they can be taught to play good defense. The kids who end up in the Ivies and Maine are obviously different, they rarely have the athleticism to play at the highest level. It's why they end up going to Maine and Brown. A lot of those kids have the shooting to play high D1 but they wouldn't be able to guard anyone or get their shot off. It's easier to teach high level athletes how to play good defense than it is to turn them into good shooters.

Then we aren’t really in much disagreement. Shooting is a common skill. High level athleticism and defense is not. Obviously we want players with both. I don’t think it is that hard for any elite athlete to learn to shoot or play defense. Just desire, effort and work.

On the other hand. For deep bench guys, I think the shooters who aren’t great athletes might be a better option. UConn has certainly been victimized by them enough over the years.

 

[pj]

Shooting is a common skill. High level athleticism and defense is not. Obviously we want players with both. I don’t think it is that hard for any elite athlete to learn to shoot or play defense. Just desire, effort and work.

Athleticism is largely constrained by genetics. Shooting is neurological and that's substantially determined by development in utero - the mom's diet and lifestyle while pregnant. Training can develop skill if the innate ability is there, but coaches can't instill the neurological capability to finely control a shot. There are guys who are great athletes in gross motor skills who are great defenders, but who don't shoot well and never will be great shooters.

As for what college coaches can usefully teach, it's constrained on the ceiling by the athlete's biological/neurological limits, and on the floor by what the athlete has already learned. If high school coaches teach shooting effectively, then there's not much room for a college coach to improve shooting skill. Team skills like defense, there's usually a lot of room for coaches to improve and coaching to impact game results. So it shouldn't be surprising that the best coaches focus a lot of practice time on coaching defense.

 

[husky429]

Then we aren’t really in much disagreement. Shooting is a common skill. High level athleticism and defense is not. Obviously we want players with both. I don’t think it is that hard for any elite athlete to learn to shoot or play defense. Just desire, effort and work.

On the other hand. For deep bench guys, I think the shooters who aren’t great athletes might be a better option. UConn has certainly been victimized by them enough over the years.

Shooting is not a common skill. Particularly shooters who can put up shots off the dribble, and with different types of footwork like Griffiths. That's why shooters are so highly valued. If they were a dime a dozen, we wouldn't have had 3 shooters on our entire roster last year.

It is also exceptionally difficult to learn how to shoot. It takes 1000s upon 1000s of reps. And MOST people never learn how to shoot that put in the effort.

 

[Hoophound]

Then we aren’t really in much disagreement. Shooting is a common skill. High level athleticism and defense is not. Obviously we want players with both. I don’t think it is that hard for any elite athlete to learn to shoot or play defense. Just desire, effort and work.

On the other hand. For deep bench guys, I think the shooters who aren’t great athletes might be a better option. UConn has certainly been victimized by them enough over the years.

Being able to shoot and being able to shoot in games are also different skills. I like a shooter that is fearless and has great mechanics. A lot of guys we expect to be shooters don’t have the killer mentality between the ears needed to take advantage. I really wanted Denver Anglin. I got the impression he was that kind of player. I’m curious to see how he turns out.

 

[Chantry1101]

Being able to shoot and being able to shoot in games are also different skills. I like a shooter that is fearless and has great mechanics. A lot of guys we expect to be shooters don’t have the killer mentality between the ears needed to take advantage. I really wanted Denver Anglin. I got the impression he was that kind of player. I’m curious to see how he turns out.

A big part of being a great shooter, or even a very good shooter is being able to handle missing shots. This is a part coaches can impact tremendously but most coaches never figure that out.

Problematically, some guys who are NOT very good shooters, have this ability.

 

[CL82]

. Shooting is neurological and that's substantially determined by development in utero - the mom's diet and lifestyle while pregnant.

 

[Get a Job]

Athleticism is largely constrained by genetics. Shooting is neurological and that's substantially determined by development in utero - the mom's diet and lifestyle while pregnant. Training can develop skill if the innate ability is there, but coaches can't instill the neurological capability to finely control a shot. There are guys who are great athletes in gross motor skills who are great defenders, but who don't shoot well and never will be great shooters.

As for what college coaches can usefully teach, it's constrained on the ceiling by the athlete's biological/neurological limits, and on the floor by what the athlete has already learned. If high school coaches teach shooting effectively, then there's not much room for a college coach to improve shooting skill. Team skills like defense, there's usually a lot of room for coaches to improve and coaching to impact game results. So it shouldn't be surprising that the best coaches focus a lot of practice time on coaching defense.

If this were a Wikipedia entry, it would be littered with "citation needed" tags.

 

[HuskyHawk]

We need that as a reaction emoji. It would get used a lot.

 

[NotADime89]

Why did we get cut by Edwards and seemingly move on from Griffiths? Don’t give me any “Hurley doesn’t want them” nonsense.

We did not move on from Griffiths. Just because @UConnStats claims he heard he's no longer a big priority doesn't mean its true. This board needs to stop taking one little comment that's probably not even true as fact.

 

[UConnStats]

We did not move on from Griffiths. Just because @UConnStats claims he heard he's no longer a big priority doesn't mean its true. This board needs to stop taking one little comment that's probably not even true as fact.

Lol all I did was pass on one little detail and this board can’t handle it. Good reminder of why I never should. My info came from someone who actually covers grassroots basketball and not from reading Twitter tea leaves like 95% of this board. Maybe we step up our efforts with Griffiths once he starts playing in games for Expressions, but right now we do not lead for him.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Maybe because he wasn't playing, it gave the appearance that we had backed off because the coaches weren't being seen at his games?

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Lol all I did was pass on one little detail and this board can’t handle it. Good reminder of why I never should. My info came from someone who actually covers grassroots basketball and not from reading Twitter tea leaves like 95% of this board. Maybe we step up our efforts with Griffiths once he starts playing in games for Expressions, but right now we do not lead for him.

As I said in another thread, please don't stop passing on info. Pretty annoying how people get up in arms when something isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

 

[AntG168]

As I said in another thread, please don't stop passing on info. Pretty annoying how people get up in arms when something isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

I don’t see anyone up in arms. All I see is people saying not to make judgements on the staff based upon information that very well may not be 100% accurate