Just some random thoughts from a fan. . . . ok, ok, a raving lunatic fan, but still a fan.
Point #1, we haven't seen the ceiling on Tony's recruiting yet.
We shouldn't confuse current status as the end strategy. When Tony first arrived he probably had to disguise himself as an Encyclopedia salesman just to get in the door with many recruits (I know, I know, you younger guys have no idea what I am talking about). Recruiting is like politics, it is the art of the possible. Because Tony signed certain guys doesn't mean he thought they were the ultimate recruits for his program. You have to sign the best players you can land that fit your system. As we've seen, the quality of those recruits have gradually improved as the program is proving itself to be competitive nationally. I think that will continue, especially if we can break through to the Final Four within the next 3 or 4 years. I don't think we're going to be a program that recruits on the level of Kentucky or Duke when it comes to ranking services every year. Those are unique situations where the staffs virtually "select" rather than recruit prospects. I don't think we need to recruit on their level to beat them. They will always have "young" teams and a mature team of developed talent can match them and beat them.
Point #2, I don't think we need to stock up and one and done recruits.
The success of Duke and Kentucky seem to have some folks convinced that a team must have one and done players to compete for the championship. I don't agree. Wisconsin didn't have any one and done players. In fact, Wisconsin only has one top 50 recruit on the team and half of their minutes are played by recruits that weren't in the top 150 by most or all national recruiting services. Frank Kaminsky wasn't a top 250 recruit. What a team does need are one or more "go to" players that can put the ball in the basket when the offense isn't working. Players sufficiently talented to defeat opponents' defenses and score. NBA level players in college can fit that bill and that's where some of the one and dones come in. But, it doesn't have to be a one and done type. Kaminsky and Dekker weren't. More often than not, the key baskets for Duke during the season came from Quinn Cook, a senior. Senior Jerian Grant from Notre Dame took them to the cusp of the Final Four.
Imagine for a moment if UVA had senior Mike Scott on the team last season? I'm not sure they would have lost a game. Remember, all losses were within 6 points and all because UVA just couldn't put the ball in the basket for lengthy droughts. A guy like Mike Scott could have made a huge difference. During his senior season, everyone designed their defense to stop him and couldn't do it. It doesn't take a 5 star, it could be a 3 or 4 star with potential to be developed into a NBA level talent.
Point #3, balance may be more important than individual star power for UVA.
I've seen some concern expressed that the perimeter players recruited for the class of 2016 may not be the highest level athletes. Unless your system is built on full court pressure and beating the other team down the court to score, I think that athleticism can be overrated, particularly when compared to "skill level." Granted, you do have to have sufficient athleticism to be able to defend against some opponents. Marial Shayok is probably in the top 10 - 15 percentile of athleticism for college hoops players next season. Darius Thompson may be in the top 5 percentile. Isaiah Wilkins is up there as well. Sacha Killeya-Jones is well above average in athleticism and, if we are fortunate enough to land him, Mamadi Diakite is probably in the top 1 percentile.
What UVA missed last year was not athleticism but skill, shooting skill. The offense provided shots but we couldn't put the ball in the basket. We couldn't hit a jump shot some games. Recruits like Kyle Guy and Ty Jerome and Sam Hauser provide shooting, as well as good overall floor games to help create open shots for others. I'm sure Tony would love for them to be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound as well, but the ability to make jump shots is the priority when you look at the returning players on the team. Shayok, Thompson, Wilkins, et al, can take care of the Sports Center highlight dunks. We need some guys who can shoot the dang ball.
Again, look at Wisconsin. There are two athletes on that team, the rest are average to a little above average athletically but they are ALL very skilled. Their big guys can shoot the ball (see SKJ) and they all play as a team.
In contrast, Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech had very athletic teams last season but they lacked "skill." If you have to lean one way or the other, I'd lean toward skill and that seems to be Tony's strategy.
Summation:
I think Tony's strategy is generally sound. I admit that I have some "WTF?" moments at times with his recruiting but I tend to be a little reactionary. For example, I wasn't a fan of pursuing Kenny Williams but that's history now. Tony has certainly targeted top talent over the years like Kyrie Irving, Marcus Page, Justin Jackson,etc., but UVA is not a sexy choice and still isn't. He has to figure out how to win with the next level recruits. For his system he seems to heavily value "skill" and with the Bennett model being pretty much the same as what we see with Wisconsin, I'd say he's right. However, he tries to balance the "skill heavy" approach with athletes like Akil Mitchell and Isaiah Wilkins to compensate when UVA must match athletic teams.
I think UVA can win by developing 3 and 4 year players. It's not as easy as just drafting NBA ready recruits like Duke does, but we were perhaps one Mike Scott away from being undefeated this season. Even without a Mike Scott, a couple shooters like Kyle Guy and Sam Hauser would have made a big difference.
And, it's darn hard to argue with 60 - 11 the last two seasons.
Point #1, we haven't seen the ceiling on Tony's recruiting yet.
We shouldn't confuse current status as the end strategy. When Tony first arrived he probably had to disguise himself as an Encyclopedia salesman just to get in the door with many recruits (I know, I know, you younger guys have no idea what I am talking about). Recruiting is like politics, it is the art of the possible. Because Tony signed certain guys doesn't mean he thought they were the ultimate recruits for his program. You have to sign the best players you can land that fit your system. As we've seen, the quality of those recruits have gradually improved as the program is proving itself to be competitive nationally. I think that will continue, especially if we can break through to the Final Four within the next 3 or 4 years. I don't think we're going to be a program that recruits on the level of Kentucky or Duke when it comes to ranking services every year. Those are unique situations where the staffs virtually "select" rather than recruit prospects. I don't think we need to recruit on their level to beat them. They will always have "young" teams and a mature team of developed talent can match them and beat them.
Point #2, I don't think we need to stock up and one and done recruits.
The success of Duke and Kentucky seem to have some folks convinced that a team must have one and done players to compete for the championship. I don't agree. Wisconsin didn't have any one and done players. In fact, Wisconsin only has one top 50 recruit on the team and half of their minutes are played by recruits that weren't in the top 150 by most or all national recruiting services. Frank Kaminsky wasn't a top 250 recruit. What a team does need are one or more "go to" players that can put the ball in the basket when the offense isn't working. Players sufficiently talented to defeat opponents' defenses and score. NBA level players in college can fit that bill and that's where some of the one and dones come in. But, it doesn't have to be a one and done type. Kaminsky and Dekker weren't. More often than not, the key baskets for Duke during the season came from Quinn Cook, a senior. Senior Jerian Grant from Notre Dame took them to the cusp of the Final Four.
Imagine for a moment if UVA had senior Mike Scott on the team last season? I'm not sure they would have lost a game. Remember, all losses were within 6 points and all because UVA just couldn't put the ball in the basket for lengthy droughts. A guy like Mike Scott could have made a huge difference. During his senior season, everyone designed their defense to stop him and couldn't do it. It doesn't take a 5 star, it could be a 3 or 4 star with potential to be developed into a NBA level talent.
Point #3, balance may be more important than individual star power for UVA.
I've seen some concern expressed that the perimeter players recruited for the class of 2016 may not be the highest level athletes. Unless your system is built on full court pressure and beating the other team down the court to score, I think that athleticism can be overrated, particularly when compared to "skill level." Granted, you do have to have sufficient athleticism to be able to defend against some opponents. Marial Shayok is probably in the top 10 - 15 percentile of athleticism for college hoops players next season. Darius Thompson may be in the top 5 percentile. Isaiah Wilkins is up there as well. Sacha Killeya-Jones is well above average in athleticism and, if we are fortunate enough to land him, Mamadi Diakite is probably in the top 1 percentile.
What UVA missed last year was not athleticism but skill, shooting skill. The offense provided shots but we couldn't put the ball in the basket. We couldn't hit a jump shot some games. Recruits like Kyle Guy and Ty Jerome and Sam Hauser provide shooting, as well as good overall floor games to help create open shots for others. I'm sure Tony would love for them to be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound as well, but the ability to make jump shots is the priority when you look at the returning players on the team. Shayok, Thompson, Wilkins, et al, can take care of the Sports Center highlight dunks. We need some guys who can shoot the dang ball.
Again, look at Wisconsin. There are two athletes on that team, the rest are average to a little above average athletically but they are ALL very skilled. Their big guys can shoot the ball (see SKJ) and they all play as a team.
In contrast, Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech had very athletic teams last season but they lacked "skill." If you have to lean one way or the other, I'd lean toward skill and that seems to be Tony's strategy.
Summation:
I think Tony's strategy is generally sound. I admit that I have some "WTF?" moments at times with his recruiting but I tend to be a little reactionary. For example, I wasn't a fan of pursuing Kenny Williams but that's history now. Tony has certainly targeted top talent over the years like Kyrie Irving, Marcus Page, Justin Jackson,etc., but UVA is not a sexy choice and still isn't. He has to figure out how to win with the next level recruits. For his system he seems to heavily value "skill" and with the Bennett model being pretty much the same as what we see with Wisconsin, I'd say he's right. However, he tries to balance the "skill heavy" approach with athletes like Akil Mitchell and Isaiah Wilkins to compensate when UVA must match athletic teams.
I think UVA can win by developing 3 and 4 year players. It's not as easy as just drafting NBA ready recruits like Duke does, but we were perhaps one Mike Scott away from being undefeated this season. Even without a Mike Scott, a couple shooters like Kyle Guy and Sam Hauser would have made a big difference.
And, it's darn hard to argue with 60 - 11 the last two seasons.
