Recruiting Philosophy

[basketballjones]

Back in the day when I did basketball recruiting, we had a tool that we used to evaluate players and how much we would give in scholarships. How would you guys evaluate our current team or our recruiting class?  By the way, this tool forced us to go beyond watching highlight tapes or open gyms. Makes you go see them in person or watch full game film. You can't analyze a lot of this by just open gyms or highlight tapes. 

5 Areas:

 

1. Basic Fundamentals - Self explanatory. Dribbling, shooting, catching, 3rd grade basketball camp stuff. Grabbing the ball with two hands, outside hand passing. Being shot ready. Jump stops, pivots, proper finishing footwork. Head up while dribbling. Things like using ball screens, Euro-Steps, both hand finishes, etc... have kind of become basic fundamentals at the college level. Basic man2man principles. Common (2-3, 1-3-1) zone fundamentals. I could list more but I think you all get it.

 

2. Secondary Fundamentals - Knowing score and situation. Naturally spacing the floor. Knowing when to be selfish and when to not even hesitate about passing to the next guy. When/where to move on drives and give passers windows. Knowing what you're doing with the ball before you catch it. Executing at a snap of a finger whether you're going to rim drive or create drive based off of close-outs and teammates positioning. Passing while moving full speed into help. Hitting skips and opposite corners while driving. Executing different close-outs on moments notice and switches. Understanding of what other teams are trying to do offensively and defensively. 

 

3. Size - Somewhat more complicated than just pure height, but obviously positionally related. Does the player have a "college athlete body," i.e., can they put weight on and get stronger (broad shoulders, long levers, big hands can be indicators). But Length plays a factor here, as does strength (in a way). For example, if you're 5'11" but you've got a 6'5" wingspan, usually something a coach can do with that. Or if you're short, but you're an absolute bowling ball, it can all factor in. 

 

4. Functional Athleticism - Lots of guys are fast, quick, and can jump high. Can the player use it in the game? This can help "by the measurable" unathletic player too. Iowa and Wisconsin have had a ton of guys that wouldn't impress at a combine - but they have no problem finishing, driving by, getting their shot off, guarding, or getting rebounds. It actually works the other way too. I've been around many dudes who could put their face on the rim, but never dunked in a game because they just functionally did not know how to use their athleticism in a live situation. 

 

5. Intangibles - Do they want it? Are they disciplined? Do they understand the weight room isn't a voluntary participation thing? How do they respond to criticism and hard coaching? How do they communicate with their teammates? Do they do well in school and treat people with respect? Do they bring energy or do they suck energy? Can they execute offensive sets, and those that have been drawn on the marker board?

Edited February 26, 2021 by basketballjones

[HB]

1 hour ago, basketballjones said:

Back in the day when I did basketball recruiting, we had a tool that we used to evaluate players and how much we would give in scholarships. How would you guys evaluate our current team or our recruiting class?  By the way, this tool forced us to go beyond watching highlight tapes or open gyms. Makes you go see them in person or watch full game film. You can't analyze a lot of this by just open gyms or highlight tapes. 

5 Areas:

 

1. Basic Fundamentals - Self explanatory. Dribbling, shooting, catching, 3rd grade basketball camp stuff. Grabbing the ball with two hands, outside hand passing. Being shot ready. Jump stops, pivots, proper finishing footwork. Head up while dribbling. Things like using ball screens, Euro-Steps, both hand finishes, etc... have kind of become basic fundamentals at the college level. Basic man2man principles. Common (2-3, 1-3-1) zone fundamentals. I could list more but I think you all get it.

 

2. Secondary Fundamentals - Knowing score and situation. Naturally spacing the floor. Knowing when to be selfish and when to not even hesitate about passing to the next guy. When/where to move on drives and give passers windows. Knowing what you're doing with the ball before you catch it. Executing at a snap of a finger whether you're going to rim drive or create drive based off of close-outs and teammates positioning. Passing while moving full speed into help. Hitting skips and opposite corners while driving. Executing different close-outs on moments notice and switches. Understanding of what other teams are trying to do offensively and defensively. 

 

3. Size - Somewhat more complicated than just pure height, but obviously positionally related. Does the player have a "college athlete body," i.e., can they put weight on and get stronger (broad shoulders, long levers, big hands can be indicators). But Length plays a factor here, as does strength (in a way). For example, if you're 5'11" but you've got a 6'5" wingspan, usually something a coach can do with that. Or if you're short, but you're an absolute bowling ball, it can all factor in. 

 

4. Functional Athleticism - Lots of guys are fast, quick, and can jump high. Can the player use it in the game? This can help "by the measurable" unathletic player too. Iowa and Wisconsin have had a ton of guys that wouldn't impress at a combine - but they have no problem finishing, driving by, getting their shot off, guarding, or getting rebounds. It actually works the other way too. I've been around many dudes who could put their face on the rim, but never dunked in a game because they just functionally did not know how to use their athleticism in a live situation. 

 

5. Intangibles - Do they want it? Are they disciplined? Do they understand the weight room isn't a voluntary participation thing? How do they respond to criticism and hard coaching? How do they communicate with their teammates? Do they do well in school and treat people with respect? Do they bring energy or do they suck energy? Can they execute offensive sets, and those that have been drawn on the marker board?

 

That's what she said.

 

But I think she mainly meant #3.  

Edited February 26, 2021 by HB

[aphilso1]

That is a really interesting way to look at it.  I haven't seen enough tape of our recruits to grade them in this manner.  And I'm not going to grade every current roster player in detail because that would take all day.  But here is how I view the general makeup of our team:

 

1. Basic Fundamentals - poor.  I am having a hard time thinking of any player on the team that I would say is above average fundamentally for B1G-level play.  Relative to their position, I would actually say our centers are closest.  Walker does some really nice things fundamentally in the post, and Andre looks like he is focusing hard on trying to make that a strength going forward.  Kobe also seems to be in the 'average' range for a B1G guard.  Other than that?  seems like a lot of below average fundametal players.  I know some people will add Thor to this list...but just watch him dribble.  Oof.

 

2. Secondary fundamentals - actually pretty good.  I think we have quite a few guys on this team that could be called 'crafty' or 'wily'  and understand spacing well.  Unfortunately, those same guys go from 'pretty good' to 'atrocious at inopportune times (see Exhibit A: final 10 second of regulation in the first Illinois game).  But in general, I think Trey, Walker, Kobe, Teddy, and Dalano are all pretty good in this department.

 

3. Size - probably our biggest strength out of these 5 criteria.  We have length at every position, a couple stout wrecking balls like Shamiel, and even three true post players. What we are still missing here is elite size like Cockburn at Illinois or Garza at Iowa or the pipeline that Purdue has had for the past decade.

 

4. Functional Athleticism - we suck in this category.  We have a bunch of guys that look great stepping off the bus and can do some insane things athletically, but in a game that athleticism doesn't translate to high level basketball abilities.  Trey and Dalano in particular come to mind here, with their flashes of freakish athletic ability surrounded by lots and lots of plays that that athleticism doesn't translate.  Teddy probably is the guy that squeezes the most juice from his natural athleticism orange, but I wouldn't call him athletic.  is anyone on our team a plus in this category?  I guess Walker is when graded on a scale relative to other centers.

 

5. Intangibles - this is tough to grade since I don't see these guys in any capacity other than when they play for 40 minutes on TV.  But from what I can see in games, Trey, Dalano, and Walker have it.  Teddy does at times, but too often is a negative in this category.  I don't know though.  This is pretty tough to judge when a team loses us much as we do, because I think disciple, attitude, and hunger are going to naturally suffer for most players when you continue to see loss after loss after loss.

 

 

[aphilso1]

Thinking back through past rosters using this scale is also kind of interesting.  That '08-'09 team was an elite team fundamentally (both categories) and in intangibles, but had historically poor size.  They weren't average at anything.  Just one extreme or the other.

[basketballjones]

5 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

1. Basic Fundamentals - poor.  I am having a hard time thinking of any player on the team that I would say is above average fundamentally for B1G-level play.  Relative to their position, I would actually say our centers are closest.  Walker does some really nice things fundamentally in the post, and Andre looks like he is focusing hard on trying to make that a strength going forward.  Kobe also seems to be in the 'average' range for a B1G guard.  Other than that?  seems like a lot of below average fundamental players.  I know some people will add Thor to this list...but just watch him dribble.  Oof.

 

2. Secondary fundamentals - actually pretty good.  I think we have quite a few guys on this team that could be called 'crafty' or 'wily'  and understand spacing well.  Unfortunately, those same guys go from 'pretty good' to 'atrocious at inopportune times (see Exhibit A: final 10 second of regulation in the first Illinois game).  But in general, I think Trey, Walker, Kobe, Teddy, and Delano are all pretty good in this department.

Thank for your input. Great write-up.

My only disagreement is that I would probably swap these two. But that could just be a difference in semantics and where we draw the line on what a basic/secondary fundamental is. I think our guys are fine from a "basic, basketball camp" level fundamental perspective. I am just not sure you can even play at this level if you aren't.

Personally, I feel our mistakes come from the mental side and poor secondary fundamentals. We turn it over because we drive into 3 man piles, like Coach has discussed. We don't seem to know where the help is coming from, what they're going to do, and have a player in a good window to accept a pass. Our spacing and execution of our plays and actions is often poor. 

[aphilso1]

13 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

Thank for your input. Great write-up.

My only disagreement is that I would probably swap these two. But that could just be a difference in semantics and where we draw the line on what a basic/secondary fundamental is. I think our guys are fine from a "basic, basketball camp" level fundamental perspective. I am just not sure you can even play at this level if you aren't.

Personally, I feel our mistakes come from the mental side and poor secondary fundamentals. We turn it over because we drive into 3 man piles, like Coach has discussed. We don't seem to know where the help is coming from, what they're going to do, and have a player in a good window to accept a pass. Our spacing and execution of our plays and actions is often poor. 

 

Yeah, that could be a bit of semantics.  I am grading these guys on a Big Ten scale though, so someone who is a great shooter compared to the average human can still be atrocious compared to B1G shooting guards.  And looking at the makeup of our roster, we only have a couple guys who are above average shooters compared to other B1G players at their same position (Teddy and Lat), zero above average ballhandlers in my opinion (again, graded relative to other B1G players at the same position), and the number of lazy passes that we produce each game is baffling.  Post players have a slightly different set of core fundamentals, and I do think Andre and DW both box out well, front bigger post players well, and use their feet (rather than hands) pretty well to defend, among other traits.  Those are the two guys that strike me as the most fundamentally sound on our roster, relative to their position.

 

Regarding all the dumb turnovers, maybe I just am not paying attention to the stats enough but I don't feel like we are turning it over at an alarming rate.  It's just that when we do turn it over, those turnovers seem more punitive this year in terms of taking points off the scoreboard or creating auto-buckets on the other end.

Edited February 26, 2021 by aphilso1

[huskerbill85]

3 hours ago, basketballjones said:

Back in the day when I did basketball recruiting, we had a tool that we used to evaluate players and how much we would give in scholarships. How would you guys evaluate our current team or our recruiting class?  By the way, this tool forced us to go beyond watching highlight tapes or open gyms. Makes you go see them in person or watch full game film. You can't analyze a lot of this by just open gyms or highlight tapes. 

5 Areas:

 

1. Basic Fundamentals - Self explanatory. Dribbling, shooting, catching, 3rd grade basketball camp stuff. Grabbing the ball with two hands, outside hand passing. Being shot ready. Jump stops, pivots, proper finishing footwork. Head up while dribbling. Things like using ball screens, Euro-Steps, both hand finishes, etc... have kind of become basic fundamentals at the college level. Basic man2man principles. Common (2-3, 1-3-1) zone fundamentals. I could list more but I think you all get it.

 

2. Secondary Fundamentals - Knowing score and situation. Naturally spacing the floor. Knowing when to be selfish and when to not even hesitate about passing to the next guy. When/where to move on drives and give passers windows. Knowing what you're doing with the ball before you catch it. Executing at a snap of a finger whether you're going to rim drive or create drive based off of close-outs and teammates positioning. Passing while moving full speed into help. Hitting skips and opposite corners while driving. Executing different close-outs on moments notice and switches. Understanding of what other teams are trying to do offensively and defensively. 

 

3. Size - Somewhat more complicated than just pure height, but obviously positionally related. Does the player have a "college athlete body," i.e., can they put weight on and get stronger (broad shoulders, long levers, big hands can be indicators). But Length plays a factor here, as does strength (in a way). For example, if you're 5'11" but you've got a 6'5" wingspan, usually something a coach can do with that. Or if you're short, but you're an absolute bowling ball, it can all factor in. 

 

4. Functional Athleticism - Lots of guys are fast, quick, and can jump high. Can the player use it in the game? This can help "by the measurable" unathletic player too. Iowa and Wisconsin have had a ton of guys that wouldn't impress at a combine - but they have no problem finishing, driving by, getting their shot off, guarding, or getting rebounds. It actually works the other way too. I've been around many dudes who could put their face on the rim, but never dunked in a game because they just functionally did not know how to use their athleticism in a live situation. 

 

5. Intangibles - Do they want it? Are they disciplined? Do they understand the weight room isn't a voluntary participation thing? How do they respond to criticism and hard coaching? How do they communicate with their teammates? Do they do well in school and treat people with respect? Do they bring energy or do they suck energy? Can they execute offensive sets, and those that have been drawn on the marker board?

Who did you recruit for?

[hugh42]

2 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

4. Functional Athleticism - we suck in this category.  We have a bunch of guys that look great stepping off the bus and can do some insane things athletically, but in a game that athleticism doesn't translate to high level basketball abilities.  Trey and Dalano in particular come to mind here, with their flashes of freakish athletic ability surrounded by lots and lots of plays that that athleticism doesn't translate.  Teddy probably is the guy that squeezes the most juice from his natural athleticism orange, but I wouldn't call him athletic.  is anyone on our team a plus in this category?  I guess Walker is when graded on a scale relative to other centers.

 

5. Intangibles - this is tough to grade since I don't see these guys in any capacity other than when they play for 40 minutes on TV.  But from what I can see in games, Trey, Dalano, and Walker have it.  Teddy does at times, but too often is a negative in this category.  I don't know though.  This is pretty tough to judge when a team loses us much as we do, because I think disciple, attitude, and hunger are going to naturally suffer for most players when you continue to see loss after loss after loss.

 

 

 

Regarding #4, I would say that Trey and Shamiel have it, it's just the decision making at times that limit it. Trey's drives to the hoop at times are as good as you will see in college basketball in terms of finishing and Shamiel is a very good finisher on the break with the ability to hang and utilize either hand to finish. I don't necessarily consider Delano to be a freak athlete, rather a tall one with some guard skills that makes him somewhat unique. Regarding #5, Yvan has the intangibles, but lacks certain skill sets.

[aphilso1]

13 minutes ago, hugh42 said:

 

Regarding #4, I would say that Trey and Shamiel have it, it's just the decision making at times that limit it. Trey's drives to the hoop at times are as good as you will see in college basketball in terms of finishing and Shamiel is a very good finisher on the break with the ability to hang and utilize either hand to finish. I don't necessarily consider Delano to be a freak athlete, rather a tall one with some guard skills that makes him somewhat unique. Regarding #5, Yvan has the intangibles, but lacks certain skill sets.

 

Except that Trey and Shamiel don't finish at the rim at a terribly high rate, they just look really good while missing layups.  And both give memorable highlight finishes that I would gladly trade for a more consistent/less glamourous finish.  Trey in particular is very inefficient in the paint.  While they are both quite athletic, it's not really "functional" athleticism when the ball clanks off the rim or gets swatted away.

[Fullbacksympathy]

5 hours ago, basketballjones said:

Back in the day when I did basketball recruiting, we had a tool that we used to evaluate players and how much we would give in scholarships. How would you guys evaluate our current team or our recruiting class?  By the way, this tool forced us to go beyond watching highlight tapes or open gyms. Makes you go see them in person or watch full game film. You can't analyze a lot of this by just open gyms or highlight tapes. 

5 Areas:

 

1. Basic Fundamentals - Self explanatory. Dribbling, shooting, catching, 3rd grade basketball camp stuff. Grabbing the ball with two hands, outside hand passing. Being shot ready. Jump stops, pivots, proper finishing footwork. Head up while dribbling. Things like using ball screens, Euro-Steps, both hand finishes, etc... have kind of become basic fundamentals at the college level. Basic man2man principles. Common (2-3, 1-3-1) zone fundamentals. I could list more but I think you all get it.

 

2. Secondary Fundamentals - Knowing score and situation. Naturally spacing the floor. Knowing when to be selfish and when to not even hesitate about passing to the next guy. When/where to move on drives and give passers windows. Knowing what you're doing with the ball before you catch it. Executing at a snap of a finger whether you're going to rim drive or create drive based off of close-outs and teammates positioning. Passing while moving full speed into help. Hitting skips and opposite corners while driving. Executing different close-outs on moments notice and switches. Understanding of what other teams are trying to do offensively and defensively. 

 

3. Size - Somewhat more complicated than just pure height, but obviously positionally related. Does the player have a "college athlete body," i.e., can they put weight on and get stronger (broad shoulders, long levers, big hands can be indicators). But Length plays a factor here, as does strength (in a way). For example, if you're 5'11" but you've got a 6'5" wingspan, usually something a coach can do with that. Or if you're short, but you're an absolute bowling ball, it can all factor in. 

 

4. Functional Athleticism - Lots of guys are fast, quick, and can jump high. Can the player use it in the game? This can help "by the measurable" unathletic player too. Iowa and Wisconsin have had a ton of guys that wouldn't impress at a combine - but they have no problem finishing, driving by, getting their shot off, guarding, or getting rebounds. It actually works the other way too. I've been around many dudes who could put their face on the rim, but never dunked in a game because they just functionally did not know how to use their athleticism in a live situation. 

 

5. Intangibles - Do they want it? Are they disciplined? Do they understand the weight room isn't a voluntary participation thing? How do they respond to criticism and hard coaching? How do they communicate with their teammates? Do they do well in school and treat people with respect? Do they bring energy or do they suck energy? Can they execute offensive sets, and those that have been drawn on the marker board?

 

1.  I think the basics are really only alarming in the shooting realm.  Defensively, I'd say we're in decent shape moving forward.  We just struggle with post defense.  I think Trey, for example, is an elite on ball defender.  Walker and Yvan are good defenders as well.  Andre knows what he is supposed to do on both ends, but doesn't have the body yet.  But, shooting alone makes this category a challenge for a decent grade.  I think the team is relatively skilled in general outside of that category.  We've recruited three guys that can shoot the ball.  Boxing out and defensive rebounding from all 5 players has been maddening.  

 

2.  Two players concern me here:  Teddy and Delano.  Teddy takes some awful shots even for a "green light" player.  Delano, in my opinion, is not a point guard, but a skilled 4 or 5 with some size shortcomings.  We should be treating him more like we treated Roby because he isn't our best point guard at all.  We have improved our passing as the season has gone on with a complete roster.  That will improve more when the defense actually has to guard someone on the perimeter besides Lat.  

 

3.  Size is fine.  We have a giant, skilled, skinny PG (kinda what Dalano would be if he could shoot from outside consistently).  Wilhelm will give us some length and help in the post, but his height/ability to shoot should provide more room in the lane.  Only concern here is Tominaga, but he's 6'1" and dunking in games so his athleticism may very well be enough.  Kobe hurts us here.  

 

4.  I think our functional athleticism at the wings is fantastic.  There are very few players in the country who can stay with Trey, Teddy, or Dalano in a one on one situation.  They just rarely have one on ones because we cannot currently stretch the floor.  Thor hurts us here on both ends a bit (more on offense).  Teddy and Lat hurt us here defensively.  The three recruits are all pretty athletic/coordinated.  

 

5.  I like the kids and they have played pretty hard all year.  I think they have been relatively disciplined according to the quality of shots we get as a team.  They just can't shoot.  I actually think that's the only real problem.  They can't shoot.  We're bringing in guys that can help us shoot better, which will also create more lanes to the basket in isolation.  

[hhcmatt]

15 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Except that Trey and Shamiel don't finish at the rim at a terribly high rate, they just look really good while missing layups.  And both give memorable highlight finishes that I would gladly trade for a more consistent/less glamourous finish.  Trey in particular is very inefficient in the paint.  While they are both quite athletic, it's not really "functional" athleticism when the ball clanks off the rim or gets swatted away.

 

What?  Trey's fg% at the rim is 45.5%. Sham's is 64.6%, which is best on the team.

[Red Don]

Thanks Dimes (err Matt).  This got me to wondering what Terran Petteway's % was at the rim.  I always think of him as an elite finisher.  Looking at the Husker.com stats all I find is FG %'s (.410). 

 

[tcp]

22 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

Thinking back through past rosters using this scale is also kind of interesting.  That '08-'09 team was an elite team fundamentally (both categories) and in intangibles, but had historically poor size.  They weren't average at anything.  Just one extreme or the other.

 

the Mites were special. to this day, my favorite NU team ever and the one I had the most fun going to games with. 

 

I think no one above 6-4. A clinic on fundamental skill.coaching synergy that just came together and came within a last second 3 of going to the tourney. 

 

 

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Red Don said:

Thanks Dimes (err Matt).  This got me to wondering what Terran Petteway's % was at the rim.  I always think of him as an elite finisher.  Looking at the Husker.com stats all I find is FG %'s (.410). 

 

 

His total shooting % includes all shots. 

This site is great for finding the breakdown by rim/mid/3pt http://hoop-math.com

 

http://hoop-math.com/Nebraska2015.php Petteway 64.2% at the rim

http://hoop-math.com/Nebraska2014.php Pettweay 60% at the rim

 

 

Bartovik.com has these numbers on a single player page but they don't start until 2015 https://barttorvik.com/playerstat.php?year=2015&p=Terran Petteway&t=Nebraska

[aphilso1]

7 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

What?  Trey's fg% at the rim is 45.5%. Sham's is 64.6%, which is best on the team.

Less than 50% from point blank range? Yeah, that is bad. 
 

Shamiel’s 65% is frankly shocking to me considering how often his shots get blocked in the paint. 

[hhcmatt]

2 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

Less than 50% from point blank range? Yeah, that is bad.

 

Agreed. It's plain to the eye that Trey has a finishing problem. My reaction was to you grouping a poor finishing Trey with the good finisher Sham

[aphilso1]

3 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Agreed. It's plain to the eye that Trey has a finishing problem. My reaction was to you grouping a poor finishing Trey with the good finisher Sham

Ok, that makes more sense. That being said, I wonder what Shamiel’s FG% at the rim would be if his charges counted statistically as a missed shot. He has to be top 10 in the country on layup attempt charges per minute played. 

[basketballjones]

In my opinion, this Nebraska team has a lot of guys who are bad at the secondary fundamentals. 
 

For instance, Trey McGowens has probably been the top dude at every basketball camp his whole life. Probably won every award and 1on1 competition. He can’t run a 2 on 1, 3 on 2 break to save his life. 
 

Lat Mayen can probably win every shooting competition the team does. But he struggles to move his windows and pass within the flow of the offense. 
 

However, interestingly enough, Eduardo Andre kinda has poor basic fundamentals, but seems to have a very good feel for the secondary fundamentals of the game. 

[hskr4life]

44 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

 

For instance, Trey McGowens has probably been the top dude at every basketball camp his whole life. Probably won every award and 1on1 competition. He can’t run a 2 on 1, 3 on 2 break to save his life. 
 

 

 

I do want to comment on this... because we have got to be one of the WORST teams I have ever seen run a break.  You have a 4 on 2 break with Stevenson running down the middle of the lane and Banton on the outside... alone... and you leave it off to... STEVENSON!?!?