RedBaron67 wrote:eagle9903 wrote:RedBaron67 wrote:Donahue et al. have recruited 8 players who were on this year's team, and none of them performed any better than the scouting services would have have led you to believe. It's also a gross distortion to say I said they have no eye for talent; what I said is that they've shown no eye for talent that other people didn't see. I could also say that your assessment of the present team stretches optimism to the limit.
Wait what? now Ryan Anderson was highly recruited and Dennis Clifford too?
I'm getting confused.
I never said anything about Anderson or Clifford being highly recruited, although both would certainly have gotten more offers if they hadn't committed to BC early. What I meant was that Anderson performed this season about as well as you'd expect a borderline top-100 player to perform, and Clifford performed roughly on the level of a 7-foot semi-project with a significant, maybe even a big, upside. I think the same was also true of the rest; they performed pretty much in sync with their incoming credentials -- no surprises. What I'm saying Donahue et al. lack (on the existing evidence, at least) is the ability to find gold (e.g., Bell or Smith) that others think is lead. (I won't mention Dudley because there was so much fluky good luck involved in his case -- he really was a gift from the hoop gods.)
I think the bigger question is have they whiffed on lead they thought was gold (or is it too early) or have they not gone after any lead that could be gold? Depending on how that is answered makes a huge difference on how to evaluate the staff based on this factor.
One could easily point to getting in early on guys that turned out to get much more attention later as having an eye for talent that other people didn't see. Of course that would conflict with an agenda.