1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff

  • 56 replies
  • 8688 views
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2019, 09:03:52 PM »
Kids get "Star Ratings" based on HS performances but what they do with them in college is not guaranteed.  They may have looked great in HS but what was the level of competition; was the player dominant because he was physically significantly different than competition?  It is what they do at the next level because the competition is better.  Are the coachable; are they continuing to develop skills.  Look at 5 star Jahvon Quinerly at Nova and his teammate, 3 star Eric Paschall (as a frosh at Fordham.   The 3 star has turned out better as he developed/was coachable/worked hard. 

I would like to see CMA work with kids he chooses and see what develops--as said above he deserves time to show what he can do with players he believes fit his approach--as all do not.

Paschall was a senior this year and Quinerly was a freshman. I bet as he gets older Quinerly will have a very solid college career. Paschall averaged 7.2 points his first year in big east play, give quinerly some time.

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2019, 09:23:23 PM »
Rankings and Stars actually are very important and are correct often. Every rule has exceptions and its nice to see that once in a while kid coached up from 3 star to stardom, but we need to start winning right now. This program has been in shambles for a long time now. 4s and 5s and future NBA types should be the goal. I would rather take a team filled with these that gets upset in Round of 32 then your "hard-working" low talent bunch that overachieved to squeeze in to tournament. We are not the A-10 we are the Big East, recruit like it. Better pipeline with future recruits and talent with the former (line of top players) rather than the latter.

What did you say about getting upset in the round of 32? We got manhandled by Arizona State because we were the softest team in the tournament.

This program has recruited an endless amount of 4 star players that played like 2 star players. Last year was nothing new in that regard.

What our program needs regardless of star rankings are kids who want to work hard, and a staff that wants to and is capable of teaching them.

It’s about damn time St.John’s built some continuity.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2019, 10:00:37 PM »
Ok sorry in advance for the long winded rant but here goes...

It's a shame that most of you are missing the point. It's the way this new regime is going about their business that's the most encouraging sign.

The ratings and stars debate is silly. St. John's has no right expecting a certain level of player to come here. This program is in no position to expect that based on the last 15 years of on court results.

The previous two regimes signed about a dozen four and five star recruits between them. What certain level of player should we not expect to come here? 


Quote
What's nice to see is that within a few weeks of getting the job Anderson signs a tough, solid rated point guard with upside. He then puts out offers to a couple of 6'9 and 6'10 kids. Forget the ratings on these kids. It's nice to see him targeting point guards and big men right off the bat.

Yeah, he put out a couple of offers, that's nice to see. Because if he hadn't, that would have been troubling. Because without offers, there are no players. And he secured a tough solid 3 star rated guard with upside, like Brian Trimble. Check. And has made offers to 6'9 and 10 kids, like Owens and Brown and Steere and Roberts and Brooks. Check. That hasn't happened before. Certainly there's groundbreaking stuff going on here.


Quote
Look at the big picture. Under the past regime we were in the dark most of the time and most of the time when there was talk about signing this recruit or signing a coach (Mike Rice,etc) it almost never panned out. Adding insult to injury, under the last regime these rumors would linger for not days, not weeks, but MONTHS.
I've never seen a high major program live in secrecy the way they did the last 4 years with the rumor mill BS.

I don't labor under the delusion that any basketball program owes its fan base transparency. On the contrary, I think it owes respect to its players privacy and that strategically it should not broadcast its plans to its opponents. You know, in the same way that Eisenhower calling Hitler the week before D Day and telling him there was an imminent invasion might have been a strategic blunder. Speaking of blunders, here's yours: there are on these various fan boards many avatar shifting allegedly in the know drama queens and fordham graduates whose inner lives are so shallow that they feel the need to preen in obscure corners of the internet about what they sense they might have heard might be happening and there are a multitude of rubes like you who gobble it up via an internet version of telephone tag that turns those vague allusions into rumors into facts which then go wrong. Remember two years ago when fans spent the whole summer wondering whether Matt was off to LSU and this past summer when everyone was playing where Waldo Mike Rice. That was not the past regime's fault. That was the fault of rumor mongering and slander. Personally I much prefer the past regime's stoicism to the previous regimes histrionics, where every minor and major life event became an excuse for public displays of wailing and gnashing of teeth complete with sack cloth and ashes.

Quote
I've never seen a high major program live in secrecy the way they did the last 4 years with the rumor mill BS.

This is utter nonsense. All high major basketball programs operate in secrecy. John Wooden seceretly had a bag man called Sam Gilbert. Rick Pitino secretly operated a brothel. Sean Miller and Will Wade et al secretly paid their players hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kevin Willard secretly negotiated a deal with Tiny Morton. None of that was broadcast. Only Johnny Clamchowder and ratface operate in public and only because they can.

The fact is that Chris Mullin barely spoke to the press: his contempt for it was palpable. He did not start or propagate rumors. He was in that sense very much like Bill Belichick and Bobby Knight, both of whom were comfortable in their skins and knew in their bones that journalists are idiots.

Quote
It got so old and the worst part was it didn't yield any positive results. Some may argue that this past year was a positive but next year was bound to be a disaster again and the old regime wasn't going to implement any sweeping change to avoid this from happening. They were just going to keep doing the same things that they did for 4 years that barely moved this program in the right direction. I'll give them a little credit because that is all they deserve, nothing more.

Mullin inherited a team comprising Felix Balamou and Amar Albigwitz and within four years won 20 games and made the NCAA tourament while compiling the most talented roster in recent memory: Ponds, Heron, Simon, Figueroa, etc. That might not be a positive result to you, but it's a positive result to any one other than a complete lunatic. Did he do with it all that might have been done? No. Is that "barely moved in the right direction"? No.


Quote
You can bash these kids that Anderson is going after all you want but at least give the guy a year to see what he's trying to build. Hell we gave CM like 3 years of total leash before putting the pressure on him this past season to produce a solid season.



I have not seen anyone bashing the single player Anderson has brought in, except to notice that he is small, unregarded and lightly recruited. All of which is true. Maybe he'll morph into Calvin Murphy; I certainly hope so. What I have seen is people bashing posters who have achieved huge throbbing erections based upon that single signing. Which, look the the mirror

Quote
Anderson is moving fast. Adding players, coaches and targeting recruits. So far to me he's bringing a level of experience and professionalism to this job that I haven't seen here in a very long time. I may be wrong but let's see how it plays out because I think he knows what he's doing.

So I should trust the process because you do. Okay. But then I have little choice.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2019, 10:04:25 PM »
It’s about damn time St.John’s built some continuity.


Agree completely. Hopefully Coach Iron Mike has the good sense not to make the NCAA tournament so he does not get fired like his predecessors.

Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2019, 11:22:56 PM »

Agree completely. Hopefully Coach Iron Mike has the good sense not to make the NCAA tournament so he does not get fired like his predecessors.
Iron Mike's predecessor lost the play in game to the tournament.  He didn't make the tournament.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2019, 08:53:49 AM »
Iron Mike's predecessor lost the play in game to the tournament.  He didn't make the tournament.

False. Mullin made the “Field of 68.” They even had a “Selection Show” and were selected on it.


Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2019, 09:30:54 AM »
False. Mullin made the “Field of 68.” They even had a “Selection Show” and were selected on it.


Making, and losing in, the first four should not be viewed in the same light as making the field of 64.

Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2019, 09:34:54 AM »
Making, and losing in, the first four should not be viewed in the same light as making the field of 64.


Give it a break. The field is 68 teams. Coach Mullin will forever on his head coaching record have an NCAA tourney appearance. Now on to Mike Anderson.
*wipes ketchup from his eyes* - I guess Heinz sight isn’t 20/20.

Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2019, 09:55:38 AM »
Kids get "Star Ratings" based on HS performances but what they do with them in college is not guaranteed.  They may have looked great in HS but what was the level of competition; was the player dominant because he was physically significantly different than competition?  It is what they do at the next level because the competition is better.  Are the coachable; are they continuing to develop skills.  Look at 5 star Jahvon Quinerly at Nova and his teammate, 3 star Eric Paschall (as a frosh at Fordham.   The 3 star has turned out better as he developed/was coachable/worked hard. 

I would like to see CMA work with kids he chooses and see what develops--as said above he deserves time to show what he can do with players he believes fit his approach--as all do not.

There are exceptions to every rule. However, that does not change the fact that the star and ranking system is accurate more times than not. It is a good indicator of what you will get. Duke and Kentucky for example get those top dogs every year and those same players end up in the lottery or high picks. There is something to that.

And its fair to say- get Anderson some players he can develop but we want to reach the point some day that those are "stash" scholarships at most and have a team that consistently can get a top impact player right away to get us wins, even if that top player does not stay long. Various good things occur this way- First, we have another player in NBA which helps us recruit; Second we have had a winning/successful season that brings more money into the program to keep going in right direction (ex=facilities etc); Third we have given the raw prospect time to develop and not feel pressure from balancing the top prospects for a few seasons. Then when that player goes to NBA you win on both fronts- I have a lottery pick AND a coached up player. That is a healthy program.

As for the lottery pick recruits- this would never have happened but could  you imagine if Zion played here this season and we had a good season? The press, excitement, attention and MONEY into the prrogram, the rising enrollments. That all counts for something. People have to look at the big picture- we were once an elite 8 and final 4 program. Its not like it cannot be done or aimed for again.............

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2019, 11:45:06 AM »
Iron Mike's predecessor lost the play in game to the tournament.  He didn't make the tournament.

Iron Mike is a silly name. I propose Coach Third Choice instead. Or better yet Run CTC.

Also, according to the NCAA, SJ made the NCAA tournament. Sorry you missed it. Here's an article on NCAA dot com about the March Madness field of 68.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2019-03-05/complete-march-madness-field-68-predicted-first-days-march

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2019, 12:03:46 PM »
Making, and losing in, the first four should not be viewed in the same light as making the field of 64.


Making and losing in the second round should not be viewed in the same light as making the Final Four.


Johnny23

  • *****
  • 3277
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2019, 02:58:20 PM »
The previous two regimes signed about a dozen four and five star recruits between them. What certain level of player should we not expect to come here? 


Yeah, he put out a couple of offers, that's nice to see. Because if he hadn't, that would have been troubling. Because without offers, there are no players. And he secured a tough solid 3 star rated guard with upside, like Brian Trimble. Check. And has made offers to 6'9 and 10 kids, like Owens and Brown and Steere and Roberts and Brooks. Check. That hasn't happened before. Certainly there's groundbreaking stuff going on here.


I don't labor under the delusion that any basketball program owes its fan base transparency. On the contrary, I think it owes respect to its players privacy and that strategically it should not broadcast its plans to its opponents. You know, in the same way that Eisenhower calling Hitler the week before D Day and telling him there was an imminent invasion might have been a strategic blunder. Speaking of blunders, here's yours: there are on these various fan boards many avatar shifting allegedly in the know drama queens and fordham graduates whose inner lives are so shallow that they feel the need to preen in obscure corners of the internet about what they sense they might have heard might be happening and there are a multitude of rubes like you who gobble it up via an internet version of telephone tag that turns those vague allusions into rumors into facts which then go wrong. Remember two years ago when fans spent the whole summer wondering whether Matt was off to LSU and this past summer when everyone was playing where Waldo Mike Rice. That was not the past regime's fault. That was the fault of rumor mongering and slander. Personally I much prefer the past regime's stoicism to the previous regimes histrionics, where every minor and major life event became an excuse for public displays of wailing and gnashing of teeth complete with sack cloth and ashes.

This is utter nonsense. All high major basketball programs operate in secrecy. John Wooden seceretly had a bag man called Sam Gilbert. Rick Pitino secretly operated a brothel. Sean Miller and Will Wade et al secretly paid their players hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kevin Willard secretly negotiated a deal with Tiny Morton. None of that was broadcast. Only Johnny Clamchowder and ratface operate in public and only because they can.

The fact is that Chris Mullin barely spoke to the press: his contempt for it was palpable. He did not start or propagate rumors. He was in that sense very much like Bill Belichick and Bobby Knight, both of whom were comfortable in their skins and knew in their bones that journalists are idiots.

Mullin inherited a team comprising Felix Balamou and Amar Albigwitz and within four years won 20 games and made the NCAA tourament while compiling the most talented roster in recent memory: Ponds, Heron, Simon, Figueroa, etc. That might not be a positive result to you, but it's a positive result to any one other than a complete lunatic. Did he do with it all that might have been done? No. Is that "barely moved in the right direction"? No.




I have not seen anyone bashing the single player Anderson has brought in, except to notice that he is small, unregarded and lightly recruited. All of which is true. Maybe he'll morph into Calvin Murphy; I certainly hope so. What I have seen is people bashing posters who have achieved huge throbbing erections based upon that single signing. Which, look the the mirror

So I should trust the process because you do. Okay. But then I have little choice.

Give Anderson a chance before you bash his process. He may know a few things about building a program that the past few coaching regimes did not.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2019, 03:31:26 PM »
Give Anderson a chance before you bash his process. He may know a few things about building a program that the past few coaching regimes did not.

I haven't bashed the process, I have no choice but to give him a chance, and for the record Run CTC is currently my favorite St John's coach and I hope he succeeds beyond the wildest dreams of all of his predecessors combined. That said hope is for suckers and Jamaica is where coaching careers come to die. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Alumni Hall was built on an Indian burial ground.




Johnny23

  • *****
  • 3277
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2019, 03:47:32 PM »
I haven't bashed the process, I have no choice but to give him a chance, and for the record Run CTC is currently my favorite St John's coach and I hope he succeeds beyond the wildest dreams of all of his predecessors combined. That said hope is for suckers and Jamaica is where coaching careers come to die. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Alumni Hall was built on an Indian burial ground.




I haven't bashed the process, I have no choice but to give him a chance, and for the record Run CTC is currently my favorite St John's coach and I hope he succeeds beyond the wildest dreams of all of his predecessors combined. That said hope is for suckers and Jamaica is where coaching careers come to die. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Alumni Hall was built on an Indian burial ground.




 :2funny: :up:

Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2019, 07:56:32 PM »
Making, and losing in, the first four should not be viewed in the same light as making the field of 64.


The play in games should be for mid majors with 25ish wins who lost in semis or finals of their conference tournaments

ras

  • *****
  • 2091
Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2019, 09:08:17 PM »
I think the play in game should be for 15 and 16 seeds.

Re: 1st signee - Jonathan Mcgriff
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2019, 10:07:30 AM »
Iron Mike is a silly name. 
Let me sleep on it.