New targets?

  • 53 replies
  • 11874 views

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: New targets?
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2017, 08:06:58 PM »
He was released from LOI and can play next year

Who was?

Bryan Trimble former FSU recruit noted above

Thanks

Re: New targets?
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2017, 08:41:01 PM »
Hmm. If the staff is now "not necessarily done" with filling the roster for the upcoming season that means they have to somebody in mind, no?

Obviously if Diakite enrolls that makes it 13.  Trimble could be an option if Diakite doesn't enroll etc.  Number of options.

Re: New targets?
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2017, 07:17:25 PM »
Are we recruiting MiKyle McIntosh?  I know he is visiting Oregon.  Immediately eligible, power forward.


Just committed to Oregon.

https://twitter.com/MervM_22/status/875085228892704768


hnk

  • *****
  • 1681
Re: New targets?
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2017, 07:17:32 AM »
Does anyone know who the big graduate transfer we were expected to get by staff, but didn't materialize?

Re: New targets?
« Reply #44 on: June 15, 2017, 01:06:41 PM »
Does anyone know who the big graduate transfer we were expected to get by staff, but didn't materialize?
Believe his name was Bargaining Chip from the University of Matty A.  :D

isham

  • **
  • 77
Re: New targets?
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2017, 07:56:19 PM »
When I spoke to Matt back in March he told me that was the number 1 priority and the way he spoke I thought he was just waiting for a signature

hnk

  • *****
  • 1681
Re: New targets?
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2017, 09:59:30 PM »
From?

Re: New targets?
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2017, 10:14:14 PM »
When I spoke to Matt back in March he told me that was the number 1 priority and the way he spoke I thought he was just waiting for a signature
At least they were smart enough to make it a priority but they not only failed to get that player but also never got a reasonable facsimile. That said recruiting seems to be on an up tick with recent signings and with the players we seem to be heavily involved with so I am not complaining about recruiting.

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: New targets?
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2017, 10:40:37 PM »
When I spoke to Matt back in March he told me that was the number 1 priority and the way he spoke I thought he was just waiting for a signature
At least they were smart enough to make it a priority but they not only failed to get that player but also never got a reasonable facsimile. That said recruiting seems to be on an up tick with recent signings and with the players we seem to be heavily involved with so I am not complaining about recruiting.

Not signing a big man grad transfer is an oversight that fits St.John's. We consistently field unbalanced teams and play it off like we meant to. Nothing different here.

Re: New targets?
« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2017, 04:03:18 PM »
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: New targets?
« Reply #50 on: June 18, 2017, 08:59:08 PM »
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

That's nice. New targets should be for players that can rebound the ball next season in actual games. But hey, it's great that the staff is working hard on players who are entering the 10th grade. 

MCNPA

  • *****
  • 5975
Re: New targets?
« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2017, 10:57:15 PM »
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

That's nice. New targets should be for players that can rebound the ball next season in actual games. But hey, it's great that the staff is working hard on players who are entering the 10th grade. 
[/quote
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

That's nice. New targets should be for players that can rebound the ball next season in actual games. But hey, it's great that the staff is working hard on players who are entering the 10th grade. 

You're totally wrong on that.  The best programs are built, not just for next year but way beyond.   It's shortsighted.  We have guys that can rebound.  We were actually 5th overall in offensive rebounding.   Defensive rebounding was a bit due to our youth and depth up front.  Both of those should improve quite a bit with more talent coming in already.  Recruiting for the future is even more important than that.

goredmen

  • *****
  • 5066
Re: New targets?
« Reply #52 on: June 18, 2017, 11:18:37 PM »

You're totally wrong on that.  The best programs are built, not just for next year but way beyond.   It's shortsighted.  We have guys that can rebound.  We were actually 5th overall in offensive rebounding.   Defensive rebounding was a bit due to our youth and depth up front.  Both of those should improve quite a bit with more talent coming in already.  Recruiting for the future is even more important than that.

Uhh when were 5th overall in offensive rebounding?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 11:19:42 PM by goredmen »

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: New targets?
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2017, 12:19:24 AM »
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

That's nice. New targets should be for players that can rebound the ball next season in actual games. But hey, it's great that the staff is working hard on players who are entering the 10th grade. 
[/quote
Marley Paul -

St. John's offered 11 2020 kids so far, 8 before last season started. Matches rest of the Big East combined #sjubb

That's nice. New targets should be for players that can rebound the ball next season in actual games. But hey, it's great that the staff is working hard on players who are entering the 10th grade. 

You're totally wrong on that.  The best programs are built, not just for next year but way beyond.   It's shortsighted.  We have guys that can rebound.  We were actually 5th overall in offensive rebounding.   Defensive rebounding was a bit due to our youth and depth up front.  Both of those should improve quite a bit with more talent coming in already.  Recruiting for the future is even more important than that.


I don't care to hear about it now. A far more pressing need has been ignored, and the staff needs to be called out on it.