Player Development vs Recruiting

[oldrunner]

I've noticed, over the years, that coaches and programs tend to lean one way or the other. Some coaches rise and fall on their recruiting. They either get the tallent they need or they struggle. Other coaches seem to go after potential, knowing that they are going to teach them what will be needed for success.

John Wooden always said that he wnated to recruit athletes and then teach the game to them. Although, some would say that he got the best players anyway. His teams were, certainly, very precise in what they were trying to do. Nobody would argue the fact that players did develope while playing for the wizz.

Programs like Kentucky don't show the same kind of player development. If they are good as an underclassman, they move on to the NBA. If they are not that good, there is a high likelyhood that they will move on to another school or ride the bench behind some incoming freshman.

I believe the WSU shows signs of being a little of both. At the mid major level, I think programs can not be successful on recruiting only. The top level tallent pool just isn't deep enough. That is why it is so important to get the right assistant coaches and foster the proper development environment.

What thinks ya'all?

 

[n.ogdencat]

I've noticed, over the years, that coaches and programs tend to lean one way or the other. Some coaches rise and fall on their recruiting. They either get the tallent they need or they struggle. Other coaches seem to go after potential, knowing that they are going to teach them what will be needed for success.

John Wooden always said that he wnated to recruit athletes and then teach the game to them. Although, some would say that he got the best players anyway. His teams were, certainly, very precise in what they were trying to do. Nobody would argue the fact that players did develope while playing for the wizz.

Programs like Kentucky don't show the same kind of player development. If they are good as an underclassman, they move on to the NBA. If they are not that good, there is a high likelyhood that they will move on to another school or ride the bench behind some incoming freshman.

I believe the WSU shows signs of being a little of both. At the mid major level, I think programs can not be successful on recruiting only. The top level tallent pool just isn't deep enough. That is why it is so important to get the right assistant coaches and foster the proper development environment.

What thinks ya'all?

Yeah, I'd agree with ya Olds. Weber is a mixture of talent and development. Even our most talented players go through a process of development. Lillard was certainly not the player he is now when he first came to Weber. We all knew he had the talent, ability, and potential to become a legendary player for the Cats, but he had to have good coaches around him and that necessary drive to progress. The Wizard of Weber does a great job of building up his players. Yes, he has brought in a number of projects during his time here and I will say the great majority haven't panned out, that doesn't mean they didnt try hard, they just weren't as skilled/talented as they needed to be. Yes, good basketball players, but not DI. Yet, there have been a handful of players that coach has taken a chance on who have panned out. Darin Mahoney, Tyler Billings, Steve Panos (I think Panos is by far the most successful of the group, each year he only got better and better), among others. Rahe knows his job. He does a great job of brining in gems in the rough and them shaping them into good and efficient players.