04-27-2017, 02:24 PM
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,319
Thanks: 406
Thanked 1,001 Times in 493 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by steve
If I had to choose I don't think it says anything about about the merits, or lack of, of UD, alot about AM's recruiting/eye for talent, and even more about the relentless work ethic that AM and his staff had and realizing the strategy they needed to deploy by eyeing it early,establishing the relationship, and getting the commit. No way AM is getting either of these kids real late in the process or, rather, after the hurd starts, the way many schools could...
One thing about Archie is just about every kid he gets there's a pretty major flaw that is evident. He gets Scoochie who was thin as a rail, not a great athlete, but gets in on him early. He goes after KD who was a 6' guard with little PG skill even in HS, he gets KP who, again, has no shooting skills but is a 6'6" forward who was 2nd fiddle (but the real glue) on his HS team.There are plenty of others but AM sees thru this and realizes the work needed to mold and shape these under-the-radar kids. Big -time programs don't go after these guys nearly as hard as they normally get a kid far closer to the finished product in either in skill-set or physicality.
|
So if the only reason they were committed to UD was Archie, and they left when Archie left, how is that not a negative commentary on UD generally?
|