I’ve love to hear what people don’t like about his new film?
From what I see, he’s got nice footwork, he uses shot fakes very effectively, he has good hands, and his best attribute is that he uses his body to create space for his shots underneath. When you can put a strong shoulder into the chest of a shotblocker as you go up, it nuetralizes a lot of that length.
Obviously, any 6-10, 270 big man without great athleticism is a project to some extent. But even if this kid isn’t Big Country Reeves, there have been plenty of guys in college basketball over the years who are similar players and have been very good. Mike Peplowski comes to mind. So does Greg Ostertag. So does Matt Stainbrook from Xavier this past season.
I can understand people having some doubts about Davis in the abstract - he’s not Mitch McGary. But I’ll bet this kid ends up ranked in the 75-95 range when it’s all said and done, which may even be higher than Teske. They both bring different things to the table, but the notion that we simply shouldn’t have recruited Davis, to me, is wrong. And that’s especially true now that we’ve learned there’s a good chance he could reclassify.
As for the film, it looked nice. I’d like to see how he moves off a pick-n-roll as well as film on the defensive end. He does have a strong frame and soft touch. He reminds me of Doyle. I do think he needs more explosion/quicker moves. Sometimes he’s too slow in executing his moves and I think if he’s going to be a post threat in college, that’s going to need some polishing.
If the class can work itself out, fine. But as it stands, we’re out of scholarships and have other pressing needs than 2 Centers in this class. That’s my biggest issue with it. If he can reclassify then that’s great.
I don’t understand why people think we are out of scholarships. Davis will reclassify, so there’s one. A second one will come from an early departure, or from someone not happy with playing time. I’d be STUNNED if we see no other attrition in the next year. It always happens.
What I like about two centers in the class is this - in 2015, one huge problem we had is that we lost Horford, and we had to rely on Doyle and Donnal to carry the load (and ultimately, Max took Donnal’s minutes). Both of those guys were seeing game action for the very first time, and it hurt us.
I like the idea of bringing along two centers slowly so that by the time Doyle is gone in 2018, Teske will be a junior, and Davis a sophomore. This 2015 team would have been much better with a junior Doyle than a freshman Doyle. Being able to work those guys (Teske, Davis) into the mix for their first few years, without having to start them, is a huge advantage.
On the film: definitely thought Davis looked good. I was pleasantly surprised with his ability to score down low using a variety of moves. I also would like to have seen some more film of him on D. He looks like he could afford to shed a few lbs, which would enhance his quickness and verticality. You can see why MattD thinks he lacks in those areas but Davis looks like he’s more mobile than advertised and could get to a pretty serviceable place in terms of athleticism.
On Davis’ situation: has he (or his Dad or anyone else who isn’t a pundit) come out and said that he is a good bet to take a prep year? As someone without a premium subscription to most of the services I haven’t seen a direct quote anywhere.
On the film: definitely thought Davis looked good. I was pleasantly surprised with his ability to score down low using a variety of moves. I also would like to have seen some more film of him on D. He looks like he could afford to shed a few lbs, which would enhance his quickness and verticality. You can see why MattD thinks he lacks in those areas but Davis looks like he's more mobile than advertised and could get to a pretty serviceable place in terms of athleticism.
On Davis’ situation: has he (or his Dad or anyone else who isn’t a pundit) come out and said that he is a good bet to take a prep year? As someone without a premium subscription to most of the services I haven’t seen a direct quote anywhere.
Nothing Davis or his Dad has sounded like he intends to take a prep year to me. I think it came from Rivals.
In addition to what’s already been noted, I would say roster balance was in question at the time of Austin’s commitment. Battle’s commitment almost assuredly helps everyone feel worlds better about balance and ball-handling on the roster going forward. So I bet people will view Davis in a new light for that simple fact alone, not to mention the other stuff (and I too was pleasantly surprised at the film).
Footwork, and McHale-esque pump fakes were certainly nice to see. That being said, Im just not all that enamored with the pickup(would feel much better if he reclassified to 17). As a team that RARELY dumps the ball into the post, I gauge our bigs on how they impact the game from more of a defensive standpoint. I’ve seen enough film of Davis to know that he simply isn’t a very good defender because he just lacks the lateral agility and verticality to hedge, recover, and alter shots. Hopefully he’s a good rebounder. From what I’ve seen, I like Teske much more for functional purposes on our team.
Well, it’s true we rarely dump the ball into the post on a direct feed. But we do run a lot of pick and roll, and our bigs are often in the position of catching those passes and having to finish around the rim - so I would say good hands, and the ability to create space for layups around the rim, are important attributes.
I’d agree he’s unlikely to be much of a defender. I judge most of our recruits on their offensive ability. We’re an offensive team. It would be great to land a big man that was great on both ends - usually those guys are one-and-done. Given the choice between a good offensive player/average defender or average offensive player/good defense, I’d take the former for us, but that’s just me.
We’ve come a long way very quickly on Davis, from “it’s a sign the staff is giving up” to “well, it’s not my ideal pickup.”
We haven’t dumped the ball down low much because with the guards and bigs we’ve had, it wouldn’t have made all that much sense to. Tried it some with Horford and McGary, as well as with Doyle last year. Phil Jackson didn’t dump it much to Bill Wennington but he sure did to Shaq. We might not feature it quite as much as some, but if JB and co get the right bigs, they’ll see the ball on the block.
As for schollies, if nobody leaves and Davis doesn’t reclassify, you could redshirt one of them, always a benefit; and we’d be deep and experienced for '16 and '17 and you could grab a PG in '17. For '16 we’d be absolutely fine with Walton, Rahkman, Battle, Robinson, etc., in the backcourt. But it’s a good bet one opens up somehow. People were worried we wouldn’t have enough for '15 and it looks like we’ll have an open slot.
Well, it's true we rarely dump the ball into the post on a direct feed. But we do run a lot of pick and roll, and our bigs are often in the position of catching those passes and having to finish around the rim - so I would say good hands, and the ability to create space for layups around the rim, are important attributes.
I’d agree he’s unlikely to be much of a defender. I judge most of our recruits on their offensive ability. We’re an offensive team. It would be great to land a big man that was great on both ends - usually those guys are one-and-done. Given the choice between a good offensive player/average defender or average offensive player/good defense, I’d take the former for us, but that’s just me.
But we aren’t talking about a good offensive/average defensive player, we’re talking about an average(perhaps slightly above) offensive/below average(perhaps bad) defensive player. His lack of athleticism is instrumental in terms of finishing around the rim. If he can rebound, that will be a big factor in determining whether Davis is a net plus or negative.
I feel like the lack of post ups is due to personnel moreso than a lack of willingness to run it (if I remember correctly, Mitch was getting a healthy amount of postups in early 13-14). So if Austin has the ability to get a bucket on the block, I’m sure it’ll be taken advantage of.
Although, I always prefer defensive shot blockers at center. Adds more, IMO.
I don't understand why people think we are out of scholarships. Davis will reclassify, so there's one. A second one will come from an early departure, or from someone not happy with playing time. I'd be STUNNED if we see no other attrition in the next year. It always happens.
What I like about two centers in the class is this - in 2015, one huge problem we had is that we lost Horford, and we had to rely on Doyle and Donnal to carry the load (and ultimately, Max took Donnal’s minutes). Both of those guys were seeing game action for the very first time, and it hurt us.
I like the idea of bringing along two centers slowly so that by the time Doyle is gone in 2018, Teske will be a junior, and Davis a sophomore. This 2015 team would have been much better with a junior Doyle than a freshman Doyle. Being able to work those guys (Teske, Davis) into the mix for their first few years, without having to start them, is a huge advantage.
Because right now, we are out of scholarships. Which is why I said if it works itself out, then fine.
And having Davis come along LATER is more ideal based on what you just said.
That’s just the nature of the beast with hoops recruiting. You have to recruit for attrition because it is such a harsh reality between early entries and close to 1000 transfers per year.
It might feel uncomfortable, but there’s a reason why teams are allowed to oversign by 1 in November.
That's just the nature of the beast with hoops recruiting. You have to recruit for attrition because it is such a harsh reality between early entries and close to 1000 transfers per year.
It might feel uncomfortable, but there’s a reason why teams are allowed to oversign by 1 in November.
…then it’s fine. If we have enough room to get what we need.
I think I like him more then you guys. I like how he bodies/seeks contact. I also think he’s got some refined post moves for a kid who’s sixteen. I’m very happy we added him actually. He can add the toughness were always seeking.
I don't understand why people think we are out of scholarships.
It's not that hard to understand. They think we are out of scholarships because we are out of scholarships. We will continue to be out until something changes, like the possibilities that you pointed out.
Here’s something that’s important for people to read. My buddy Alex at Inside the Hall passed it along. It’s a bit dated (2012), but the rules in question haven’t changed.
On my way into Bloomington today, I spoke with the Big Ten's associate commissioner of compliance, Chad Hawley, about the rules when it comes to oversigning in the conference. Here's a transcript of two very interesting responses. I came away from the conversation under the impression that IU can sign more than four on Wednesday.
ITH: What specifically is the Big Ten rule on oversigning?
Hawley: "The rule is that you can oversign by one. The way our rule is triggered, it’s based on the athletic aid agreements that are in existence for a given academic year. So when a school is figuring out whether or not they’re going to oversign, if they’re looking forward to the upcoming academic year, so 2013-2014, they’re trying to figure out how many scholarships they’re going to have tied up with folks.
"And that’s where the good faith comes into play. It may be that a school has someone that is on aid for 2012-2013 that is an underclassmen but they know with as near as you can get 100% certainty that the person will not be at their school the following year. Which means that they know that the person will not have a financial aid agreement for the 2013-2014 academic year. The school can look at that and say, ‘that’s a slot that we have available.’ So that’s not over signing by more than one, that’s taking a look at your roster and figuring out that the scholarship is going to be available.
“Oversigning is going to come into play if they have reached the maximum amount of scholarship agreements and then signed above and beyond that. Really our rule is tied to offering. Once you’ve reached your limit, you can’t offer above that for a given academic year. The only rule is that you can oversign by one, but in terms of where a school is figuring out what they’re going to be offering for an upcoming year, there can be some fluidity. All the while, though, if a school is not certain about an individual, then they’re putting themselves in a position to be over signed by more than one. And that obviously would be a violation. So it’s not risk free, but we don’t really have any legislative standards that have to be met before a school says ‘yes, okay, for sure’ this scholarship is available.”
ITH: If a Big Ten school plans to oversign by more than the limit available on paper, do they have to let the conference know how they will arrive at the scholarship limit?
Hawley: “Schools don’t have to let us know how they’re arriving at the number of slots they’re anticipating having available. If a school reports to us that they’re going to have five slots available, they don’t have to let us know how it’s five. They just need to let us know how many slots they have available and then whether they intend to oversign. There are numerous ways in which a school can anticipate slots becoming available.”
ITH: When you say that oversigning by too many could be a violation, is that a NCAA bylaw, not Big Ten, correct?
Hawley: “Actually that’s a violation of a Big Ten rule. In basketball there’s not a NCAA rule that limits oversigning. That’s a conference rule.”