Hand-wringing for years to find a shooter like Creighton and the mid-majors. Find said shooter and ***** about his offer sheet. I love Bearcat fans!

(06-29-2016 10:49 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  Hand-wringing for years to find a shooter like Creighton and the mid-majors. Find said shooter and ***** about his offer sheet. I love Bearcat fans!

What else exactly do we have to go on? There's very little out there on him.

I'd slow down a bit labeling him a "shooter" until he's actually making shots at Cincinnati.

http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/...-a-shooter

Field 2.0?

"Moore is known for his ability to really shoot the basketball. In Under Armour play Moore is 35-93 from beyond the arc. In fact catching and shooting is what he almost does exclusively. Moore has only attempted 13 two point attempts and 25 free throws in 11 games on the Under Armour Association."

I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

(06-30-2016 06:04 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

Yep.

Williams came in and busted his @ss to become a solid player too. His growth as a player from beginning to end was very good.

(06-30-2016 06:04 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

Field shot 60% from three in high school and in the low 40%'s at UC. And that was during the time when the high school and college distances were the same.

Considering the shorter arc and less competition, a 40% shooter in high school generally represents a 30% shooter in college unless the kid works his butt off and continues to develop and improve.

I have no personal opinion either way whether or not this is a good pickup. But based purely on his offer sheet and stats, I'm not getting too excited right now.

(06-30-2016 06:04 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

We try to (or are forced to) live on the under the radar guys.

Unless a kid was injured in his Junior year or is not all in on the travel circuit, the quality of teams interested is normally a damn good indicator of the chances of future success at the high major D-1 level. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but all things being equal, I'd prefer to be landing kids with better offer sheets than that.

Perhaps suitors were limited due to his game being limited to catch and shoot. Perhaps that fit the skill set need we were looking for.

Feels like a Kevin Johnson type. My guess is if this kid pans out he will have a similar type of career here.

I'll withhold judgment one way or the other until the kid gets here and balls out against D1 competition. Hoping for the best.

Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

(06-30-2016 07:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 06:04 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

Field shot 60% from three in high school and in the low 40%'s at UC. And that was during the time when the high school and college distances were the same.

Considering the shorter arc and less competition, a 40% shooter in high school generally represents a 30% shooter in college unless the kid works his butt off and continues to develop and improve.

I have no personal opinion either way whether or not this is a good pickup. But based purely on his offer sheet and stats, I'm not getting too excited right now.

I don't know about that. Jacob Evans shot 32% from three as a junior in high school and 37% from three as a senior. I can't find Trevor Moore's high school stats, but if he continues at a ~40% clip, while possibly improving, I think it's BS to assume he'll hit 30% at UC.

It's possible to find underrated guys. Caupain, for instance. To a lesser extent, Clark and Evans. But it's just not possible to have a high enough hit rate on them. Mormon, Strickland, Moore, Sanders, Guyn, Kelvin Gaines, Jeremiah Davis. It's actually amazing that UC has been so competitive with the level of recruits they've brought in. But the program will never get to that next level consistently unless the caliber of recruits improves.

With Caupain, Clark, Evans, Washington, and Cumberland, plus a couple bench guys, this team should be pretty good. I'm hoping they have a great season and can turn that into a better recruiting haul.

(06-30-2016 09:46 AM)#BearcatNation Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 06:04 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I hope he's another Field, but Field was a National Top 100 recruit with some big-time offers.

Again, it's almost impossible to be an unknown in this day and age if you are a legit high level prospect.

Field shot 60% from three in high school and in the low 40%'s at UC. And that was during the time when the high school and college distances were the same.

Considering the shorter arc and less competition, a 40% shooter in high school generally represents a 30% shooter in college unless the kid works his butt off and continues to develop and improve.

I have no personal opinion either way whether or not this is a good pickup. But based purely on his offer sheet and stats, I'm not getting too excited right now.

I don't know about that. Jacob Evans shot 32% from three as a junior in high school and 37% from three as a senior. I can't find Trevor Moore's high school stats, but if he continues at a ~40% clip, while possibly improving, I think it's BS to assume he'll hit 30% at UC.

While I agree to a certain extent, there is a measure of regression that most every player faces when moving from high school to college. The fact that Evans can create his own shot and every write-up and video I have seen of this kid makes me think that he might have an issue with it is what troubles me. If he can continue shooting at that rate, that's great, but typically players who are only shooters tend to have a drop back when they can't create because teams can just key in on it and don't have to worry about the bounce. I'm on record saying that I think it is a good add, but I'm not about to compare him to Field Williams when he's struggling to hit over 40% in summer AAU/Showcase tournaments where defense exists only as an ancient myth spoken in hushed tones.

One thing to consider - he hasn't been in the sharshooter/long-range role for very long. He used to be a guy that used his size to score.

I understand the concern about how a HS 40% translates to a longer college shot. But if you want some comfort, take a look at his 3pt stroke and ball rotation - he is about as fluid as it gets.

Also of note - He is still a very young kid (just 16 right now) - lots of these 2017's we see are a year older (some are even a lot older that that!)

Man he must be good as we beat out a TX school, a NYC school, a Virginia school and a KY school.

If your thinking TX, St. Johns, Virginia or UK you are wrong. If you think it must be TT, Manhattan, VT and UL, wrong again.


We beat out the mighty Stephen F. Austin, LIU-Brooklyn, Old Dominion, and Murray State. Man is Mick a recruiter!

(06-30-2016 08:57 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

As rath and Marcus have stated, the offer list is a pretty good indicator of how good of a prospect someone is. That's especially true in basketball, where it's far less likely that someone is under the radar like you can see in football.

I tend to think the college coaches and national and regional scouts know more about the prospects than guys running individual team sites. If for no other reason than they're totally independent.

(06-30-2016 03:02 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:57 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

As rath and Marcus have stated, the offer list is a pretty good indicator of how good of a prospect someone is. That's especially true in basketball, where it's far less likely that someone is under the radar like you can see in football.

I tend to think the college coaches and national and regional scouts know more about the prospects than guys running individual team sites. If for no other reason than they're totally independent.

Not stating I disagree-- in fact my thoughts are aligned with you, Marcus and Rath. Someone asked why the folks on BCJ are high-fiving and I stated why.

JaQuon Parker's only other offer was Old Dominion. He had a pretty good career.

Besides, don't we watch teams like Murray state and Stephen f Austin every year in March and ask ourselves why we can't find a shooter/s like they've got? Well looks like we've got one on paper.

Contributing at a high major college is a different story though and I have no idea if Moore can do that.

(06-30-2016 03:02 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:57 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

As rath and Marcus have stated, the offer list is a pretty good indicator of how good of a prospect someone is. That's especially true in basketball, where it's far less likely that someone is under the radar like you can see in football.

I tend to think the college coaches and national and regional scouts know more about the prospects than guys running individual team sites. If for no other reason than they're totally independent.

He is a 16 year old who has grown a lot over the last couple years and just started to develop into the role of "deep threat guy".

GT has seen him play live - I trust him when he says the kid can flat out shoot the ball.

I haven't seen him play live but I do think he has a textbook form shot and a quick release - and we have been looking for "zone buster" guys.

Sure I would love to see a couple big names on his offer list. And yet there are MAJOR exceptions to the offer list rules. Sean Kilpatrick didn't have too impressive a list of suitors. He took two visits - we beat out Providence.

Look on the bright side - our last couple classes offer serious evidence that we are looking, HARD for scorers and shooters. Something we have all been complaining about.

Cumberland, Cane Broome, Moore, Kyle Washington, Jacob Evans - all known as guys who have "putting the ball in the bucket" as their main strength.

are role players bad?

(06-30-2016 03:02 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:57 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

As rath and Marcus have stated, the offer list is a pretty good indicator of how good of a prospect someone is. That's especially true in basketball, where it's far less likely that someone is under the radar like you can see in football.

I tend to think the college coaches and national and regional scouts know more about the prospects than guys running individual team sites. If for no other reason than they're totally independent.

Check my history evaluating prospects. When I haven't liked a kids game I have been very clear about it.

Staff was looking for a bigger wing that could shoot at a high level. They landed the best shooter on the UA circuit. Mission accomplished...

(06-30-2016 05:22 PM)GameTime_21 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 03:02 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:57 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Chad/Game Time 21 says the kid was undervalued by the scouts for a variety of reasons. I'll let him go over the details.

As rath and Marcus have stated, the offer list is a pretty good indicator of how good of a prospect someone is. That's especially true in basketball, where it's far less likely that someone is under the radar like you can see in football.

I tend to think the college coaches and national and regional scouts know more about the prospects than guys running individual team sites. If for no other reason than they're totally independent.

Check my history evaluating prospects. When I haven't liked a kids game I have been very clear about it.

Staff was looking for a bigger wing that could shoot at a high level. They landed the best shooter on the UA circuit. Mission accomplished...

This is true. I'm pretty sure he said he had major questions about taking Jenifer and maybe Quadri Moore as well. If Chad says he can play then I feel pretty good about the commit.