Discussion in 'Recruiting Archive' started by Jared Grubbs, May 10, 2013.
IU just offered..
lf IU hasn't offered it doesn't count. Dwight Shrute is diligent and obsessive, and will not rest until every member of this class has been offered.
Don't know what we're waiting on here.
Agree. Don't know what we're waiting on in a lot cases. Sort of reminds one of the "Butler isn't for everyone" approach of our former coach. Granted, Miller has improved the talent on the team.....but we still have quite a ways to go. You don't have to go to the extremes of an IU or an X or a Creighton, but get some fricking offers out there to some talent you'd love to see in Hinkle. You never know. We just had one hell of a recruiting opportunity in our backyard. At least by the "reported" accounts, it seemed pretty quiet for the home team. Hope there was a lot going on that we're not aware of.
Part of it might be that in 2016 they'll have a front court (assuming no transfers or anything else) of:
I'm not saying don't offer the kid, because maybe Wideman turns into a 4 man during his time at Butler, but if he doesn't, then you have 3 straight classes with a 5 man, when maybe a 4 is a bigger need for the program at that point. I do agree that he should be offered assuming there's nothing behind the scenes that we aren't aware of, just trying to think of a possible reason why he wouldn't be offered.
Either way, I think at this point it may be too little, too late to put out an offer for him, but I also think the staff has done an excellent job of identifying kids who might be more under the radar, unfortunately, not all of them are waiting to commit to Butler to start blowing up.
Irishdawg, you bring really good points, but I don't this it is too little, too late. If he was classified for the '15 class, then yes, but I don't think it's too late to offer. If Butler can bounce back in the Big East, I think that will go a long way in recruiting too.
I would agree that it's probably because there are already 2 centers on the roster the classes before. But if it were me, I would offer. Are we really in a position where we are worried about having too many big men? Even if that is the case, is it that bad if he doesn't see major minutes until he is a junior? It's not like having 3 centers clogs up the roster so much that other positions can't be filled. I don't think I'll be complaining if we have a problem of not being able to get a kid like Brunk minutes.
^^ I really hope that's not what is holding us back. Brunk is a high major player in our backyard. Now, if we ever do decide to offer, we'll have to play catch up against Iowa, Purdue, IU, X, plus other elite BCS schools are on him (MSU). We have a difficult enough time beating these school when we are the first to offer, let alone the last. Chrabacz isn't really even a center (and he'll be a Sr. anyways), and Wideman and Fowler have a combined 0 BCS offers. I understand having confidence in the players you recruit and I hope they both turn out to be beasts, but we've got a 6'10 top 70 recruit in our fricken back yard. We aren't in a position to say 'nah we'll pass' to that type of talent. Plus, who is to say those two will even be on the roster by then? What is it like 50% of players transfer nowadays?
How do you think he compares to Fowler?
Ask me again in 2 weeks after I've seen Fowler play.
Inside the Hall: Class of 2016 Southport center Joey Brunk talks IU offer
I fear Butler is missing its chance with Brunk. I think he likes Butler, and I know the family has friends with strong ties to Butler Basketball. It might be an uphill battle given the offers he's getting from other major schools, but it's a battle that certainly won't be won unless Butler is having frequent contact with him and making him an offer soon. Joey would be great for Butler and Butler would be great for him. I'd hate to see him go elsewhere (especially Xavier!) due to a lack of effort to recruit him. If Ole Miss is contacting him frequently, surely Butler should be!
Somewhat strangely (???) quite on a lot of players that would seem to be obvious Butler targets. Even with Fowler, you still have to go after Brunk. We're a long, long way from claiming that we have too many big men. Understand that we probably need to show some "on-court" success to lure some of these guys. Chicken and the egg thing. But you still need to extend offers regardless. Let's hope this isn't Brad Stevens Recruiting Philosophy Part Two.
I don't know how Butler could be any clearer on about the system they are looking to run. Miller wants "bigs" who are somewhat interchangeable with the skill set to play either the 4 or 5. I don't think Brunk ( Smits, or Berry) fit that mold.
Are you equating Brunk to Smits and Berry???? Funny. Appears your analysis is not so "clear" to a lot of major coaches and most of the rating services. Like the above article states, Brunk is probably the top Indiana big man in his class with Swanigan reclassifying. He plays about 10 to 12 miles from campus. He's athletic, possesses basketball skills and has a huge upside. It costs $0 to offer. So we pass on him?? Makes no sense. By the way, I didn't realize that Andrew Smith was a 4 as well.
I know this may be a clueless comment but maybe Fowler was promised that he was the guy and we would not be going after another five. I have not seen either play other than videos. Brunk's video shows him taking only two foot shots against smaller guys. I would like to see more athletic 4 s that can do multiple things along with some shooters and another point guard versus another five at this point. Again sorry for being hilarious, clueless or haha funny.
Wow...............Just Wow.....................I never insinuated Brunk isn't a quality player, the point is he might not fit a revamped Butler system. As-an-aside what the hell does Smith have to do with anything ?
Michigan State offered Brunk today.
I don't think Fowler or Wideman fit the mold either though (and Berry actually would). Neither of them are mobile or have a perimeter game. So if you are saying they don't want players like Brunk I would disagree. If you are saying they don't want that many, and prefer to have more of the bigs you described, then Id probably agree. I just worry they are choosing the wrong ones.
Separate names with a comma.