Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 66

Thread: Garrett Galvin, preferred walk on

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by tsubamoto2001 View Post
    Lin wasn't a walk-on. He was also a finalist for Mr. Basketball in 2006 (along with Chase Budinger, Ryan Anderson, and James Harden) something neither Galvin nor RFK came close to doing.
    Lin's choices were Harvard (no athletic scholarship, his family paid most of his expenses, right?) or walking on at Cal. UCLA didn't even recruit him as a walk-on? That was the "market." I think we all agree he was "undervalued" by "the market" and we can agree race played some role in that.

    My point isn't that Lin wasn't good, my point is that we almost got him as a walk-on. That was the market for his services.

    And IF we had landed him as a walk-on, and he beat out guys with scholarships, he should have played in front of them, and if he became a starter or major contributor he should have been awarded a scholarship.

    Awarding someone a scholarship or preferred walk-on status is a bet on the future (but those are two different bets). Not all great high school players pan out. Some guys who were not so great in high school get bigger and stronger, more coaching or something just clicks. The kids are still doing a lot of developing.

    You generally use your scholarships to secure "blue chip" recruits that are wanted by a lot of other programs because a lot of coaches think they project to being a good player at the college level. The investment (a scholarship) is more, but the perceived chances of success are greater. Preferred walk-ons are more guys who are not wanted by as many programs but have good grades (and are often looking at the Ivies as their other option). The chances of success are perceived to be lower, but the investment is lower.

    Even though the chance of one of those guys turning into a good college player is lower, there is still a chance. Moreover, the coaches can be wrong. there can be every indication the guy should be ranked higher (Lin). Guys can slip through the cracks. In football, no one wanted Aaron Rodgers out of high school. He had to play JC ball. It happens. Again, Lin is an extreme example, to demonstrate the point. If you can possibly land a guy as a walk-on who later out played Kobe in an NBA game and became an NBA star, who might find one who can develop into a major contributor or even starter at Cal.
    Last edited by calumnus; 05-09-2012 at 05:27 AM.

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    Lin's choices were Harvard (no athletic scholarship, his family paid most of his expenses, right?) or walking on at Cal. UCLA didn't even recruit him as a walk-on? That was the "market." I think we all agree he was "undervalued" by "the market" and we can agree race played some role in that.

    My point isn't that Lin wasn't good, my point is that we almost got him as a walk-on. That was the market for his services.

    And IF we had landed him as a walk-on, and he beat out guys with scholarships, he should have played in front of them, and if he became a starter or major contributor he should have been awarded a scholarship.

    Awarding someone a scholarship or preferred walk-on status is a bet on the future (but those are two different bets). Not all great high school players pan out. Some guys who were not so great in high school get bigger and stronger, more coaching or something just clicks. The kids are still doing a lot of developing.

    You generally use your scholarships to secure "blue chip" recruits that are wanted by a lot of other programs because a lot of coaches think they project to being a good player at the college level. The investment (a scholarship) is more, but the perceived chances of success are greater. Preferred walk-ons are more guys who are not wanted by as many programs but have good grades (and are often looking at the Ivies as their other option). The chances of success are perceived to be lower, but the investment is lower.

    Even though the chance of one of those guys turning into a good college player is lower, there is still a chance. Moreover, the coaches can be wrong. there can be every indication the guy should be ranked higher (Lin). Guys can slip through the cracks. In football, no one wanted Aaron Rodgers out of high school. He had to play JC ball. It happens. Again, Lin is an extreme example, to demonstrate the point. If you can possibly land a guy as a walk-on who later out played Kobe in an NBA game and became an NBA star, who might find one who can develop into a major contributor or even starter at Cal.
    Like I've said in a previous discussion with you on this, using Lin here weakens your argument a bit. Just because he went to Harvard doesn't mean he was a walk-on level guy. Harvard doesn't offer athletic scholarships, but they "treated" him like a scholarship player. Let's face it, scholarship players and walk-ons often don't get "equal" treatment at most high-major programs, and that's just the way it is. A "preferred walk-on" is still a "walk-on." Lin was badly under-recruited. Was Galvin? Maybe, but he looks to me like a mid-major level guy (which isn't a bad thing). Cal Poly and NAU seems like the right level for him. I felt Lin was Pac-10 level and the best PG on the West Coast in 2006. Obviously, not many scouts and observers agreed with me.

    Bottom line, it's nice to get a walk-on like Galvin that can play. But anyone expecting him to be more than a walk-on is probably deluding themselves. It's possible, but again, I'd be worried yet again about our recruiting if it happened. Then again, some people here think Robert Thurman is the next Mark Madson. It'd be a bad sign if this guy is getting solid minutes. That would mean we just aren't very good. Not trying to knock the kid, but it is what it is. He'll make practices more competitive, and that's great. But he's not as good as, nor is he a better prospect than, Tyrone Wallace, who Cal fans should be real excited about.
    Last edited by tsubamoto2001; 05-09-2012 at 07:12 AM.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by puget sound cal fan View Post
    Clearly, neither Cal Poly nor NAU are the hoops equivalent of Duke or UNC, nor Cal's equivalent as a top team in the PacXII. I don't know why Galvin has not drawn other offers from top schools, but he wants to come to Cal as a walk-on with the hope of earning a scholarship. Gershon's comment about Galvin's talent enabling him to "find a role" at Cal could be a glimpse into the future.

    The issue is what does "glimpse into the future" mean? That the Bears will still lack high level talent up and down their roster? That, unfortunately, is my guess.

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by 89Bear View Post
    The issue is what does "glimpse into the future" mean? That the Bears will still lack high level talent up and down their roster? That, unfortunately, is my guess.
    Exactly. Sorry if logic dictates the belief that Galvin probably won't make more of an impact than Crabbe, Cobbs, Kreklow, Wallace, Kahlil Johnson, and possibly Bird and Pitts.

    Eddie Miller was a good walk-on for us, but he did the right thing by taking that UC Davis scholarship. Miller torched a great defensive team in DLS a couple of times in HS. But that didn't mean he was a PAC-10 level player.
    Last edited by tsubamoto2001; 05-09-2012 at 07:27 AM.

  5. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by tsubamoto2001 View Post
    Exactly. Sorry if logic dictates the belief that Galvin probably won't make more of an impact than Crabbe, Cobbs, Kreklow, Wallace, Kahlil Johnson, and possibly Bird and Pitts.

    Eddie Miller was a good walk-on for us, but he did the right thing by taking that UC Davis scholarship. Miller torched a great defensive team in DLS a couple of times in HS. But that didn't mean he was a PAC-10 level player.
    I agree, but the operative word is "probably."

  6. #51
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Civil Bear View Post
    Monty also didn't offer him a scholarship. To compare a 4-star recruit (Wallace) with a walk-on seems absurd at this point.
    The comparison to Wallace was made to answer those here who predict significant playing time for Galvin. Galvin, when he arrives will be competing with Chalian for the #4 option at point guard, behind Cobbs, Wallace, and Smith. I intended it to be an absurd comparison.

    That being said, there is nothing but a video (made largely for entertainment value, as HoopDreams has pointed out above), and highly subjective star ratings by website businesses for recruits that define for some here whether a recruited player is going to turn out to be an asset. Probably 75% or more of elite recruits turn out to be busts, for one reason or another, and this is just as true for a system coach who recruits players he can fit into his system, as it is for a coach who allows more freedom for the one-on-one stars to do their thing. A walk on has a better chance of playing at Cal than at some other schools, because if he is smart, dedicated to improving, and can learn the system, he can sometimes be a better contributor to the success of that team than the 4-5 star athletic one-on-one player, who is not as adaptable to the team play of a system. I donít expect Galvin to play much, but if he turns out to be a better player than Wallace, I would only be mildly surprised.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    ...but if [Galvin] turns out to be a better player than Wallace, I would only be mildly surprised.
    It would mean either that Galvin is much better than expected, that Wallace is much worse, or major mash-up of the two. Whichever way, I would be quite surprised.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    The comparison to Wallace was made to answer those here who predict significant playing time for Galvin. Galvin, when he arrives will be competing with Chalian for the #4 option at point guard, behind Cobbs, Wallace, and Smith. I intended it to be an absurd comparison.

    That being said, there is nothing but a video (made largely for entertainment value, as HoopDreams has pointed out above), and highly subjective star ratings by website businesses for recruits that define for some here whether a recruited player is going to turn out to be an asset. Probably 75% or more of elite recruits turn out to be busts, for one reason or another, and this is just as true for a system coach who recruits players he can fit into his system, as it is for a coach who allows more freedom for the one-on-one stars to do their thing. A walk on has a better chance of playing at Cal than at some other schools, because if he is smart, dedicated to improving, and can learn the system, he can sometimes be a better contributor to the success of that team than the 4-5 star athletic one-on-one player, who is not as adaptable to the team play of a system. I donít expect Galvin to play much, but if he turns out to be a better player than Wallace, I would only be mildly surprised.

    It is true that many 5 star guys don't turn out to shine. What is the fail rate of 1 and 2 star guys?

    There is a much better chance to get a star picking from the 4 and 5 star guys as opposed to 2 star guys or low level 3 star guys. Of course some 2 and 3 star guys turn out to be great. Given the choice every coach in the country would rather have their pick of 4/5 star guys over lower rated players, MONTY INCLUDED. Or do people think Monty would rather have K. Rodriguez over Brandon Ashley?

    Mizzou destroyed the Bears. I would venture to guess that their roster is littered with 4 and 5 star guys. The Bears have a couple. Heck, S. Florida's athletic 3 star guys destroyed the Bears.

  9. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by 89Bear View Post
    Mizzou destroyed the Bears. I would venture to guess that their roster is littered with 4 and 5 star guys.
    It wasn't. They had a lot of 3 star guys and only a few 4 star or higher types.

  10. #55
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,237
    Quote Originally Posted by 89Bear View Post
    It is true that many 5 star guys don't turn out to shine. What is the fail rate of 1 and 2 star guys?

    There is a much better chance to get a star picking from the 4 and 5 star guys as opposed to 2 star guys or low level 3 star guys. Of course some 2 and 3 star guys turn out to be great. Given the choice every coach in the country would rather have their pick of 4/5 star guys over lower rated players, MONTY INCLUDED. Or do people think Monty would rather have K. Rodriguez over Brandon Ashley?

    Mizzou destroyed the Bears. I would venture to guess that their roster is littered with 4 and 5 star guys. The Bears have a couple. Heck, S. Florida's athletic 3 star guys destroyed the Bears.
    I use the word "bust" in the sense that a player does not contribute to the Cal program at a level expected of him commensurate with his ranking as a recruit, and contribute for three years. He would be a bust for the Cal team, but not necessarily a bust in his personal career. DJ Seeley would be an example of that, not contributing much at Cal, but transferring to Fullerton and playing quite well there.

    The 5 star player is often the center of attention in high school. He is often not used to making the sacrifice necessary to become a team player. He often has great moves, great athleticism, or a great shot. But often he is not a rebounder, defender, or passer, all skills required in the team concept. Some of these players are coachable, and some are not. I don't agree that ALL coaches would go for the 4-5 star player who may not be coachable over the 3-star player who has demonstrated his attention to coaching, shown by his early mastery of fundamentals. Monty has coached at both Cal and Stanford, and neither school is a recruiting magnet. Cal and Stanford at best can get a couple of 4-5 star players, so for the other picks, Monty has to look for the coachable players, while looking for the best talent he can get at the same time.

    I don't agree that picking from the 4-5 star players is much better than picking from 3-star players. Gary Franklin was a 4-star recruit. Having seen him play several games, I would rate him no higher than a 2 star. David Kravish was rated a 2 star recruit. I would rate him a high 3 star. How can you trust these ratings? We are not talking about whether a kid shines, but whether he can show some simple court skills as a freshman commensurate with his rating.

    Les Grossman was mostly right about Mizzou. Mizzou had only one 4-star player, and no 5-star players. The other players who played in the game against Cal were all 3 star players. There were more reasons Cal lost that game than just the star rating of recruits. Actually, the Cal players in that game were mostly 3 star players, plus one 4 star, Crabbe, and one 2 star, Kravish. So the recruits' ratings for both teams was just about equal. The Mizzou players were more athletic and extremely well coached, and they couldn't miss from outside. Probably their best game of the season. Cal was playing their second game in two nights, on the road, and they were tired. The only other time all year that Cal played back to back nights was in the PAC12 tournament, and we know how that turned out. Cal just had no depth. This is not the Pete Newell era, where teams played back to back games every week, so they were in shape for it.

    South Florida also had one 4 star player, and a few 3 star recruits, one two star, plus several unrated players. Several players were not recruited by South Florida out of high school, but were transfers. Those transfers were "busts", according to my definition, for the schools who originally recruited them. They were another extremely well coached team, especially on defense. By the way, Collins, the guard who destroyed our guards, was a 2 star recruit.

    So based on the rating of recruits, both the Mizzou game and the South Florida games with CaL should have been close. The rating systems are very faulty, and the ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't even think they see in person half the recruits play that they are rating.

    You saw those games, so you see what other good coaches can do with coachable 3 star recruits. Don't sell it short.


  11. #56
    Well said SFCityBear! That's the most astute recruiting piece I've seen on this board.

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Les Grossman was mostly right about Mizzou. Mizzou had only one 4-star player, and no 5-star players. The other players who played in the game against Cal were all 3 star players. There were more reasons Cal lost that game than just the star rating of recruits.
    Well, their team was also generally speaking more experienced. The top three scorers on their team were all seniors. The #4 guy was a junior. Their #5 guy was their four star sophomore. By way of comparison, our leading scorer was a 4 star sophomore, our 3rd leading scorer was a sophomore, and our fifth leading scorer was a 2/3 star (depending on which rating you are looking at) freshman.

    By the way, Collins, the guard who destroyed our guards, was a 2 star recruit.
    Once again, depending on which service you look at, he was a 2/3 star recruit.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    The comparison to Wallace was made to answer those here who predict significant playing time for Galvin. Galvin, when he arrives will be competing with Chalian for the #4 option at point guard, behind Cobbs, Wallace, and Smith. I intended it to be an absurd comparison.

    That being said, there is nothing but a video (made largely for entertainment value, as HoopDreams has pointed out above), and highly subjective star ratings by website businesses for recruits that define for some here whether a recruited player is going to turn out to be an asset. Probably 75% or more of elite recruits turn out to be busts, for one reason or another, and this is just as true for a system coach who recruits players he can fit into his system, as it is for a coach who allows more freedom for the one-on-one stars to do their thing. A walk on has a better chance of playing at Cal than at some other schools, because if he is smart, dedicated to improving, and can learn the system, he can sometimes be a better contributor to the success of that team than the 4-5 star athletic one-on-one player, who is not as adaptable to the team play of a system. I don’t expect Galvin to play much, but if he turns out to be a better player than Wallace, I would only be mildly surprised.
    I don't think Galvin needs to beat out Wallace. Assuming Wallace turns out to be as good as advertised, I think Galvin (and Chalian) will be groomed to be his back-ups and potential insurance in case we do not land one of our top PG targets in the 2013 (or even 2014) class. There is also the chance both Smith (definitely) and Cobbs (quite possibly) leave after this season, so there is a chance Galvin/Chalian could be Wallace's back-ups next year. (We face a similar situation with Kreklow and Crabbe at SG, so Galvin gives us some insurance there).

    A key is that by bringing in walk-ons who are potentially "competent" back-ups now, Monty can, and hopefully will, aim higher for the guys he offers scholarships to, knowing he doesn't need to aim lower to have a more sure thing or a plan B guy lined up. And as you pointed out, Monty does like his PGs to have experience in his system.
    Last edited by calumnus; 05-10-2012 at 06:49 PM.

  14. #59

    good post

    agree...walk ons are for practice players, and back up insurance players. occasionally they can provide some spot quality minutes in some situations and sometimes they can break out and become RFK.

    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    I don't think Galvin needs to beat out Wallace. Assuming Wallace turns out to be as good as advertised, I think Galvin (and Chalian) will be groomed to be his back-ups and potential insurance in case we do not land one of our top PG targets in the 2013 (or even 2014) class. There is also the chance both Smith (definitely) and Cobbs (quite possibly) leave after this season, so there is a chance Galvin/Chalian could be Wallace's back-ups next year. (We face a similar situation with Kreklow and Crabbe at SG, so Galvin gives us some insurance there).

    A key is that by bringing in walk-ons who are potentially "competent" back-ups now, Monty can, and hopefully will, aim higher for the guys he offers scholarships to, knowing he doesn't need to aim lower to have a more sure thing or a plan B guy lined up. And as you pointed out, Monty does like his PGs to have experience in his system.
    ĎI donít need easy, I need possible.í Jorge Gutierrez

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Grossman View Post
    Well, their team was also generally speaking more experienced. The top three scorers on their team were all seniors. The #4 guy was a junior. Their #5 guy was their four star sophomore. By way of comparison, our leading scorer was a 4 star sophomore, our 3rd leading scorer was a sophomore, and our fifth leading scorer was a 2/3 star (depending on which rating you are looking at) freshman.

    Once again, depending on which service you look at, he was a 2/3 star recruit.
    I think you can over emphasis "star" ratings. What you can't over emphasize is just how unathletic our team is (and unfortunately will be). We do NOT have the kind of "bangers" that Mizzu, USF, CU (and next year Arizona and UCLA will have about 9 deep) have. THAT is the problem. We need to radically up the athletic quotient of this program to compete at either the upper tier of the newly emergent Pac-12 or in the NCAA tournie.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •