Post Reply
1 of 1
Marsalis Roberson Releases Top 4
5,764 Views |
31 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by calumnus
Ranked 97th in the nation by 247Sports, seemingly unranked by other services.
If you want to be a Top 50 program you need some Top 100 players. Seems like our best prospect and a must get at this point.
When Monty was at Stanford, he told me that he NEVER lost a single player to Cal. for this reason, I am not optimistic. If Cal had a African-american coach, I woulds be more optimistic. But, the Cal AD chose to go in a different direction.
Fair point. I think that the O'Dowd - Cal connection makes a difference here though. Consider the contacts he has at Cal, including his mother who works there.
Let's hope so.MaxBear said:
Fair point. I think that the O'Dowd - Cal connection makes a difference here though. Consider the contacts he has at Cal, including his mother who works there. Time to end Monty's streak.
When Monty was at Cal, did he lose any recruits to Stanford?
I think Wilcox is proving that, if you want to attract 4* players, you have to start with 3* players and coach them up to a winning record. A single great player can certainly make more of a difference in basketball than football, but as we saw with Jaylen Brown, if he's only here for a year, he won't help you generate the recruiting momentum you need.calumnus said:
If you want to be a Top 50 program you need some Top 100 players. Seems like our best prospect and a must get at this point.
As are many here, I'm cautiously encouraged by Mark Fox, but it remains to be seen if his recruits will be successful.
HearstMining said:I think Wilcox is proving that, if you want to attract 4* players, you have to start with 3* players and coach them up to a winning record. A single great player can certainly make more of a difference in basketball than football, but as we saw with Jaylen Brown, if he's only here for a year, he won't help you generate the recruiting momentum you need.calumnus said:
If you want to be a Top 50 program you need some Top 100 players. Seems like our best prospect and a must get at this point.
As are many here, I'm cautiously encouraged by Mark Fox, but it remains to be seen if his recruits will be successful.
Wilcox has had 4 star (even 5 star players) on the team, most importantly at QB. https://247sports.com/player/chase-garbers-80505/
And we are still looking to break .500 in conference?
Basketball is even more talent dependent. Fox's teams do not usually rank high in offensive efficiency. That was Monty. Fox was an upgrade over Wyking (lowest bar possible) but needs top half of the conference talent to finish top half of the conference.
I think that's fair. Fox is doing an admirable job getting us out of the basement. Getting us off the ground floor and then to the penthouse is another thing altogether. To be at the top of any P5 conference - you really need to be hitting it on all cylinders - coaching, recruiting, player development, AD/Fan/Booster support.calumnus said:HearstMining said:I think Wilcox is proving that, if you want to attract 4* players, you have to start with 3* players and coach them up to a winning record. A single great player can certainly make more of a difference in basketball than football, but as we saw with Jaylen Brown, if he's only here for a year, he won't help you generate the recruiting momentum you need.calumnus said:
If you want to be a Top 50 program you need some Top 100 players. Seems like our best prospect and a must get at this point.
As are many here, I'm cautiously encouraged by Mark Fox, but it remains to be seen if his recruits will be successful.
Wilcox has had 4 star (even 5 star players) on the team, most importantly at QB. https://247sports.com/player/chase-garbers-80505/
And we are still looking to break .500 in conference?
Basketball is even more talent dependent. Fox's teams do not usually rank high in offensive efficiency. That was Monty. Fox was an upgrade over Wyking (lowest bar possible) but needs top half of the conference talent to finish top half of the conference.
I'm not saying Fox is not capable of doing these things, but the evidence (and sample size) at Cal is limited. His prior tenures indicate more upside, but not top of conference. But who knows - people improve all the time and the vectors point in the right directions, if maybe not enough power to satisfy us success starved fanatics.
I thought it was very wise to try to recruit international players for a foundational rebuild given our basement status. But that seems to have fallen off, and we are not yet attractive to high-level US recruits.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
I think it's possible to make a winning and very watchable team with 3 and 4 star players for whom a Cal degree might be a better bet than a chance at the NBA. But that will take time and very likely won't produce deep runs in the NCAA Tournament. I'm OK with that.annarborbear said:
I thought it was very wise to try to recruit international players for a foundational rebuild given our basement status. But that seems to have fallen off, and we are not yet attractive to high-level US recruits.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
Having watched my first Cal basketball game with my father in 1958, I am too.stu said:I think it's possible to make a winning and very watchable team with 3 and 4 star players for whom a Cal degree might be a better bet than a chance at the NBA. But that will take time and very likely won't produce deep runs in the NCAA Tournament. I'm OK with that.annarborbear said:
I thought it was very wise to try to recruit international players for a foundational rebuild given our basement status. But that seems to have fallen off, and we are not yet attractive to high-level US recruits.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
Recruiting, or going after, national elite recruits, is one thing, but landing them is another thing altogether.
annarborbear said:
I thought it was very wise to try to recruit international players for a foundational rebuild given our basement status. But that seems to have fallen off, and we are not yet attractive to high-level US recruits.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
I agree that it would be wise to recruit international players if we can pull it off. Why has that fallen off? Berkeley has a very strong international reputation academically and it seems that could be attractive to the academically oriented foreign players.
Max Bear. Good points. You would think that these two points will swing the deal. I loved Haas at Cal. Does he have a winning personality??I've never met him.
He's got a very humbling personality and had the types of answers that ooze competitiveness and drive. A perfect example was when he said "I feel like I'm a competitor and a winner so I feel like I would do anything to win. I am a good teammate, always in attack mode." That's the kind of answer you want when asking what a player's strengths are. Not just "I'm a good shooter or passer", but that "I'm here to win". At the end of the day that's what counts and it's good to see that he's got the right kind of mindset.helltopay1 said:
Max Bear. Good points. You would think that these two points will swing the deal. I loved Haas at Cal. Does he have a winning personality??I've never met him.
Bearprof said:annarborbear said:
I thought it was very wise to try to recruit international players for a foundational rebuild given our basement status. But that seems to have fallen off, and we are not yet attractive to high-level US recruits.
A related problem now is that very few top players see themselves staying very long in college. So going someplace that consistently places players in the NBA is the coin of the realm, not a great college degree.
I agree that it would be wise to recruit international players if we can pull it off. Why has that fallen off? Berkeley has a very strong international reputation academically and it seems that could be attractive to the academically oriented foreign players.
Maybe because most countries are banning Americans from entering due to our poor handling of COVID-19?
I think Fox's first cohort of international players was recruited without a lot of in-person scouting, but he needed to fill roster spots (essentially at the last minute recruiting-wise). My guess is he is being more judicious with the scholarships now.
Wait. What'd I miss here? Can someone explain how a player can narrow his choices to 4 offers, but only have two of the offers in hand? Did I misread? Is that typical in the college recruiting process these days? He hasn't been offered by Stanford or Cincinnati, which means the Nebraska offer could be suspect as well.
I also find it interesting that he was offered by Nebraska, but no other team in the Big 10 followed with an offer. Highly unusual. He was offered by Cal ("and Stanford"), was Bay Area Player of the Year, but no other school in the Pac 12 offered. Hmmm....
I see all of you speculating about where he might end up, but don't worry - he's coming to Cal. 100%. Why? He doesn't have any better offers!
I'll be the first to say it - I don't know if he can help us. Looking at his film, it seems a bit mundane, quite frankly. Almost pedestrian. Same left hand dunks. Very left-hand dominant. Poor shooting form. Nothing that made me say, "Wow". I saw better players last year. Bunch at DeLaSalle was one of them.
Maybe we're being nice because his mom works at the school, which is cool. He seems to be a great kid. But if the goal is to improve long-term, this doesn't put us closer to achieving it.
I also find it interesting that he was offered by Nebraska, but no other team in the Big 10 followed with an offer. Highly unusual. He was offered by Cal ("and Stanford"), was Bay Area Player of the Year, but no other school in the Pac 12 offered. Hmmm....
I see all of you speculating about where he might end up, but don't worry - he's coming to Cal. 100%. Why? He doesn't have any better offers!
I'll be the first to say it - I don't know if he can help us. Looking at his film, it seems a bit mundane, quite frankly. Almost pedestrian. Same left hand dunks. Very left-hand dominant. Poor shooting form. Nothing that made me say, "Wow". I saw better players last year. Bunch at DeLaSalle was one of them.
Maybe we're being nice because his mom works at the school, which is cool. He seems to be a great kid. But if the goal is to improve long-term, this doesn't put us closer to achieving it.
Disagree strongly with bucket. I saw both Bunch and Roberson play this year.Roberson was dynamic and the most impactful player in the court In the game I saw (on a team with two other players at a D-1 level) Bunch was not nearly as impressive. There is a reason for the ratings difference. We want Roberson.
That is too much honesty for this forum. But I appreciate that someone else has functioning eyes. Otherwise this forum would be dominated by people like HoopDreams.bucketbear said:
Wait. What'd I miss here? Can someone explain how a player can narrow his choices to 4 offers, but only have two of the offers in hand? Did I misread? Is that typical in the college recruiting process these days? He hasn't been offered by Stanford or Cincinnati, which means the Nebraska offer could be suspect as well.
I also find it interesting that he was offered by Nebraska, but no other team in the Big 10 followed with an offer. Highly unusual. He was offered by Cal ("and Stanford"), was Bay Area Player of the Year, but no other school in the Pac 12 offered. Hmmm....
I see all of you speculating about where he might end up, but don't worry - he's coming to Cal. 100%. Why? He doesn't have any better offers!
I'll be the first to say it - I don't know if he can help us. Looking at his film, it seems a bit mundane, quite frankly. Almost pedestrian. Same left hand dunks. Very left-hand dominant. Poor shooting form. Nothing that made me say, "Wow". I saw better players last year. Bunch at DeLaSalle was one of them.
Maybe we're being nice because his mom works at the school, which is cool. He seems to be a great kid. But if the goal is to improve long-term, this doesn't put us closer to achieving it.
Like yogi above, I haven't seen the kid play and have no idea how good he is. Just curious how he could be the Bay Area POY with several DeLaSalle players better than him?bucketbear said:
Wait. What'd I miss here? Can someone explain how a player can narrow his choices to 4 offers, but only have two of the offers in hand? Did I misread? Is that typical in the college recruiting process these days? He hasn't been offered by Stanford or Cincinnati, which means the Nebraska offer could be suspect as well.
I also find it interesting that he was offered by Nebraska, but no other team in the Big 10 followed with an offer. Highly unusual. He was offered by Cal ("and Stanford"), was Bay Area Player of the Year, but no other school in the Pac 12 offered. Hmmm....
I see all of you speculating about where he might end up, but don't worry - he's coming to Cal. 100%. Why? He doesn't have any better offers!
I'll be the first to say it - I don't know if he can help us. Looking at his film, it seems a bit mundane, quite frankly. Almost pedestrian. Same left hand dunks. Very left-hand dominant. Poor shooting form. Nothing that made me say, "Wow". I saw better players last year. Bunch at DeLaSalle was one of them.
Maybe we're being nice because his mom works at the school, which is cool. He seems to be a great kid. But if the goal is to improve long-term, this doesn't put us closer to achieving it.
Roberson played on the same team last season as our freshman Monty Bowser, a guy who is supposed to have potential but is a bit of a project. The two are of similar size and position. Was Roberson as a junior CLEARLY the better player, or not?
Big C said:
Roberson played on the same team last season as our freshman Monty Bowser, a guy who is supposed to have potential but is a bit of a project. The two are of similar size and position. Was Roberson as a junior CLEARLY the better player, or not?
Roberson lead the team in scoring (16.5 ppg) and rebounding (6.3 rpg) plus had 3.0 assists per game. He definitely sounds like the better prospect. At this point we should be happy to get him.
Civil Bear said:Like yogi above, I haven't seen the kid play and have no idea how good he is. Just curious how he could be the Bay Area POY with several DeLaSalle players better than him?bucketbear said:
Wait. What'd I miss here? Can someone explain how a player can narrow his choices to 4 offers, but only have two of the offers in hand? Did I misread? Is that typical in the college recruiting process these days? He hasn't been offered by Stanford or Cincinnati, which means the Nebraska offer could be suspect as well.
I also find it interesting that he was offered by Nebraska, but no other team in the Big 10 followed with an offer. Highly unusual. He was offered by Cal ("and Stanford"), was Bay Area Player of the Year, but no other school in the Pac 12 offered. Hmmm....
I see all of you speculating about where he might end up, but don't worry - he's coming to Cal. 100%. Why? He doesn't have any better offers!
I'll be the first to say it - I don't know if he can help us. Looking at his film, it seems a bit mundane, quite frankly. Almost pedestrian. Same left hand dunks. Very left-hand dominant. Poor shooting form. Nothing that made me say, "Wow". I saw better players last year. Bunch at DeLaSalle was one of them.
Maybe we're being nice because his mom works at the school, which is cool. He seems to be a great kid. But if the goal is to improve long-term, this doesn't put us closer to achieving it.
"Best player on the best team." They are rated similarly, but Bunch has better offers.....
Well, Bunch has better offers because he's better. It just struck me as odd that no one else picked up on that. How can you narrow to four choices, with only two of the four (maybe) actual firm offers?
Sorry for speaking too plainly earlier. There are smart people on this forum. Wouldn't want to offend.
Sorry for speaking too plainly earlier. There are smart people on this forum. Wouldn't want to offend.
bucketbear said:
Well, Bunch has better offers because he's better. It just struck me as odd that no one else picked up on that. How can you narrow to four choices, with only two of the four (maybe) actual firm offers?
Sorry for speaking too plainly earlier. There are smart people on this forum. Wouldn't want to offend.
I don't think anyone would be upset with Fox landing Bunch but I don't see that happening given the competition. If we land Roberson he will be our highest rated recruit since...? Given that context, there is absolutely no reason to denigrate the kid. It's not like we only have one scholarship and have a lot of top talent on our radar.
Are any of the "better" local players good fits here? I mean OK with the academics, Coach Fox, and Berkeley.
stu said:
Are any of the "better" local players good fits here? I mean OK with the academics, Coach Fox, and Berkeley.
That is part of my point. There is no reason to denigrate Roberson. He is the best prospect we have a shot at landing right now. We want him.
Agree. What purpose does it serve to denigrate any recruit? Recruits or even a family member or friend might read what is written here.calumnus said:stu said:
Are any of the "better" local players good fits here? I mean OK with the academics, Coach Fox, and Berkeley.
That is part of my point. There is no reason to denigrate Roberson. He is the best prospect we have a shot at landing right now. We want him.
many months late Welcome bucketbear, and thanks for sharing. BInsiders can be a tough(sounding) crowd but virtual bruises fade fast, no worries.bucketbear said:
Well, Bunch has better offers because he's better. It just struck me as odd that no one else picked up on that. How can you narrow to four choices, with only two of the four (maybe) actual firm offers?
Sorry for speaking too plainly earlier. There are smart people on this forum. Wouldn't want to offend.
muting more than 300 handles, turnaround is fair play
"virtual bruises." I like that!!!
calumnus said:bucketbear said:
Well, Bunch has better offers because he's better. It just struck me as odd that no one else picked up on that. How can you narrow to four choices, with only two of the four (maybe) actual firm offers?
Sorry for speaking too plainly earlier. There are smart people on this forum. Wouldn't want to offend.
I don't think anyone would be upset with Fox landing Bunch but I don't see that happening given the competition. If we land Roberson he will be our highest rated recruit since...? Given that context, there is absolutely no reason to denigrate the kid. It's not like we only have one scholarship and have a lot of top talent on our radar.
If we land him he will be our highest rated recruit since #71 Charlie Moore (class of 2016).
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Weekly Tuesday Presser
by Jim McGill