|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jul 28, 2015 1:40:20 GMT -5
IMO, there's no way Iosia makes top 10. This class is not very deep at the setter position. It's basically Kylie Miller and everyone else. A year ago I said Fitzmorris would be #1, but now I think it'll be Plummer. There's so much hype surrounding her. My top ten is Plummer, Fitzmorris, Haggerty, Lanier, Stivrins, Miller, Keefe, King, Pittman, and Milana. While I don't think shell make top ten, I say she's not an everyone else, considering how she made prep volleyball player of the year twince.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Jul 28, 2015 6:31:01 GMT -5
Does anyone know where Sarah Allick is going?
I'm not trying to throw shade or anything, but does anyone else remember reading that article about her commitment in which John Cook said something along the lines of "I'm glad she committed because there aren't very many good middles in her class"?
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jul 28, 2015 8:04:17 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts.
|
|
|
Post by alt on Jul 28, 2015 8:35:31 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. Yes I think Abaji will be top four. She's will be more affective in college compared to players like Haggerty and Strivrin. She reminds me a lot of Inky, which is kinda scary she's that good already.
|
|
|
Post by pacfan on Jul 28, 2015 9:55:43 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. Lauren is an outstanding middle. No, she wasn't selected to the YNT, but it appears that the coaching staff was looking for more flexibility in their selections. Four middles is a bit heavy on a roster of twelve, leaving room for only three OH's + Plummer as RS. Stone, Samedy and Butler can all play on the pins should they be needed. They are all very talented athletes and are poised to do big things in their futures. I notice Stephanie is uncommitted. Wish her success and hope she stays patient to find her fit.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 11:40:47 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jul 28, 2015 12:00:50 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. I actually think the best indicators are the level of competition, and performing under pressure on the biggest stages.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 12:12:05 GMT -5
People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. I actually think the best indicators are the level of competition, and performing under pressure on the biggest stages. That would be the case given an appropriate sample size. However, national teams, all-star games, etc. allow for so few reps in aggregate. Therefore, if someone arrives more prepared for a system change, a setter change, etc., then they'll adjust more quickly and play better in the short term. Until you surround a player with the same players and develop them in one system over a long period, you can't really gauge what they're capable of doing. There's just too many factors that change contextually. That's why their club and HS team performance is usually a better indicator for recruiting purposes. For example, Glass was quite mediocre for her first full year on the USNT, but now she's clearly their best setter albeit injured. When she was struggling it wasnt for lack of elite talent. Adjustment periods are variable as is development/improvement. Another example would be Agbaji. Due to system, John Cook recruited her exclusively as an pin hitter. Yet, Elliott sees her as a middle in his system just as she is in high school.
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 28, 2015 12:12:17 GMT -5
People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. I actually think the best indicators are the level of competition, and performing under pressure on the biggest stages. I think those who made the YNT and the JNT have shown that they can compete at the highest level and play internationally. So I think making the teams should be taken into consideration when doing the senior aces.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 12:18:33 GMT -5
I actually think the best indicators are the level of competition, and performing under pressure on the biggest stages. I think those who made the YNT and the JNT have shown that they can compete at the highest level and play internationally. So I think making the teams should be taken into consideration when doing the senior aces. I think being selected for trying out is better because it's based on a longer body of work in context. If you look at the bigger lists, it's rare they'll miss any true star players, but who's actually selected and start usually is pretty variable when looking at collegiate production and accolades in retrospect. How many on the current USNT were top 2-3 at their position coming out of high school? Probably about half (I haven't looked). However, I'd guess all of them were top 10 at their position aside from Karsta Lowe. So reaching elite status is more about being in the top grouping of players but not necessarily being the best player at age 16-18.
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Jul 28, 2015 12:29:14 GMT -5
I actually think the best indicators are the level of competition, and performing under pressure on the biggest stages. That would be the case given an appropriate sample size. However, national teams, all-star games, etc. allow for so few reps in aggregate. Therefore, if someone arrives more prepared for a system change, a setter change, etc., then they'll adjust more quickly and play better in the short term. Until you surround a player with the same players and develop them in one system over a long period, you can't really gauge what they're capable of doing. There's just too many factors that change contextually. That's why their club and HS team performance is usually a better indicator for recruiting purposes. For example, Glass was quite mediocre for her first full year on the USNT, but now she's clearly their best setter albeit injured. When she was struggling it wasnt for lack of elite talent. Adjustment periods are variable as is development/improvement. Another example would be Agbaji. Due to system, John Cook recruited her exclusively as an pin hitter. Yet, Elliott sees her as a middle in his system just as she is in high school. You think how these players play in a HS game is a better recruiting indicator than how they play in international level play? I agree that in some ways club is a better tool than just looking at who plays well on the JNT and YNT, but high school games? Come on.....
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 28, 2015 12:35:29 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. But others who don't have such great complementary talent on their clubs (or those who play tougher opponents up in 18s) have a much harder time getting hype-worthy moments in club play and would be better evaluated in the level playing field of a tryout such as this.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 28, 2015 12:36:58 GMT -5
1. Plummer 2. Lanier 3. Stivrins 4. Fitzmorris 5. Miller 6. Haggerty 7. Agbaji 1. Plummer-She's a really unique force as a 6-6 S/RS. She isn't a Carlini/Poulteresque setter, but she great hands and location. Her best asset might be that she is remarkably quick for her size so she isn't a liability backrow. She is effective as a hitter and puts up a huge block. Have seen her a couple of times and have been impressed. I am interested to see how she pans out as a collegiate player. I don't expect her to continue as a S/RS, and I don't think she's truly elite as a setter or hitter. Not sure how she passes, but I expect she's quite solid. If she focuses on hitting, she could develop into a nasty 6 rotation RS with that much size and quickness. I also worry she could go the route of Broekhuis from a few years back. Unlikely, but Morgan was the #2 recruit in an incredibly deep class. 2. Lanier-Outstanding athlete and attacker. Might not be as polished, but has HUGE upside. Could be top recruit. 3. Fitzmorris-Incredibly polished and an outstanding hitter/blocker. Should be an impact player from day 1, I don't see her ceiling as high as Lanier, but I think she's the best middle in this class. Could also wind up anywhere 1-3. 4. Haggerty-She is the most athletic of the Haggerty sisters and hits a really heavy ball. The most polished outside in this class, I think she'll be an impact player from day 1 but other players may have a higher ceiling. As an aside, I will be shocked if there aren't a few Badger transfers after this season---they have insane depth on the outside projected for 2016. For 3 pin spots they'll have Haggerty, Duello, Bates, Kriskova, Saunders and Gillis. Not sure how that'll all shake out, but I'd put money on Haggerty. 5. Strivins-Another outstanding middle, I think she'll be another impact player from day 1 at Nebraska. Overall this class projects to be very strong. I think this is a much better class than 2015, possibly better than 2014 and probably on par with the 2013.So you think the 2013 class is "very strong" hmmmm...we've had two seasons of the 2013 class and so far there are a few standouts, but as a class? eh.... IMO this year will be the make it or break it for the 2013 class but lets break down the top 25. Carlini- No brainer here Ruddins- Overrated Cole- Solid Reinig- Given that she only plays front row, she's no superstar K. Rolfzen- Solid, but overhyped, since day one Ogbogu- Stud Nwanebu- Stud, though we'll see what she does after injury A. Rolfzen- Good blocker, but in terms of all the other skills? overrated Holston- Stud Collins- Is this really the second best setter of the class? Yikes Bailey- No Humphreys- May never even play at Stanford Hunter- Apparently is better than Pollmiller, yet road the bench behind her the last couple seasons...the logic of Nebraska fans Wilhite- No Tanner- Ok, certainly no game changer Felix- She's OK, but with it being the Lowe show the last couple seasons at UCLA, the middles had it a bit easier, this year will tell us Jordan- She barely saw the court playing with the worst team in the Pac-12....enough said Dehoog- Has never even played, beat out by a freshmen last year Higgins- Hawaii has seen much better setters come through their doors H. Tapp- Her sister is WAY better Evans- Has played backseat to Nichol so far, we'll see what she does with the team this year Strizak- Unimpressive so far, might not even be on the floor come season end with Illinois' recruiting class Larson- No Miley- Hasn't done anything yet Sandbothe- Solid MB There are a few players outside the top 25 who have made a name for themselves, in particular Lutz, the better Tapp, Holman, Snuka.... I don't see this as some game changing class....not even close.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 12:42:10 GMT -5
That would be the case given an appropriate sample size. However, national teams, all-star games, etc. allow for so few reps in aggregate. Therefore, if someone arrives more prepared for a system change, a setter change, etc., then they'll adjust more quickly and play better in the short term. Until you surround a player with the same players and develop them in one system over a long period, you can't really gauge what they're capable of doing. There's just too many factors that change contextually. That's why their club and HS team performance is usually a better indicator for recruiting purposes. For example, Glass was quite mediocre for her first full year on the USNT, but now she's clearly their best setter albeit injured. When she was struggling it wasnt for lack of elite talent. Adjustment periods are variable as is development/improvement. Another example would be Agbaji. Due to system, John Cook recruited her exclusively as an pin hitter. Yet, Elliott sees her as a middle in his system just as she is in high school. You think how these players play in a HS game is a better recruiting indicator than how they play in international level play? I agree that in some ways club is a better tool than just looking at who plays well on the JNT and YNT, but high school games? Come on..... It depends. I think by far the best indicator is a long career with one club team. However, the more reps in one system is always better for projecting ability. Tryouts for a national team are highly variable (especially for junior teams), you can ask any coach at that level. Basically, they know that everyone invited is elite for their age, so then it's just about finding the quickest fit/adjustment. They're not prognosticating who the best player will be in college or as a professional. They just want someone who can perform the task within their system at that moment. Nothing more or less.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 12:48:26 GMT -5
People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. But others who don't have such great complementary talent on their clubs (or those who play tougher opponents up in 18s) have a much harder time getting hype-worthy moments in club play and would be better evaluated in the level playing field of a tryout such as this. I agree to an extent. But it also works the other way. Someone who can standout surrounded by poor or average talent may be seen as having an even higher ceiling than someone excelling on nationally rated club teams. For example, myself speaking as a Husker fan, do I think Foecke is a lesser player because of her HS and club experience where she wasn't always surrounded by or competing against the best players? I don't. Of course, she did make junior national teams and started games, but that's also where these teams may be more important. Not necessarily for players like Plummer, Hodson, et al., but for the Foeckes of the world who need another context to show they're elite regardless. CL, aren't you an Oregon fan? Do you think any less of your best recruits when they don't make junior national teams? Moore has a great system and track record for development and many of his recruits outperform players who were ranked higher on the Senior Aces while in college. Fans put too much into those lists, especially trying to jockey their recruits at the very top of those lists. My point is, if your player is even ranked in the top 20-25, or top 5-6 at their position, and they fit your program's system, then they're probably going to be an excellent contributor and there's really no way to distinguish which one should really be rated ahead of another based on some junior tryouts.
|
|