I think the concept of player development is not like it was 10 years ago, because you either
show up with an NIL deal then leave for the pros, or transfer out looking for more PT or NIL.
Nobody is going to want to sit and develop. Will Patterson was an excellent option to develop
into a player, especially with the height he has, but he bolted as quickly as he could, and who
knows what is going to happen with him. And I didn't go looking. Red brought in 4 guys to
help and keep the team competitive as he maybe gets SU back to recruiting and getting talent,
cuz they've sure come up short on that over the last few years. You can keep feeding Donnie
and Choppa, but if they do well enough, they're gone. You're not going to develop a roster
unless you are not a P5 program, and even then, you're best guys get poached. Maybe you can
build a roster of 1-2 highly ranked recruits and some mids, expecting the stars to leave, hopefully
develop the others, and pull in 1-2 transfers. But you cannot replace much/most of the roster on a
yearly basis. You'll have no continuity.
On a STRATEGIC level, there is a lot of validity to what you say. Most P4 teams are going to experience a reasonable level of portal turnover, and seek to replace those departures with portal transfers of their own. So the notion of recruiting a roster all via HS recruits and developing them over time is a much smaller use-case. Will there still be teams that follow that approach? Sure -- identify system fits, and coach them up over time. But it probably is a much smaller group that will take that approach.
Setting that aside, though, there is still a question of whether the coaches are making the players better, helping them shore up their deficiencies, and improve. And it isn't always about coaching; sometimes, players get "better" just as a function of additional physical maturity, experience, etc. A natural progression, if you will.
And some come in really, really athletic or with great tools, and show that early on. A recent example is someone like Jesse, who was physically immature but really skilled -- and once his physical capabilities caught up a bit, he showed what he could do with the above average body control and inside scoring capabilities.
But the question at hand is more basic, IMO. Is this coaching staff [and the previous one, given that they've been comprised of many of the same principals] coaching anyone up or helping them improve? Why is a guy like Chris Bell -- who has gotten a MASSIVE amount of playing time over his three-year career -- still the same exact player he was three years ago? Why has he not improved his ball handling, defensive effort, or ability to rebound [to say nothing of his regression with outside shooting]?
Outside of a handful of examples of a guy here and guy there, years apart from one another, it doesn't seem like we have seen guys improve here. Which is an indictment on the "skill" of the coaching staff. Which is why it's relevant.
It's also relevant because most coaches / programs have to pick a lane. If you are going all in on top-flight recruits, then you better be a great recruiter [and a great fund raiser, for NIL purposes].
If you're going to be a portal transfer team, then you better have the NIL infrastructure in place to support that approach, and be successful enough to make your program an attractive destination for transfers.
And if you are going with the "system" approach, then you better recruit players who fit your system and coach them up over time -- to give you a generally older, more experienced set of guys who can play, offsetting higher rated guys on other teams.
What is Red's strength?
