Jonathan Nwankwopower forward - 6-9

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 6/19/2014 9:57:25 AM

Rival$ article says GW has called with interest in the '15 PF.

Verbal Commits

Rivals

Google search

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 6/19/2014 11:20:38 AM

Like 6'9 and 245.

Tweet seemed to indicate Minnesota showing "the most love" if read it right.

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 6/20/2014 12:07:08 PM

Alex Kline @TheRecruitScoop
2015 PF Jon Nwankwo visits: Alabama 6/22, Rice 6/23, Vanderbilt 6/25, Tennessee 6/26, Temple 6/27, Drexel 6/28 & George Washington 6/29.

By: Wax Daddy (193 posts) - 6/20/2014 12:07:12 PM

Scheduled to visit GW on 6/29 per twitter and retweeted by Alex Kline

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 6/20/2014 4:38:57 PM

Actually, we're demonstrably better in basketball and academics than all the teams on the above list.

And Minnesota is very, very cold in the winter.

By: maypoman (671 posts) - 6/20/2014 5:12:10 PM

BIGFAN: Are you kidding? You must have missed Vanderbilt academically and,with one successful basketball season in a row, we've probably had less basketball success then any of those schools. I hope we get this guy, but don't go all nutty on us.

By: DEA (1,465 posts) - 6/20/2014 5:28:49 PM

Yeah Bigfan I hope you're being sarcastic. 

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 6/20/2014 5:41:21 PM

I agree on the acdemics (Vanderbilt and Rice) but in basketball terms, it's all about perception. Kids don't know what they ate for lunch these days let alone who has tradition. It's all in the here and now. So unless they are a real student of the game most are looking at us in the NCAAs since that is the most recent memory.

By: MG'14 (310 posts) - 6/20/2014 5:50:11 PM

I think the notion that high school basketball players don't know about college basketball tradition is absurd. You ask any high school player now who the historical greats are they could name them no problem.

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 6/20/2014 10:00:07 PM

As Bigfan says: MN is very very cold in the winter.
 

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 6/27/2014 10:53:50 AM

Alex Kline @TheRecruitScoop
Weekend Visits: Ernest Aflakpui to Rhode Island, Rickey McGill to Drexel, Jonathan Nwankwo to Drexel, Temple & George Washington.

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 8/4/2014 9:13:25 AM

Choosing from  Minnesota, Temple, Rice, Seton Hall, Tennessee and Fordham.

By: BC (1,645 posts) - 8/4/2014 9:29:54 AM

What do we need a player who weights more that 210 for?

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 9/6/2014 1:05:56 AM

Minnesota

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 5/19/2015 12:18:48 PM

Released from LOI.  Could be eligibility/clearinghouse problems.  Here's the prep school web site.

By: BM (5,673 posts) - 5/19/2015 12:33:35 PM

Trawling the Minnesota board, looks like he was a national hnor society kid (went to Scanlan in NJ in junior year).

By: ELJ (2,207 posts) - 5/19/2015 2:41:16 PM

Maypoman plus one on Vandy and also Rice.

By: Neil+1 (5/19/2015 2:44:56 PM)

Sign him now. 

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 5/19/2015 2:56:41 PM

Who would you rather have? Him, or the 7 footer from Providence. And, why does Providence continue to draw big time players? What do they have?

Back to the point: why is this guy leaving the Gophers? What is his academic issue? Is he really 26 years old?

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/19/2015 3:21:17 PM

Ed Cooley, Ziik.  That's what they, who has done just a fantastic job recruiting talent to Providence to date.

Well, they both  sure do have some intriguing size. 

 

By: Thomas (1,146 posts) - 5/19/2015 4:04:50 PM

Looking at BM's link, the comments from Minnesota fans indicate that "Pitino Junior" signed him without checking in with Minnesota's admissions department. Whatever the reason is that Minnesota released him from his LOI, he is a 6-9, 245 pound PF who was recruited by BCS schools, and he would fill a huge frontcourt need for GW!!  The best thing about him is, he'll have 4 years of eligibility

The Dude is right about Ed Cooley's recruiting, I remember he signed two top 25 guards immediately after he got the Providence job. Both of those guys will end up playing in the NBA. One of them has had some brief stints in the NBA and the other was the Co-Big East Player Of The Year this past season and returned to Providence despite being projected to be a mid-first round pick. I thought that guy would declare for the NBA draft the day after Providence was eliminated from the NCAA tournament, his decision to stay in school shocked me.
 

By: Bigfan (2,829 posts) - 5/19/2015 4:04:59 PM

Seems odd that he was released. Can't imagine Minnesota easily letting a prospect go in May, unless he figured out what winters would be like there.

But if he is a National Honor Society Member wouldn't be grades, but we remember foreign players and clearinghouse issues.

Like the size. Worth a shot if he can play this year. Even possibly if he can play next year.

Washington should appeal to him.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/19/2015 4:15:37 PM

Thomas, Kris Dunn! Dude is a beast.  Cooley did a great job of amassing talent, the Coaching in the NCAA tourney I thought was a bit perplexing, but he's done just a fanatastic job recruiting. If memory holds, we beat out Cooley and Providence for both BigKev AND Cimino, which really is high praise for ML/Staff as Cooley has been landing NBA talent caliber guys in his other recruiting wars.

BigFan, if memory holds you were among the most outspoken in your belief that GW would need to land a high level recruit to replace Kethan,eager to know if you still feel that way.

By: Kaj (51 posts) - 5/19/2015 4:27:30 PM

6'9"-245 with high-major interest, but still enough of a ways away that he would probably still have to accept coming off the bench for his freshman year? This is EXACTLY the type of player this team needs for this year and the years after. Sign him up.

By: doug sandels (783 posts) - 5/19/2015 9:20:55 PM

Minnesota is still understandably skittish after the end of the Clem Haskins Fiasco, but up here it sounds like Pitino was pretty shocked.

By: doug sandels (783 posts) - 5/19/2015 9:21:36 PM

Oh, and our winter was about a billion times better than Boston's.
 

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 5/19/2015 10:14:38 PM

Give that Man (if he is 26) a scholarship.  He fits in well with us.  Are we on his list? 

By: Wax Daddy (193 posts) - 5/20/2015 3:40:57 AM

Kind of surprised to hear the quick calls to sign him. From a basketball standpoint, he sounds like an awesome get for us. I consider us to be better academically than Minnesota, so I would assume we will wait to hear how the clearinghouse issue plays out before offering. Anyone else know of other recruits we've inked under similar murky situations? When would the clearinghouse issue be completed? Sounds very TBD but we should definitely stay in touch. Kind of odd Minnesota wouldn't wait to see how things went unless they had another recruit in the wings

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/20/2015 1:01:10 PM

Wax Daddy,

Sometimes the Clearinghouse process is VERY slow. They could still have a bunch of players unresolved deep into the Fall semester and as the season actually approaches.

By: SHOFAZ+1 (71 posts) - 5/20/2015 1:23:29 PM

is he really 26? 

By: Thomas (1,146 posts) - 5/20/2015 2:26:22 PM

From what I'm seeing, it's just Minnesota fans who are claiming that academics led to Pitino letting Nwakwo out of his LOI. I don't believe any higher-ups at Minnesota has made a statement as to why this happened. Since the only negative speculation has come from Gopher fans and the GW coaches are already familiar with Nwankwo, I see no problem with GW trying to sign him.

About his age, remember local player Junior Etou had his age questioned by just about every WCAC coach when he played at O'Connell a few years ago. He still went on to play at Rutgers for the past 2 years and has now transferred to Tulsa. If Nwankwo's "paperwork" says he's 18, then he's 18!!!

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 5/20/2015 2:30:16 PM

The age comment was intended as humor. Sophomoric, prejudicial humor. 

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/20/2015 2:32:33 PM

He visited last June, any word how the visit went? Any sign yet we're pursuing now?

By: Mike K (1,177 posts) - 5/20/2015 9:59:25 PM

Gotta state the obvious...show him the roster and tell him the only guys his size are jr and sr.  He has a chance to get some PT.  Would be a great "get" if academics fall into place (if that was actually the issue).

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/20/2015 10:08:37 PM

and me.....               err I mean Ryan Andrew McCoy (and Cimino/Goss)

All kidding aside, I agree Mike K, that's a good sell to make for a somewhat raw 4 year guy (and a very bad one to just abot any 1 year 4/5 guy imo)

By: BACCAS92 (705 posts) - 5/20/2015 10:24:14 PM

Bo Knows are we pursuing?  Please tell me yes.  Missing Piece to our Puzzle. 

By: The Other MG (69 posts) - 5/21/2015 12:50:25 PM

As per (recruiting guru) BM on 8/4/14, we were not a finalist.  Any reason why he would now consider GW, if there were 5 other finalists, and we weren't one of them?  One can dream, and I've already lit a candle, but........

By: CT Colonial (172 posts) - 5/21/2015 1:05:24 PM

I don't think we were a finalist for Sina, right? (correct me if I'm wrong, don't remember)  Anyways, a lot can change in a few months. This is all just speculation right now.  I would assume that ML is aware of his decommitment, but we don't know if he wants him or can have him (the latter is more probable).

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/21/2015 1:35:46 PM

Surely not for Sina, CT Colonial good point.  Same with Tyler I believe?

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/21/2015 1:36:56 PM

I think you know that GW is after him when someone on staff follows him on twitter or Facebook. Then when the player, his family, a coach says GW is in the mix. And finally when the player takes a visit. Absent any of those things we arely likely in the mix. I don't think there is really any incentive for secrecy in cases like this - on the part of the player or of any of the schools.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/21/2015 1:59:59 PM

Unlikely in the mix you mean and I would agree. 

That's what I've been writing for weeks, where is there any sign at all that any of these things are happening with a 2015 eligible??

 

By: Poster (5 posts) - 5/21/2015 4:02:14 PM

Well you also got to think who else has a scholarship available this late in the year.  Hey we do. 

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/21/2015 10:43:20 PM

We do, but is that all that rare? At the very least it takes some teams out of the mix who are maxed out.

Thinker you askesd for a prediction? Here's your prediction:

I can't see see us landing even a usefully good 1 year immediately eligible PF/C.  I've alluded to that many times, too tough a sell with an entrenched 5 and a very good 4, too many teams with a lot more playing time to offer. 

I'd say instead the last scholarship goes to a very late class 2015 guy or a transfer, but not the immediately eligible Big transfer so many here seem to prefer. 

 

By: Thomas (1,146 posts) - 5/22/2015 12:15:44 AM

For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of schools who still have available scholarships for 2015. If you check verbal commits twitter on a regular basis, you'll see two or three 2015 players signing with schools every day. George Mason just signed 2 within the last day or two.

I couldn't find his name in the recruits section, but local JUCO guard Will Ferguson decommitted from Texas State and is now available. In high school he played at O'Connell and then a Virginia public school. He was considered a high-major prospect in high school but ended up at commiting to Texas State after 2 years at a JUCO. I know I mentioned him on here 2 years ago after Nigel decommitted, but I don't recall if GW had any interest. GW doesn't really need a 2-year guard at this point because of all the guards they will have for the upcoming season and Sina starting in 2016-2017, but if ML wants to use all of his available scholarships, Ferguson is an option.

By: Neil+1 (5/22/2015 12:19:48 AM)

Youtube highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIX6ZJPMgr4 

By: The Dude (529 posts) - 5/22/2015 12:27:00 AM

Sounds like a great idea actually. Thomas, did you see the depth chart from Rivals I believe? It listed zero GW 2 guards eligible on our depth chart. I realize we can throw out starting 5's with either a 6'8 F at the two or a 5'11/6'0 Guard, but isn't a 2Guard exactly what we need? Lot of undersized Point Guards is what we have, but really zero pure two guards.

By: FredD (598 posts) - 5/22/2015 6:05:48 AM

Herve I can only view one topic. Do I need a different browser or setting. Thx

By: Thomas (1,146 posts) - 5/22/2015 7:24:19 AM

The Dude,  you're right about GW needing a true shooting guard. I was just looking at the number of guards GW now has, figured that the backcourt is going to be crowded for the next couple of years and they had no need for another guard who would have only 2 years of eligibility. It seems as if ML is okay with having an undersized backcourt. Matt Hart and Mitola look like they can both play off the ball even though they are undersized. Yuta and Garino are also versatile enough to play some shooting guard as well.

GW has a glaring need for some frontcourt players has me just focused on them when it comes to recruiting at this point. I brought up Will Ferguson because he's local and the staff may be familiar with him.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/23/2015 3:55:41 PM

Fair view Thomas, and we agree about the 2 Guard as well as the importance of adding to the frontcourt, its only in the context of immediately available transfers do I think a starting guard makes more sense over a frontcourt depth man.

Question I would have about Mitola and Hart playing off the ball, those guys can really shoot it, can they defend well enough to play the 2 in the A10?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 5/23/2015 4:22:49 PM

That's what we are about to find out Dude. But ML is a defense guy so he's not taking guys who can't guard a phone booth.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/23/2015 9:00:37 PM

Thomas,

It's hard to track who has scholarships because more and more players keep announcing that they are transfering or given the time of the year it is - flunking out of school.

I also think that since the number of transfers has simply exploded, more schools are keeping a scholarship available in case a good player becomes available late in the process. I think more schools are going to be willing to do that even if some years they end up having to bank the scholarship for the next year. And if they do that, then they have the option to give the scholarship to a player that decides to transfer after the Fall semester.

And the better the team/school is the easier it is to hold a scholarship because they're more likely to have 11-12 good players anyway.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/23/2015 10:03:12 PM

He's not playing guys who can't guard.  He's recruited several it turned out who couldn't, ergo they haven't yet found the court or are no longer in the program. 

That's why ideally you'd bring in a transfer 2 Guard who you know can.  But if ML thinks the answer/s is already on the roster, it would explain why he might not.  We shall see, either why I find it hard to believe we don't use that final scholarship, and without a true 2 guard on the roster, seems like that would be a good use of it.  If it goes to a 4 year big, sounds great too.
 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/23/2015 11:52:38 PM

Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscanfriar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Thank you Wikipedia.

How does this apply to the discussion on transfers?

1) GW will have these wing/guards who could potentially play and contribute - Roland, Hart, Mitola, Swan, Paul, JoeMac.

2) GW has these guys who can play at the wing/guard spot though they might be bigger - Garino and Yuta.

3) So GW has 8 guys who can potentially play for periods of time at the wing/guard spot. 8 - For two spots in the lineup. Again - 8

4) After KevLar and Cavanaugh who does GW have to come off the bench who is rugged and physical and be able to rebound and defend against bigger players? Or start if one of those 2 guys get hurt? Cimino? - Great potential and maybe if he's gotten stronger. Yuta? Love him - is he really ready to bang with A-10 big men?

So how many assumptions do we have to make to say that a wing/guard should be ML's top priority for a transfer?

How many assumptions do we have to make to say that a big man should be ML's top priority for a transfer?

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/24/2015 12:22:54 AM

Your list of guards includes a lot guys you were very skeptical about days ago, rightfully so in several cases. 

We're an A10 team.  Did anyone here watch Davidson and Dayton take apart most of the A10 this year, how much rugged depth did they have? Did Dayton even have anyone over 6-6 period? Did Davidson start or play a single actually rugged frontcourt player? We have a big physical C and a very good 4, and we're going to see quite a bit of Larsen Yuta Garino just like we did last year, and Garino Tyler Larsen.  Largely 4 Guys for 3 spots, just like last year except with a big upgrade at the 4 spot and likely major improvement and readiness from Yuta.  Swan should get minutes this year, Cimino more minutes, maybe Goss too.

Even more frontcourt depth for us is universally agreed to be ideal here but did we not win 46 games and make 2 postseasons the last year, who was the rugged frontcourt depth on those teams? What did those two teams have that this team doesn't? Creek and Kethan?


 

 

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/24/2015 12:31:38 AM

(* 46 wins the last two years that is)

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/24/2015 1:06:24 AM

No honey one of those teams had Armwood who was totally the difference maker that year.

I was skeptical about whether Occam's Razor was just too intellectual for you. The point of it is that in trying to do predictive analysis you should use the model that requires the fewest assumptions.

Remember the question I posed - I know it's hard. It's not are we going to be good next year? It's not which player is going to be good or not? It's which theory of whether ML should focus on getting a rugged defender rebounder or a wing/off guard requires fewer assumptions and therefore the best predictor of success.

Your method seems to assume that:

Neither Kevlar or Cavanaugh get hurt and miss any significant time

That among the 8 players listed there are NO combinations that will give us enough at the wing/off guard spot

That among Yuta, Garino, and Cimino we have a backup who can be a physical defender and rebounder and potentially cover the 4 or 5 for an extended period of time overall or in a particular game.

That because Dayton could succeed with little depth then of course we can

That Davidson which has a TOTALLY different system than GW could succeed without lots of big men then of course GW can.

Those two are in part a kind of assumption that you can be very successful in the A-10 a good big man rotation.

My theory assumes that:

It's not safe to assume that there will be no injuries to big men

That with 8 guys who can play wing/off guard spot there must be SOME combination that will work for us.

So to me the far superior theory is that ML should prioritize getting a rugged defender rebounder not a wing/off guard.

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/24/2015 1:27:13 AM

Another way to look at it - and I think this is the way most coaches actually look at roster construction is -- Which player/position would a moderate to serious injury be most devastating to the team? On this team 1a and 1b would be some order of Kevlar and Cavanaugh. Nobody else would even be close even though we have other good players who are very important to the team's success. 

Savage who was playing really well two years ago and had a terrible injury that caused him to miss the last two thirds or so of the season. What happened? We continued on to have one of the best seasons in GW history. I'm not saying he wasn't good that year - he was in fact very good. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been much better to have him in the lineup - it would have been much better. But it didn't really set the team back. It wasn't catastrophic because we had other players who could fill in adequately for Savage.

Sure Yuta or Garino and maybe Cimino can play a few minutes here and there at the 4/5 against SOME teams and SOME matchups. But I have to imagine that ML starts to sweat thinking about having to rely on one of those guys to start or play major minutes at the 4/5 if Kevlar or Cavanaugh got hurt. I think all three of those guys are/will be good players but they just don't have the size at this moment. So I think ML has to hold out to the bitter end to get a rugged rebounder defender.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/24/2015 1:33:34 AM

I get that frontcourt depth is one concern, we're all of that view. 

Wings + guards are actually 3 of the spots on the floor not 2.  College teams routinely play 3 guards, they often play 1 big & 4 shooters and that the ML offense is really designed to surround BigKev with 4 shooters - and that on our team, while you could stick some forward type guys at the 2 out of sheer necessity, Yuta is really a stretch 4 in the process of getting stronger, and Pato and Swan SFs? - those are ball handling guards? Yuta and Swan vs a trapping team at the 2? 

As for this rugged frontcourt, ML just recruited Cimino Swan Yuta and Goss. Where is there any indication that he's hunting for rugged front court guys?  Guys who stretch and space the court with their shooting, has been the DNA of each recent recruit, Guards and F's alike. This isn't the late 80's teams don't play fewer and fewer Bill Brighams and Iturbes these days. Sure looks like a Northern Iowa 1 big 4 shooters emerging in Foggy Bottom.

Shooting guards are actually guys who can both really shoot it and are athletic enough to guard other athletic two guards.  Who fits that description on our squad, who beats a press with Joe, who has the ball to take the big shot end of game, who creates offense end of the shot clock?

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/24/2015 2:10:28 AM

Huh? "Savage who was playing really well two years ago and had a terrible injury that caused him to miss the last two thirds or so of the season. What happened? We continued on to have one of the best seasons in GW history."

We were 16-3 when Kethan was injured two years ago, 8-6 thereafter.  Most of that great historic season was in the books, it wasn't a great historic end of a year without KS.  The tail end was a 5-5 ending. With Kethan we beat VCU by 10, without him we lost by 17.  Do you recall Miguel playing Guard against that trap when KS was hurt? I do. 

By: thinker (2,825 posts) - 5/24/2015 3:18:31 AM

I said we would have been better with Savage. We still advanced well and made the NCAA tournament and had 26 wins. His loss hurt but wasn't catastrophic.

Your understanding of "positions" on the floor is largely outdated. Savage and JoeMac easily shifted between playing point and off-guard. You can get stats for what lineups played together and for how many minutes in the NBA but I've never found that for college. So I'm not positive but I believe that Paul played with Savage or JoeMac at the same time. When Yuta played at the same time as Garino - who was the 2 and who was the 3 in your definition system?

Garino was clearly our best defender last year. Often he played defense (in that time when we were playing man to man which was a minority of the time) against the best offensive opponent. If Garino was guarding a "shooting guard" does that mean Garino himself was playing the position of "shooting guard?" What if Garino was guarding the opposing shooting guard at the same time as Savage was on the floor? Who is the shooting guard in that case? What if part of the game Garino defended the point guard, sometimes the small forward and sometimes the power forward?

Who is the shooting guard when we are playing zone defense? In the 1-3-1 which player is the point guard?

The reality is that we try to play defense when we are playing man to man by matching up the best we can regardless of position. And of course the other team is doing to same on their side of the court. Just because Garino might guard the other team's shooting guard doesn't mean that the other team's shooting guard will guard Garino.

I am definitely not an expert on the flex but as I understand it -- through the use of motion, screens, picks etc. you try to create open looks and mismatches across the court. When run well you are going to get open shots for big men from mid to long range and you are going to get post up opportunities by your wings and guards. In the motion system you're going to run all your players through different spots on the floor and the desire is to have all your players be able to do well from most of those positions on the floor.

When you're running that type of progression system the "positions" of the players aren't that accurately descriptive.

When we had a lineup of Kopriva, Yuta and Garino who was the 2 who the 3? When we had a lineup of Kevlar, Garino, Yuta who was the 3 and who the 4? So we have situations where Yuta could reasonably be called the 2, 3, or 4. Do you think what we call Yuta matters in the least? Do you think ML says I don't really need or want Yuta to shoot as well as Garino because he's a 4 not a 3 or whatever?  You don't really care what position your best shooter plays - you just want as many good shooters as you can get because the design of the offense is to generate open looks for all your players from various points on the floor. In fact Savage was certainly not the best "shooter" on the team.

The final point is that in the flex with its progression of motion screens cuts and passes, the point guard doesn't dominate the ball in the same way he does in different systems and all the other players can initiate the plays themselves. So when JoeMac and Savage or Paul or Yuta was playing there wasn't that much difference between the 1 and 2 EXCEPT for who brought the ball up the floor.

So yes I think in general and with GW specifically the 1-2-3-4-5 positions are mostly notional and don't mean that much. Even though the "media" uses those positions when referencing players.