2025 recruiting....
- Thread starter Ozheelfan
- Start date
None of his final four schools are East of Texas so I'm thinking proximity to home is also a factor.
Also, I wouldn't think of this or any recruitment as "wasted time". If it took this long for either side to figure out the fit isn't there then I would argue that Coach Hubert could not have spent his time more wisely.
Also, I wouldn't think of this or any recruitment as "wasted time". If it took this long for either side to figure out the fit isn't there then I would argue that Coach Hubert could not have spent his time more wisely.
It seems that the recruiting board is being somewhat reset, certainly expanded from the initial guys HD had zeroed in on. I’m guessing that’s due to not gaining much traction with most. However, it seems Carolina is still strong with Peat and Wilson. Hopefully some of these new offers get some real traction.
Having a relationship with a kid who goes elsewhere can still pay off when they hit the portal next year
Thanks RP, that is something I hadn't thought of. Talk about long game, coaches must recruit with this idea in mind too. They never know when a recruit might become ready to transfer later. Does this mean they have to remain in contact with peeps throughout their college career???
So how disappointed were you when Hansbourgh didn't enter the draft after his soph season, Ty didn't, Danny didn't, Wayne didn't, were you as disappointed in them as you say you will be if Cadeau does not enter the next draft?
Sometimes I think people forget about the narratives around 06-09 teams.
No one really saw Tyler as a legit threat to go after his sophomore year. He was undersized for the NBA when post play was still a vital piece. Even after NPOY the prevailing narrative was “amazing college player that will be pedestrian at best in the pros.” Most acknowledged that Ed Davis was the best pro prospect in the post Tyler’s senior year.
Danny wasnt a legit pro prospect until after his senior year. Even then it took him a while to get established after being picked in the late 2nd round
This is also ignoring the prevalence of underclassmen declaring early at the time. It was basically reserved for problem cases or lottery locks, which Wayne and Ty werent after their sophomore years. They were both outside the lottery even after their junior years.
Ty was drafted 18th
Wayne was drafted 28th
With that said, players of their caliber certainly wouldve checked their pro prospects more in depth with the new flexibility players enjoy today.
Plus “testing the waters” doesnt equal for sure going into the draft. EC’s play ought to be combine invite worthy next year- but his height may get in the way of being a legit pro prospect.
You avoided the question.
Gosh, you told me that Danny wasn't a pro prospect until after his senior season, Cadeau is not a pro prospect now either, like Danny, he may be one day but that is not this day. You share where TY and Wayne were drafted, not sure why because I did not ask you that? Tyler, yet again, Cadeau is not today seen as a NBA draftable guy, he was more considered that before coming to us than he is now today.
It is kind of easy, you shared that a guy that is NOT today on NBA draft boards will disappoint you if he is not on draft boards after next season. So I asked you if OTHER guys that didn't leave after their freshman seasons disappointed as much as you offer Cadeau will if he does not enter the next draft after his freshman season?
"testing the waters" for the NBA draft means 1 and only 1 thing, it is 100% to see if they can get to the NBA now. Hawkins and Oyenso didn't come back to play in college because they wanted to, they did not get the NBA guarantees they were looking for, they looked and the NBA said not at this time. A 6'0" guard simply does not meet the NBA metrics so he has to be a super star to get a chance at being a first rounder today. For Cadeau to become a real NBA prospect, that should test his options because he is under sized he would have to jump shoot out to trey near 40%, don' think I expect him to do that next season, maybe you do?
Danny quickly washed out of the league and even had to play overseas. It took a 3-way phone call with Roy Williams and Gregg Popovich to restart Danny's NBA career.
And it wasn't about skills either. It was entirely between his ears. Roy and Pop had to get Danny to change his attitude, and it worked. He became a pro's pro.
Wasn’t that a completely different era regarding draft eligibility? If you declared and hired an agent you couldnt return to school? So you kind of had to be 100% sure.
I don’t even know the rules today for sure… can’t you declare but drop out up to 2x today and technically declare for the draft up to 3x? And each time you can hire an agent and still come back to school?
And yes, I’ll consider it a disappointment if a player with “generational” expectations isn’t considered any level of an NBA prospect after 2 years of college basketball.
One size never fits all! It certainly depends on the circumstances around why they aren't considered NBA lottery picks to me. I think both RJ and Hans are elite or generational players in college. The game skews toward them as soon as they step on the court. Both are too short to be classic NBA prospects so they stay in college to maximize their potential. Neither is a disappointment. EC has generational potential, but it needs time to mature. He chose wisely not to rush into the pros so he isn't a disappointment. Frankly, as a UNC fan I don't understand how a player deciding to stay on the team and help us be more successful could ever be a disappointment without some scandal! I am vested in UNC and I couldn't care less about the NBA. I only watch NBA games during the playoffs.
I know you're an eternal optimist, but before last year, you said this about Cadeau, "the chances of Cadeau not being All ACC at least are very slim." (I'm assuming you meant as a freshman). So if we're going from all conference (at least) as a freshman to something extremely vague like "it needs time to mature", then I'm sorry, but there's a level of disappointment in that. That doesn't mean he won't eventually become the generational player that people expected from him. I just personally don't see generational talent in him.
And you and I differ on the NBA thing. I think it helps UNC to have a lot of players in the NBA and I think it would help them to have all star level players in the NBA. People will throw out Kentucky and Duke's "lack of success" and throw away the NBA talent.... Strangely they equate that if it happened at UK and Duke, it will automatically happen here too. Idk, I think that Michael Jordan guy helped UNC a lot due to his NBA career. But maybe I'm wrong and it only helped UNC because of his college success.
And while Cadeau doesn't have the most impressive physical stature for a PG, he isn't an NBA prospect because he isn't good enough right now. That's the main thing. It isn't his size. If he were a 6'4" PG who shot 19% from 3, he may still not be an NBA prospect. He isn't an NBA-level player because he isn't good enough to be. Mike Conley and Chris Paul are still productive players in their late 30s even though they have relatively limited scoring potential and they're 6'0" PGs. Why? They're still good enough to play in the NBA.
But I'll go back to my original point... If people are still throwing out "generational", even on the peripheral, about Cadeau and he isn't good enough after 2 years to at least explore his NBA future, yes I think it will be a disappointment.
I did mean on the freshman team and I still think he has generational potential. The boost UNC gets from having All-Star level pros is obvious and goes without saying! MJ has provided immeasurable assistance to UNC and nothing I said implies otherwise. BUT: Bacot, Hans, and RJ have also provided great benefit to the Heels without ALL-Star evel careers (so far). I also never said EC was too small to be a point, I said RJ and Hans were for their positions. We have all seen glimpses of EC's amazing potential but peeps mature at vastly different rates. He has yet to put it all together, but the pieces are getting more refined every day. I am thrilled he will be back at UNC as our point because it helps our team right now-I will be thrilled once he puts it all together and becomes at least a starter level pro (I suspect he will be better than this) because this helps UNC in the long run! At no point do I feel ANY disappointment in EC! He would have to regress due to his attitude or quit on the team to be a disappointment!
EC is on his second year, one of which should have been in high school so I'm fine if he needs another year and I am happy he will get it at UNC!
Potential implies unfinished business (it never guarantees) and reasonable peeps know athletes, like all people, mature or find their niche at their own pace!
Potential: "Kevin Madden, Toney Mack, Matt Marquart, or Cliff Rozier, but they were all, at least once, written about as having the potential to be the “next Jordan.”
To me only Rozier is a disappointment and that is due to his actions/choices!
This shows that there are no guarantees, and you have to see how they develop!
EC is on his second year, one of which should have been in high school so I'm fine if he needs another year and I am happy he will get it at UNC!
Potential implies unfinished business (it never guarantees) and reasonable peeps know athletes, like all people, mature or find their niche at their own pace!
Potential: "Kevin Madden, Toney Mack, Matt Marquart, or Cliff Rozier, but they were all, at least once, written about as having the potential to be the “next Jordan.”
To me only Rozier is a disappointment and that is due to his actions/choices!
This shows that there are no guarantees, and you have to see how they develop!
Last edited:
I misread the size stuff so I'll scratch that.
I keep seeing that Cadeau should've been a HS SR and I understand the re-class stuff, but he would've been a 20-year-old freshman PG then.
I'm also not really talking about potential. I'm saying with the expectations people had with Cadeau, IMO it will be a disappointment if we don't see a certain level of quality by year 2. I can't even say to my expectations he's been a disappointment. I was in "wait and see" mode last year and it was pretty apparent right away that he was probably years away and potentially not a pro-level prospect. But when more than one or two are calling him a generational prospect, then that's eventually going to be the expectation (at least partly).
I'm more than happy that he's a UNC PG and will root for him as long as he's a UNC PG. Then I'll hope he has a long successful pro career.
There's obviously no guarantees but that's even a bigger reason people shouldn't throw out "generational" IMO. I honestly don't even know which basketball skill of his is generational.
Very reasonable. I don't really know what peeps mean by generational anyway! The kid is smart, quick, coachable, team-oriented, athletic, and has extraordinary vision. He is learning to put it all together and unlearning the things that he was able to do in HS. I would say his IQ and vision are definitely elite. His mid-range game is borderline and should be used more. His confidence is low so his shooting suffers, but this is definitely fixable. My Tar Heel expectations are always at the top of the scale but I am seldom disappointed. I was disappointed in my team during 8-20 because they quit, but losing before the Natty game is NOT a criteria for failure in my book! (How they lose could be)
It sounds pretty subjective to me. BartTorvik had Cadeau's non "at the rim" shots at 32.8% last year so idk where that falls in borderline elite. I also will never recommend a player to use their mid-range game more, especially if they want to go to the NBA. That's a shot that's just not prioritized at that level.
I think generational is pretty easy. It means you're a once-in-a-generation talent. People say Victor Wembenyama is a once-in-a-generation talent because 7'4" guys have never had his skillset. All the other stuff you mentioned (smarts, quick, coachable, teammate, athletic, vision). He may have all those things but again, I don't think he has any of those skills at a generational level.
But I understand that you'll see things more positively. I more go by the numbers. He has a long way to go. And IMO, throwing out generational to describe Cadeau isn't deserved. However, I think he can become a really good college player.
I'm not ready to use the word generational, but I think Cadeau has some intangibles that we only saw glimpses of in his freshman year. I'm thinking we get to see more of what he can bring to the table this year since he will be more comfortable in his role.
For me, Cadeau has plus court vision, and a plus in the traditional point guard IQ skills, run the show type qualities. He is plenty quick enough and athletic, but at 6 foot he won't be a elite finisher at the rim at the next level. Needs to develop his deficiencies for his pluses to translate to the next level. I'm glad he chose here to work on those. I agree, that a King Rice type point guard is not what I think he imagined himself to be seen as after year 2 of college, so hopefully he shows the growth and gets NBA eyes at the very least to be in position to get invited to get feedback after this year. If not, I'm guessing that would be seen as disappointing to him and most scouts who evaluated him coming out of high school.
He was woeful in shooting both from 3, and mid range (Syracuse game they left him even at the free throw line), he was in no mans land, awkward, a float game would be huge for him with his instincts to float, lob, or kick out off penetration at the next level. I do think he is far behind in those scoring areas at this point, as I do not see him as young or playing up with the reclass, he just took back the extra year of development he used earlier. Big season for him to show some confidence and growth to elevate back to the prospect he was coming in to the leagues eyes.
He was woeful in shooting both from 3, and mid range (Syracuse game they left him even at the free throw line), he was in no mans land, awkward, a float game would be huge for him with his instincts to float, lob, or kick out off penetration at the next level. I do think he is far behind in those scoring areas at this point, as I do not see him as young or playing up with the reclass, he just took back the extra year of development he used earlier. Big season for him to show some confidence and growth to elevate back to the prospect he was coming in to the leagues eyes.
Last edited:
Young is not always about age. BUT it is always about experience. No matter how you slice it, he missed a year of development in HS and was trying to get it in the sped up world of college. He should be disappointed in himself because this is motivation to do better; however, the question was whether fans should be disappointed in him. Floaters, lobs, drop offs, passing out to the perimeter, AND hitting short jumpers are all mid-range game skills! Him missing from the freethrow line is exactly the same as him missing from 3 pt land-it is driven by confidence and hampered by hesitation! Finishing through contact or while anticipating contact is part of the adjustment to college! He will need to get stronger and figure out two things: 1. He is not going to get the star treatment he got in HS where they wanted him to shine. (no calls are coming) 2. Peeps can jump with you and have the speed/quickness to stay with you or recover at this level. (play through with force). These things require time to learn and he is learning them. BTW: I trust my eyes way more then raw stats since they can lie. Hitting tough shots (or even open long ones) can increase your shooting % BUT taking them when a teammate has a better look decreases your IQ + team orientation in my eyes, for example!
Agree 100%. He's going through the process that almost all really talented young players go through. Show flashes but play inconsistently. Then hopefully you get more consistent in more areas with more experience.
The generational ones are tangibly evident from day one IMO. Kevin Durant was playing at a different level of talent than anyone else from day one. That's generational talent. At least to me, that's what it is. And it's why I was so confused when people were calling Cadeau generational, lol.
If it's true that his poor play is more due to a lack of confidence, then I'm honestly more concerned. While I understand the belief in yourself will have some peaks and valleys at times, an elite player should never consistently waver in their confidence. I also understand this can go poorly. A player like Caleb Love, who has irrational self-confidence can hurt the team, but I think that belief in yourself might be the most important thing once you get to a certain level of skill.
I hope in the future Cadeau takes offense when opponents don't respect his jump shot. But if it was a confidence thing, then that's a bigger concern IMO.
So, in a nut shell, those that felt or still feel Cadeau may be a generational talent may now be tossed off as idiots because the kid did not play like a generational talent as a re-classed freshman last season? Do you know who David Sisk is? Sisk is the guy in charge of reporting UNC recruiting for this site, respected by most all UNC fans who was frankly maybe higher on Cadeau than any regular poster here was, you should watch his pod casts, they are eye opening.
To say, no matter who says it, that a kid looks to them to maybe have generational talent does not in any way suggest that player will play like a generational talent as a freshman. Show me the generational talents UNC has EVER had that played like a generational talent as a freshman? Even MJ, as a freshman, thou very good and hit a huge shot to clinch our natty, was a much improved player as a soph and even better as a Jr, the GOAT was a lamb as a UNC freshman compared to what he became. Was Hansbrough a generational talent for UNC, he darn sure was a generational player, isn't that true? Was Joel Berry a generational player after leading us to back to back natty games as our starting PG, he started how many games again, as a freshman? You toss out Chris Paul and Mike Conley, are they your definition of generational players? Even if you consider them to be they were not as college freshmen what they were in their last college seasons or what they became in the NBA.
I mean, IF you have some proof that Cadeau will never develop in to a generational player I will be more than glad to look at it. I don't know if he will or not reach that level, I do know he has a chance to. How many UNC recruits came to us because Tony Bradley or Naz went NBA after their freshman seasons, was Naz a guy that didn't disappoint you, cause I was very disappointed. I would suggest Naz may have had generational talent but that talent had to be developed, just as Cadeau's has to be. The very term, generational talent is not about what a player is today, it is a consideration of what a kid MAY BECOME.
Great talents come to the college game every single season, they come to the college game as 5 stars which carries the fans expectations that they will come in and be dominant in that lone freshman season and enter the draft as a lotto selection. Yet they don't all do that as freshmen do they, at times 3 & 4 star guys play better, we see that every year as well. Just because a kid has the raw talent does not mean he will ever learn to use those raw tools to their greatest impact.
1 final issue, you seem to equate generational talents that UNC fans consider as generational talents to talent that played some college ball for ANY college program. Not to speak for everyone but I strongly believe that when UNC fans speak of generational talents, of generational players, we are talking about UNC specific players, which means one of if not the best UNC players ever if they develop the skill to go along with the raw ability. WE are not talking about generational as in one of the best ever to play the game at any level, like Jabar, Wilt, Bird, Magic, and of course MJ in addition to a few others.
Nope, I never said those who said Elliot Cadeau is a generational talent are idiots. No, I don't really know David Sisk. I'm sure his reputation is deserved but that doesn't mean his call on Cadeau being a generational talent is right either. And that opinion doesn't make him an idiot either.
And I said what I mean by my definition of generational. Those are literally once-in-a-generation and unique players (LeBron, Wembenyama, Durant). I don't view Joel Berry as a generational player. I view him as a great college player. By that definition, I do not think Elliot Cadeau can ever become a generational player. But as I said, he has the qualities to become a really good college player.
If your definition of a generational player is Joel Berry, then fine, Cadeau has generational potential. For me, the only generational player at UNC post-2000 has been Tyler Hansbrough. And I wouldn't call him a generational talent but he sure became a generational player.
I shouldn't even bring up the Michael Jordan part. I understand players improve, but that's a ridiculous thing to bring up. Jordan was only 2.1 PPG away from being UNC's leading scorer amongst a team that had the #1 overall draft pick and the #4 overall draft pick as a freshman. Elliot Cadeau was benched in an elimination game for the 9th man in the rotation.
Why does the term generational have to equate to NBA success? Would you consider UNC's all time leading scorer to be generational, for UNC? This word, generational comes with a time frame limitation. I would guess it is about a 20yr or so time frame rather than all time. Someone, maybe it was jung-nate trotted out Durant as a generational player, maybe but no way he is an all time guy, not close to top 50 all time.
The twist this thread seems to have taken is to downgrade Cadeau and try to poke fun at those fans that see him as potentially one of the best PG we have had in this generation of talents. AND you don't seem to need to wait until the entire book of his UNC career is written before saying the book is not worth reading, I take issue with that. It is fine if you don't see the kid in the similar light as many others do, that is all individual opinion and we all have different versions of opinions and the right to express them. THE BEST UNC PG I HAVE EVER SEEN WAS PHIL FORD, Cadeau is one of the very few I have seen as Tar Heel players, that has the raw talent to challenge that, will he, doubtful but unlike so many others, the kid does have the raw talent level, does some things that just can not be taught, that others simply physically can not do that says to me it is possible but not likely. But could he become the best PG THIS GENERATION of UNC fans has seen, don't know but not nearly as high a bar as ALL TIME is.
*** I just noticed; I was thinking I was replying to Nate rather than you so some of my references in my reply was bringing in some of what he had said in other posts. Just FYI***
Last edited:
Well, for LeBron and Wembenyama it has to be NBA success because they didn't play in college. It's an interesting question if Durant played 0 NBA minutes, would he be viewed as a generational college player? I'm not sure. He was so dominant and better than his peers in his one season so I'm leaning towards yes.
Also, Durant is 100% a top 50 player of all time. The NBA even placed him on their 75th anniversary team. And within that list, he's absolutely better than like 1/2 of the players. He might not be likable, but he's had an all time great career.
And I never said his basketball career is over, lol. I've expressed a level of optimism about his basketball future. I do think the book is shut on whether he's a generational player (to me) or not. He can still become a Joel Berry type. If that's generational to you, then fine. It just isn't to me. Hard to be generational if the player you're compared to played like 5 years apart from you.
The loose definition of generation is 20-30 years. I don't get how you can be generational if a similar player to you arrives 5 years after you're done with school (for both players). But again, if you view as Joel Berry as that kind of player, then Cadeau can certainly reach that level IMO.
Last edited:
Would I consider Joel Berry a generational player, not sure actually? How many other PGs has UNC had that THIS generation of fans have seen? I would suggest Ty maybe before Joel, is Ray even now considered this generation? There can be no doubt Hansbourgh was a generational player for UNC, in time some may consider Bacot to be that as well.
I am not sure where we should draw that line between this generation and the next, so I am not sure how many years the look back applies for the list of this generations players? Do you have a limit on how many generational players can be in a generation? Does it have to be just 1 or does it make more sense to be one per position?
No matter actually, where for me your argument falls short is that in every case you offer, you have the ability to look back at their entire body of work and yet not willing to allow Cadeau past his initial chapter before you want to ban his book? Shouldn't you wait until it is completely written before you decide the book is not worth reading?
So you would not consider MJ, Bird, Magic as generational players? LOL
So Durant IN YOUR OPINION is 100% one of the 50 best players ever? I am not sure I would have him in my top 100 but hey, your opinion does not have to agree with mine, definite HOF guy for sure. You can assemble any list you want and that list will be biased toward players that you watched in your span of time being a fan of the sport. Personally, my favorite all time player, for my money the best to ever lace them up was Larry Bird (yeah, I am maybe the only Tar Heel that has Bird slightly over MJ). But many younger fans believe Lebron is the best to ever play, I laugh at that but it is based on what they saw and felt as those guys were playing in their prime. My best friend believes the best ever was Wilt and he makes a compelling case, really old timers would suggest the best ever was Connie Hawkins and there is a compelling case for that that very few alive today would believe.
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I would say this applies as well to who you consider generational. Is or was Joel a generational player for UNC, again, I am on the fence on that, we talking Pgs only or all players in the last 20yrs or so? I would have him the discussion with TY, Ray, Kendal as Pgs but personally I would take Ray for that spot and Ty as second but others may see that different, very young fans would very likely see that very differently.
Lol this is an inane opinion to have even if you only watch UNC Basketball.
Kevin Durant is 100% one of the 50 best basketball players ever, lol. Definite 0 questions asked. I think he's safely in the top 30. And probably in the top 20.
Top 100? Good lord, do Jordan, LeBron, and Bird count as 80 people?
Everybody has personal favorites that color thier personal rankings. For some it blinds them, either for or against, others it just tilts the take to various degrees. I have not seen even one NBA list with Kevin Durant not among the all-time greats, but obviously, even if 99% see it one way that does not mean every single person will agree.
As for being a generational player, for me, they have to be among the greats of the greats for thier quarter century or so of playing. Not just a great high school legend, or college legend, or best position player for a given school or franchise during that time span. That is a high school great, college great, San Antonio Spur, or UNC great, but not a generational to me.
Speculating who can be that is fun, but it takes a whole lot to actually be generational. High school legends who did nothing later had "generational talent". The "talent" is subjective, the results for thier era is less subjective. Wemby certainly looks to have a chance, but so did Ralph Sampson. Ant Edwards has a chance, but so did Stevie Francis. Time will tell.
Whatever level people think Cadeau can rise to is debatable, but I do think he can/will be DAMN good. Isiah Thomas type generational? Pearl Washington, great college, not much more? King Rice, solid, nothing special? Ronald Curry, never much? Time will tell.
As for being a generational player, for me, they have to be among the greats of the greats for thier quarter century or so of playing. Not just a great high school legend, or college legend, or best position player for a given school or franchise during that time span. That is a high school great, college great, San Antonio Spur, or UNC great, but not a generational to me.
Speculating who can be that is fun, but it takes a whole lot to actually be generational. High school legends who did nothing later had "generational talent". The "talent" is subjective, the results for thier era is less subjective. Wemby certainly looks to have a chance, but so did Ralph Sampson. Ant Edwards has a chance, but so did Stevie Francis. Time will tell.
Whatever level people think Cadeau can rise to is debatable, but I do think he can/will be DAMN good. Isiah Thomas type generational? Pearl Washington, great college, not much more? King Rice, solid, nothing special? Ronald Curry, never much? Time will tell.
Both generational in my opinion. Wilt absolutely in my opinion has a strong case for greatest ever. Connie actually is younger than Wilt though, they were contemporaries. Connie was done wrong for sure, but to me he is a tougher case to make for GOAT though. His years with the Pipers in the ABA, is the closest glimpse. His tale is an example of why I don't buy the money in college basketball is a totally new phenomenon. Just different on how it has been used to controll the sport throughout.
