Interesting offer...

[gary-7]

I think the question here is who do ya like more from what you have seen, Brooks or Stokes. Huffman is a Tar Heel, write that down if you have not already, it is a matter of timing the announcement.

I like them both.

Thing to remember here is that Roy has --- if he needs them --- at least 6 schollies to play with. We are in on some elite Bigs (PJ being the most likely), and Roy ain't likely to cash out on that this early. I like Huffman too, but make no mistake, he is a project --- a project with a good upside --- but a project nonetheless. Now again, I may be totally wrong on this (as it's a guess), but I'll be surprised if Roy takes Huffman's commitment before Late Night.

Now to answer your question --- my opinion on the Bigs:
If we ended up with, say, just Stokes and Brooks, y'all should be very very happy. Those are both 3-4 year Bigs with HUGE upsides, AND could be major contributors as freshmen (which is something I cannot say about Huffman).

Bottom line is yeah, Roy is casting a net but it's dolphin-safe, and he's putting himself in a nice position. Reality is, if a Big of the caliber of a Washington/Bamba/Carter wants to commit, you make room for them, and yes, hold a schollie for that purpose that can be used in 18 if you miss. And since guys of that caliber are potential OAD you also would like 2 other Bigs if you can pull it off.

Here's where I see this shaping up in educated guess world:
I feel Roy is gonna pull in at least 2 Bigs, and would take 3 if one was elite --- the "2" being 2 of Stokes/Brooks/Huffman, with the bonus being one of the aforementioned Big Three (the most likely of course being Washington). If we could somehow pull Washington, Stokes and Brooks? Holy Schniekies!!!

As you said, Dave, Huffman is ours for the taking, but I would like him way better as a third Big than a second, if you get my drift.

 

[Ned Cota]

I like them both.

Thing to remember here is that Roy has --- if he needs them --- at least 6 schollies to play with. We are in on some elite Bigs (PJ being the most likely), and Roy ain't likely to cash out on that this early. I like Huffman too, but make no mistake, he is a project --- a project with a good upside --- but a project nonetheless. Now again, I may be totally wrong on this (as it's a guess), but I'll be surprised if Roy takes Huffman's commitment before Late Night.

Now to answer your question --- my opinion on the Bigs:
If we ended up with, say, just Stokes and Brooks, y'all should be very very happy. Those are both 3-4 year Bigs with HUGE upsides, AND could be major contributors as freshmen (which is something I cannot say about Huffman).

Bottom line is yeah, Roy is casting a net but it's dolphin-safe, and he's putting himself in a nice position. Reality is, if a Big of the caliber of a Washington/Bamba/Carter wants to commit, you make room for them, and yes, hold a schollie for that purpose that can be used in 18 if you miss. And since guys of that caliber are potential OAD you also would like 2 other Bigs if you can pull it off.

Here's where I see this shaping up in educated guess world:
I feel Roy is gonna pull in at least 2 Bigs, and would take 3 if one was elite --- the "2" being 2 of Stokes/Brooks/Huffman, with the bonus being one of the aforementioned Big Three (the most likely of course being Washington). If we could somehow pull Washington, Stokes and Brooks? Holy Schniekies!!!

As you said, Dave, Huffman is ours for the taking, but I would like him way better as a third Big than a second, if you get my drift.

You mention PJ, Stokes, Brooks as a possibility. Are you really leaving the door open for Huffman not being at Carolina? Would Roy really offer the kid a scholarship, tell him to wait, and then fill the slot with THREE other guys? I know he's not an elite recruit but that seems ruthless. At this point I just don't see how Huffman is not a part of this 17 class.

What I'm curious about is whether Roy would take all 3 of Stokes, Brooks, Huffman? Or is 3 bigs only happening if one is PJ, Knox, Bamba. If not, I think the most likely class is Brooks, Huffman, and wait and see on the OADs. Time may be running out for Stokes.

 

[gary-7]

You mention PJ, Stokes, Brooks as a possibility. Are you really leaving the door open for Huffman not being at Carolina? Would Roy really offer the kid a scholarship, tell him to wait, and then fill the slot with THREE other guys? I know he's not an elite recruit but that seems ruthless. At this point I just don't see how Huffman is not a part of this 17 class.

What I'm curious about is whether Roy would take all 3 of Stokes, Brooks, Huffman? Or is 3 bigs only happening if one is PJ, Knox, Bamba. If not, I think the most likely class is Brooks, Huffman, and wait and see on the OADs. Time may be running out for Stokes.

The PJ/Stokes/Brooks scenario was MY personal wish-list.

But yeah. If Brooks IS as high on UNC as he seems to be (and everything I've heard outta Auburn says he is, although his dad at Mrs State could be a factor), Stokes could be under the gun a bit.

I wouldn't include Knox as a Big, but you make a good point in that Roy doesn't normally do the bait-and-switch on guys like Huffman.

I think Roy is looking at a class of:
Felton (PG)
Platek (2G)
one of Randoph/Vanderbilt/Knox (versatile taller Wing)
two of Brooks/Stokes/Huffman (classic Bigs)
and hopefully a bonus Elite Big

Again, that's just what I'm smellin'.....

 

[Ned Cota]

The PJ/Stokes/Brooks scenario was MY personal wish-list.

But yeah. If Brooks IS as high on UNC as he seems to be (and everything I've heard outta Auburn says he is, although his dad at Mrs State could be a factor), Stokes could be under the gun a bit.

I wouldn't include Knox as a Big, but you make a good point in that Roy doesn't normally do the bait-and-switch on guys like Huffman.

I think Roy is looking at a class of:
Felton (PG)
Platek (2G)
one of Randoph/Vanderbilt/Knox (versatile taller Wing)
two of Brooks/Stokes/Huffman (classic Bigs)
and hopefully a bonus Elite Big

Again, that's just what I'm smellin'.....

We pretty much agree. I just think Huffman is locked in, making that one of Stokes or Brooks, and still leave a spot open for bonus elite big (and knowing we probably can't get Knox and PJ together).

 

[Bur-Heel]

On another note..weatherspoon committed to Mississippi state!!http://www.scout.com/college/basket...76-5-star-pg-nick-weatherspoon-commits-to-msu

 

[gary-7]

We pretty much agree. I just think Huffman is locked in, making that one of Stokes or Brooks, and still leave a spot open for bonus elite big (and knowing we probably can't get Knox and PJ together).

And I'll amend my previous list by saying if we go 0-fer on the Wings that would be no big deal given our current roster as long as we do well up front.

 

[HeelFan58]

On another note..weatherspoon committed to Mississippi state!!http://www.scout.com/college/basket...76-5-star-pg-nick-weatherspoon-commits-to-msu

glad it wasn't moo.

 

[Archer2]

Hope Spoon's commitment to MSU doesn't influence Brooks to go there.

 

[DSouthr]

The PJ/Stokes/Brooks scenario was MY personal wish-list.

But yeah. If Brooks IS as high on UNC as he seems to be (and everything I've heard outta Auburn says he is, although his dad at Mrs State could be a factor), Stokes could be under the gun a bit.

I wouldn't include Knox as a Big, but you make a good point in that Roy doesn't normally do the bait-and-switch on guys like Huffman.

I think Roy is looking at a class of:
Felton (PG)
Platek (2G)
one of Randoph/Vanderbilt/Knox (versatile taller Wing)
two of Brooks/Stokes/Huffman (classic Bigs)
and hopefully a bonus Elite Big

Again, that's just what I'm smellin'.....

Wings takes for me are Knox and vandy if you consider him a wing, I see him as more a 4/3 but doesn't matter, I don't see us strong there and can see Roy waiting till the spring to see if Knox wants us, honestly do not think that happens but we have offers out to really solid 2018 wings to ease that pain. I think what we are looking at is Huffman, could be only 1 of Stokes or Brooks (be great if we could get 1 of those guys to wait till spring to give us a shot at PJ and if that misses be able to have the other guy ready.

From what I see, between Huffman, Stokes, and Brooks... Stokes may be the most ready to contribute with those mid range jumpers. I think BOTH Huffman and Brooks are guys we can go to for a few minutes but not guys we really want to have to depend on for more than 10mins a game and preferred less than that and maybe same for Stokes. Personally I think Huffman has the most upside and he pretty much is a done deal at this point, Roy isn't going to pull an offer that he has asked to delay or make sure before you commit.

 

[Bur-Heel]

glad it wasn't moo.

Yep!!

 

[Bur-Heel]

Hope Spoon's commitment to MSU doesn't influence Brooks to go there.

Right!!

 

[gary-7]

Personally I think Huffman has the most upside and he pretty much is a done deal at this point, Roy isn't going to pull an offer that he has asked to delay or make sure before you commit.

Agree on the offer, disagree on the upside.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

6'10" & 230lbs is nice size, seems to have a good frame that can carry easy another 20lbs of muscle. Seems to have solid soft hands, like that. Ranked 127 and as the last 4 star on rivals but extra credit for considering UNC as his dream school.

Hard to say how much advanced this kid is over Huffman from these clips without considering the competition, I like the emotion Huffman plays with, that lil extra bit of grit, not sure I saw that in those clips of Brooks but that is really hard to see in clips like that.

I think the question here is who do ya like more from what you have seen, Brooks or Stokes. Stokes looks a lil more skilled but strikes me as a under the basket guy with a Deon like game, Brooks can finish with the flush deep and has a couple inches on Stokes. Huffman is a Tar Heel, write that down if you have not already, it is a matter of timing the announcement.

You and I and a few others have been wanting 3 bigs. If we aren't going to get one of the OADs, then 3 bigs is even more important - because it increases the chance of having 1 or more guys ready to play as frosh.

These 3 lower-ranked bigs - Stokes, Brooks and Huffman - would reload us nicely with a 3-4 year front line foundation. The only question is whether they would scare off the top bigs a year or 2 from now because people might not see a lot of PT.

If we could get all 3, but that puts us out of the running for all the higher-ranked bigs in the current class, would you be happy with that haul? With only Tony and Luke on the front line next year, those 3 would have to handle a lot of minutes. One might have to start.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Elsewhere I see that Nate Watson (now ranked 101 by 247) committed to Providence, while Weatherspoon committed to Miss St (as expected).

Whatever happened to the expected offer and commit with Watson?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The PJ/Stokes/Brooks scenario was MY personal wish-list.

But yeah. If Brooks IS as high on UNC as he seems to be (and everything I've heard outta Auburn says he is, although his dad at Mrs State could be a factor), Stokes could be under the gun a bit.

I wouldn't include Knox as a Big, but you make a good point in that Roy doesn't normally do the bait-and-switch on guys like Huffman.

I think Roy is looking at a class of:
Felton (PG)
Platek (2G)
one of Randoph/Vanderbilt/Knox (versatile taller Wing)
two of Brooks/Stokes/Huffman (classic Bigs)
and hopefully a bonus Elite Big

Again, that's just what I'm smellin'.....

I'd be very happy with that. Even without the elite big, that's a fine foundation class. Maybe better than a foundation class, depending on who we actually get.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

247 is reporting that the Iowa State basketball (not football) coach is making big inroads with Stokes. All the old predictions were to Tennessee and those seemed to be for football. All the recent predictions are for the Islamic State - I mean Iowa State, I get confused by the IS part. Eight ISU predictions in the last 6 days.

What's annoying is that there's still no indication that 247 is even aware that Stokes has an offer from UNC. Is that why we aren't seeing any predictions? Or are we not in the running for Stokes? Anybody with inside dope?

 

[Tom79]

Your second paragraph speaks to one of the problems with 247. They don't always seem to be up to date and/or just plain out of date.

 

[dadika13]

I'd take em both in a heartbeat.

and I think we'll get em both by November. Very positive things for us about both regarding their recruitment.

 

[HeelFan58]

247 is reporting that the Iowa State basketball (not football) coach is making big inroads with Stokes. All the old predictions were to Tennessee and those seemed to be for football. All the recent predictions are for the Islamic State - I mean Iowa State, I get confused by the IS part. Eight ISU predictions in the last 6 days.

What's annoying is that there's still no indication that 247 is even aware that Stokes has an offer from UNC. Is that why we aren't seeing any predictions? Or are we not in the running for Stokes? Anybody with inside dope?

Why would anybody want to go to Iowa State? It is literally in the middle of no where.

 

[DSouthr]

You and I and a few others have been wanting 3 bigs. If we aren't going to get one of the OADs, then 3 bigs is even more important - because it increases the chance of having 1 or more guys ready to play as frosh.

These 3 lower-ranked bigs - Stokes, Brooks and Huffman - would reload us nicely with a 3-4 year front line foundation. The only question is whether they would scare off the top bigs a year or 2 from now because people might not see a lot of PT.

If we could get all 3, but that puts us out of the running for all the higher-ranked bigs in the current class, would you be happy with that haul? With only Tony and Luke on the front line next year, those 3 would have to handle a lot of minutes. One might have to start.

Me personally, I would be fine, with Huffman, Stokes, and Brooks but I do think things have turned in the last 10 days or so that make me feel we are in great position for PJ. Meaning, IMO the 2 perceived leaders for PJ have faded and we may have risen a lil bit.

What I have called for is for us to get 2 big men locked in and then have the ability to wait on a 5 star even if it has to be wait till the spring. We just could not whiff nor come away from this class with anything less than 2 big men, 3 is much better IMO. If it has to be 2 front court guys and a wing then I want that wing to be a big wing (long wing) that can swing down at least on the defensive end which describes Knox and Vanderbilt. IMO, it does snot describe Randolph, in other words I am fine with a 3/4 but a 3/2 not so much.

 

[DSouthr]

247 is reporting that the Iowa State basketball (not football) coach is making big inroads with Stokes. All the old predictions were to Tennessee and those seemed to be for football. All the recent predictions are for the Islamic State - I mean Iowa State, I get confused by the IS part. Eight ISU predictions in the last 6 days.

What's annoying is that there's still no indication that 247 is even aware that Stokes has an offer from UNC. Is that why we aren't seeing any predictions? Or are we not in the running for Stokes? Anybody with inside dope?

I have sensed a bit of an anti UNC bias in the national set of guru's and I think this is just another indication of to. Maybe it is a piece of the perception crafted and aimed toward recruits to look at UNC as not the best place for them, maybe it is just a natural out cropping from that but it feels more like the national media and the guru;s they support have a hand in crafting the negative UNC perception. We all recall the long term feeding frenzy they went in to concerning our NCAA issues and it seems to me they have continued hammering us just taking a less aboveboard tactic.

 

[Ned Cota]

I have sensed a bit of an anti UNC bias in the national set of guru's and I think this is just another indication of to. Maybe it is a piece of the perception crafted and aimed toward recruits to look at UNC as not the best place for them, maybe it is just a natural out cropping from that but it feels more like the national media and the guru;s they support have a hand in crafting the negative UNC perception. We all recall the long term feeding frenzy they went in to concerning our NCAA issues and it seems to me they have continued hammering us just taking a less aboveboard tactic.

Totally agree. Roy is already in the HOF but even more credit needs to be given to him for keeping us above all of the negativity. NCAA championship games. Players in the first round of the draft. 5 star recruits. Developing 3 and 4 star guys into All Americans. The guy does it all with a smile on his face and I feel bad for anybody who doesn't see it. Dean will always be number 1, but Roy will always be number 2.

 

[trestyles]

i really wish people wouldn't put so much weight on 247 website predictions. They're terrible.

Look at past recruits and their prediction choices leading up to the commitment on that website.

 

[gary-7]

i really wish people wouldn't put so much weight on 247 website predictions. They're terrible.

Look at past recruits and their prediction choices leading up to the commitment on that website.

Yep. Coin flip at best.

 

[DSouthr]

i really wish people wouldn't put so much weight on 247 website predictions. They're terrible.

Look at past recruits and their prediction choices leading up to the commitment on that website.

IDK, they are OK, they are a source for some info, they are not the end all & be all but they are another source and I like to see what all available sources say and decide for myself what to hold and what to toss out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

IDK, they are OK, they are a source for some info, they are not the end all & be all but they are another source and I like to see what all available sources say and decide for myself what to hold and what to toss out.

They are actually pretty good if you use common sense when evaluating their "record." At least that how it seems to me. They may not always be right, but the "winner" is usually one of the leaders in their ratings. Usually one of the top 2. That's just my impre4ssion, of course, not a highfalutin statistical analysis.

Now if there were another site that made predictions and they were even better than 247, then maybe we would have grounds to criticize. But they seem to be the only game in town. And their predictions are both better than nothing and often either correct or close.

We could actually do a study here, if we wanted to. Pick a number of players and periodically check how the various sites rate them.

So, for example, Matt Coleman caught my eye. Of interest to us for a while, but never got an offer. For a long time considered a near-lock to Texas on 247 but now considered a 2-school race between Texas and Duke. Texas accumulated more predictions early, but all the recent ones are to Duke. Which makes sense because Duke only just made an offer. 247 also uses a "warmth" rating. Duke and Texas are both listed as "Warmer" while 3 other schools are listed as "Warm."

Over on Scout, one school (Texas) is listed as "High" on Coleman's list, and 6 more as "Medium." Duke isn't even listed.

Here on Rivals, all 17 teams who have offered (including Duke) are listed as "Medium."

 

[Tom79]

Yep. Coin flip at best.

Okay, so they get 51% correct when within the day of commit or on the same day!

 

[HeelFan58]

They are actually pretty good if you use common sense when evaluating their "record." At least that how it seems to me. They may not always be right, but the "winner" is usually one of the leaders in their ratings. Usually one of the top 2. That's just my impre4ssion, of course, not a highfalutin statistical analysis.

Now if there were another site that made predictions and they were even better than 247, then maybe we would have grounds to criticize. But they seem to be the only game in town. And their predictions are both better than nothing and often either correct or close.

We could actually do a study here, if we wanted to. Pick a number of players and periodically check how the various sites rate them.

So, for example, Matt Coleman caught my eye. Of interest to us for a while, but never got an offer. For a long time considered a near-lock to Texas on 247 but now considered a 2-school race between Texas and Duke. Texas accumulated more predictions early, but all the recent ones are to Duke. Which makes sense because Duke only just made an offer. 247 also uses a "warmth" rating. Duke and Texas are both listed as "Warmer" while 3 other schools are listed as "Warm."

Over on Scout, one school (Texas) is listed as "High" on Coleman's list, and 6 more as "Medium." Duke isn't even listed.

Here on Rivals, all 17 teams who have offered (including Duke) are listed as "Medium."

They actually have an excellent % when you look at their predictors There are many predictors that are nothing more than guests and they still come in around 70%. I love how the haters just jump out with their ridiciulous remarks , especially since there is not one other site who provides a similar service.

 

[trestyles]

They actually have an excellent % when you look at their predictors There are many predictors that are nothing more than guests and they still come in around 70%. I love how the haters just jump out with their ridiciulous remarks , especially since there is not one other site who provides a similar service.

You have to look at the time, they make predictions. Lot of them get them right when the day before or day of an announcement, they changed their pick. However, they have a timeline of prediction choices.

 

[DSouthr]

They are actually pretty good if you use common sense when evaluating their "record." At least that how it seems to me. They may not always be right, but the "winner" is usually one of the leaders in their ratings. Usually one of the top 2. That's just my impre4ssion, of course, not a highfalutin statistical analysis.

Now if there were another site that made predictions and they were even better than 247, then maybe we would have grounds to criticize. But they seem to be the only game in town. And their predictions are both better than nothing and often either correct or close.

We could actually do a study here, if we wanted to. Pick a number of players and periodically check how the various sites rate them.

So, for example, Matt Coleman caught my eye. Of interest to us for a while, but never got an offer. For a long time considered a near-lock to Texas on 247 but now considered a 2-school race between Texas and Duke. Texas accumulated more predictions early, but all the recent ones are to Duke. Which makes sense because Duke only just made an offer. 247 also uses a "warmth" rating. Duke and Texas are both listed as "Warmer" while 3 other schools are listed as "Warm."

Over on Scout, one school (Texas) is listed as "High" on Coleman's list, and 6 more as "Medium." Duke isn't even listed.

Here on Rivals, all 17 teams who have offered (including Duke) are listed as "Medium."

Oh I agree that Scout and Rivals give very little info on recruits interest levels and they seem behind with what they do give. Of site that are available to the masses 247 is as good as it gets, all I am saying is there does seem to be a bit of bias there with who their experts are.

 

[Steat]

You mention PJ, Stokes, Brooks as a possibility. Are you really leaving the door open for Huffman not being at Carolina? Would Roy really offer the kid a scholarship, tell him to wait, and then fill the slot with THREE other guys? I know he's not an elite recruit but that seems ruthless. At this point I just don't see how Huffman is not a part of this 17 class.

What I'm curious about is whether Roy would take all 3 of Stokes, Brooks, Huffman? Or is 3 bigs only happening if one is PJ, Knox, Bamba. If not, I think the most likely class is Brooks, Huffman, and wait and see on the OADs. Time may be running out for Stokes.

I agree about Stokes. Roy needs commitments and Stokes appears not to be a in a rush to make a decision. Just as Coby White jumped on the offer and left Dotson in the wind, the same may happen with Stokes. I don't see a problem with a 4-year project player like Huffman. He would be insurance off the bench just like Joel James.

 

[HeelFan58]

Would everybody take Huffman if his ceiling is Joel James?

 

[DSouthr]

Would everybody take Huffman if his ceiling is Joel James?

I likely would, I think the kid wants to learn to play at a high level and I think he really wants to be at UNC. Joel may not have been a difference maker player for is but the kid was a very solid ambassador for the program and just a super super kid, so yeah, I would take another Joel James.

Having said that, I see Huffman as being about where Joel was coming out of his soph season. Gary & I respectfully disagree on the kid, I like what I see in him a good bit more, I think he is ability wise on par with most 4 star bigs in this class. I think after this season at WOG that he has a great chance to be rated a 4 star.

 

[dadika13]

Would everybody take Huffman if his ceiling is Joel James?

If I were answering honestly, then I'd say no. If the absolute best outcome for a recruit is giving us 8 decent min off the bench by his senior season then I'd say we should use the scholarship elsewhere. JJ was a great kid and teammate, but we hope our scholarship recruits have higher ceilings.

I think the point is that his ceiling isn't JJ. He's way ahead of him defensively already and I see some real signs that he could polish his offensive game with 4 years under Roy and co.

 

[RoseHeel]

247 had Arizona at 0% for Ayton. Just another example of their accuracy when it comes to elite recruits.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think Brooks may be a Ben Bentil type player for us. IIRC, he also flew under the radar.

 

[gary-7]

You have to look at the time, they make predictions. Lot of them get them right when the day before or day of an announcement, they changed their pick. However, they have a timeline of prediction choices.

THIS^

 

[gary-7]

247 had Arizona at 0% for Ayton. Just another example of their accuracy when it comes to elite recruits.
.

Amazing, ain't it? I wish they ran a bookie service --- coulda cleaned up on that one.

 

[gary-7]

Oh I agree that Scout and Rivals give very little info on recruits interest levels and they seem behind with what they do give. Of site that are available to the masses 247 is as good as it gets, all I am saying is there does seem to be a bit of bias there with who their experts are.

keeping up with stuff? yeah
predictions? pffffffttttttt

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Would everybody take Huffman if his ceiling is Joel James?

IMO, JoelJ needed to be redshirted for a year. He got better every year but he was starting from such a deep hole he only started seeing daylight at the end. I suspect he would be quite good for us as a 5th year senior.

By that same token, if Huffman needs to have a redshirt year but we aren't willing to give it to him, then maybe we shouldn't take him.

My guess is that he won't need a redshirt year. But the premise was a JoelJ ceiling.

 

[HeelFan58]

I likely would, I think the kid wants to learn to play at a high level and I think he really wants to be at UNC. Joel may not have been a difference maker player for is but the kid was a very solid ambassador for the program and just a super super kid, so yeah, I would take another Joel James.

Having said that, I see Huffman as being about where Joel was coming out of his soph season. Gary & I respectfully disagree on the kid, I like what I see in him a good bit more, I think he is ability wise on par with most 4 star bigs in this class. I think after this season at WOG that he has a great chance to be rated a 4 star.

IMO, JoelJ needed to be redshirted for a year. He got better every year but he was starting from such a deep hole he only started seeing daylight at the end. I suspect he would be quite good for us as a 5th year senior.

By that same token, if Huffman needs to have a redshirt year but we aren't willing to give it to him, then maybe we shouldn't take him.

My guess is that he won't need a redshirt year. But the premise was a JoelJ ceiling.

If I were answering honestly, then I'd say no. If the absolute best outcome for a recruit is giving us 8 decent min off the bench by his senior season then I'd say we should use the scholarship elsewhere. JJ was a great kid and teammate, but we hope our scholarship recruits have higher ceilings.

I think the point is that his ceiling isn't JJ. He's way ahead of him defensively already and I see some real signs that he could polish his offensive game with 4 years under Roy and co.

Joel James was a 4*