'18 CA PG Logan Johnson (Commit)

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

Alright...let's keep it rolling!! This kid has a lot of competitiveness. Looks like he can finish with both hands. He looks to favor his right hand in the lane but he shoots lefty.
 
waterhead said:
Alright...let's keep it rolling!! This kid has a lot of competitiveness. Looks like he can finish with both hands. He looks to favor his right hand in the lane but he shoots lefty.
Click to expand...

Just went back to count. In the video he finished 19 times with his right hand or both hands and only 3 with his left. He shot all outside shots with his left. Even his three assists in the video were with his right hand or both hands.

I like that versatility! Welcome aboard Logan!!
 
Last edited:
Great pick-up, team player -athletic- scores at all three levels. Slight build will change quickly at UC- plays tough not afraid of contact and has real PG skills.
 
I like the "new core" that we're getting in place. With all the turnover in college sports, it seems like teams are defined in windows of a few years. Under Cronin, we had the original team of whoever we could get. Then moved to the core of Bishop, Gates, Cash, SK, etc. Then we kind of transitioned to the Clark, Caupain group, along with the Evans, Washington kind of guys. Now as we look ahead, we can already get a decent glimpse of what the years ahead will hold. Obviously anything can happen to change this...but it looks like we'll count on the Cumberland, Brooks, Williams, Diarra group. And Logan Johnson can be added to that. Our depth is getting scary...and we aren't done.

*Obviously I left some players out...but theres no point in basically listing rosters from previous years. Just putting together a few guys who can be foundational in our success.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
I like the "new core" that we're getting in place. With all the turnover in college sports, it seems like teams are defined in windows of a few years. Under Cronin, we had the original team of whoever we could get. Then moved to the core of Bishop, Gates, Cash, SK, etc. Then we kind of transitioned to the Clark, Caupain group, along with the Evans, Washington kind of guys. Now as we look ahead, we can already get a decent glimpse of what the years ahead will hold. Obviously anything can happen to change this...but it looks like we'll count on the Cumberland, Brooks, Williams, Diarra group. And Logan Johnson can be added to that. Our depth is getting scary...and we aren't done.

*Obviously I left some players out...but theres no point in basically listing rosters from previous years. Just putting together a few guys who can be foundational in our success.
Click to expand...

I agree...we are filling the roster with guys who seem to be good 4 year system/program guys with good work ethic and Bearcat attitude. Good core group to build around. This should allow us to fill any holes that become apparent each year with recruits like Evans, Cumberland, and Clark or even a higher profile guy here or there.

I really like the depth we have this year. I hope we don't get back to the years when we only have 10 roster guys. I don't mind leaving 1 scholly open but I think we need to keep filling at least 12 of them. I would rather see depth on the bench than hoping to roll the schollies over and then hope we fill them all the following year "because we are in on a lot of good talent". That strategy never really panned out...we just kept rolling them over.

I say let's get quality players when we can. We can always hold one scholly over until spring to see if we can find a stud or late bloomer that can fill a hole in the lineup. With 12 guys on the roster we don't have to worry as much about the dreaded injury. We have been fortunate to remain mostly healthy with a short roster the past couple of years. Depth on the roster keeps guys working hard for minutes and we also should have better quality practice. Depth should also account for 1 or 2 recruiting duds and guys who need a year or two to develop.
 
ZCat said:
So I know the num of stars don't tell everything, but this says he is a 4* . Is that correct. So well within the top 100 for his class?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to take a look back at Cronin recruits and the stars or rankings they had compared to them having a very successful career.

We have had a few in the top 30 or so Gates, Born Ready, Lawrence. I would imagine guys in the top 30 will pan out 2 out of 3 times or 3 out of 4 times. Gates was solid, Lance was good for 1 year and Lawrence a bust.

Guys ranked between 30 and 100 we can probably expect about a 50-50 success ratio as to guys who really pan out well vs busts or guys who didn't quite live up to their billing. Guys like Evans, SK, Cumberland, Cash, Clark, Biggie, Thomas, Moore etc.

Guys 100-150 or so we are probably more likely to see closer to a 25% success ratio I would guess. Caupain, KJ, Sanders, Bishop, Parker, Dixon, Mormon, Davis, etc. Guys like that. I am trying to figure out which of them could start on this year's team. I don't see any bigs starting for Clark or Washington and I don't see any wings starting for Evans or Cumberland. We will see on Broome.

Again, I don't know where all these guys were ranked. I am guessing on many of them. I just think our wheelhouse seems to be the guys between 30 and 100 or so. I would imagine this is about the group where SK, Evans, Cumberland, Clark etc came from. I am sure I am wrong on some of these but that is not the point really. These guys are not 1 and done but are very successful.
 
waterhead said:
It would be interesting to take a look back at Cronin recruits and the stars or rankings they had compared to them having a very successful career.

We have had a few in the top 30 or so Gates, Born Ready, Lawrence. I would imagine guys in the top 30 will pan out 2 out of 3 times or 3 out of 4 times. Gates was solid, Lance was good for 1 year and Lawrence a bust.

Guys ranked between 30 and 100 we can probably expect about a 50-50 success ratio as to guys who really pan out well vs busts or guys who didn't quite live up to their billing. Guys like Evans, SK, Cumberland, Cash, Clark, Biggie, Thomas, Moore etc.

Guys 100-150 or so we are probably more likely to see closer to a 25% success ratio I would guess. Caupain, KJ, Sanders, Bishop, Parker, Dixon, Mormon, Davis, etc. Guys like that. I am trying to figure out which of them could start on this year's team. I don't see any bigs starting for Clark or Washington and I don't see any wings starting for Evans or Cumberland. We will see on Broome.

Again, I don't know where all these guys were ranked. I am guessing on many of them. I just think our wheelhouse seems to be the guys between 30 and 100 or so. I would imagine this is about the group where SK, Evans, Cumberland, Clark etc came from. I am sure I am wrong on some of these but that is not the point really. These guys are not 1 and done but are very successful.
Click to expand...

I am not even sure we have had any recruits between 30 and 50 or so. I would guess most of our best 4 year guys were between 50 and 100. Not sure where Vaughn was ranked. I think Biggie was around 50 but he didn't turn out too good. He also didn't fit our system at all for athleticism. Moore wasn't an ideal fit either. SK and Cumberland didn't exactly fit the mold for athleticism on D but they were/are BB players and that should be noted.

If we can land more players in that 25 - 100 range I would think that would be ideal for us. Not one and done players but have a higher likelihood of succeeding. Any players in the top 150 are good targets for depth as well.

I realize stars and rankings aren't an exact predictor but I think the probabilities of success overall are a decent predictor when we look back.
 
waterhead said:
It would be interesting to take a look back at Cronin recruits and the stars or rankings they had compared to them having a very successful career.

We have had a few in the top 30 or so Gates, Born Ready, Lawrence. I would imagine guys in the top 30 will pan out 2 out of 3 times or 3 out of 4 times. Gates was solid, Lance was good for 1 year and Lawrence a bust.

Guys ranked between 30 and 100 we can probably expect about a 50-50 success ratio as to guys who really pan out well vs busts or guys who didn't quite live up to their billing. Guys like Evans, SK, Cumberland, Cash, Clark, Biggie, Thomas, Moore etc.

Guys 100-150 or so we are probably more likely to see closer to a 25% success ratio I would guess. Caupain, KJ, Sanders, Bishop, Parker, Dixon, Mormon, Davis, etc. Guys like that. I am trying to figure out which of them could start on this year's team. I don't see any bigs starting for Clark or Washington and I don't see any wings starting for Evans or Cumberland. We will see on Broome.

Again, I don't know where all these guys were ranked. I am guessing on many of them. I just think our wheelhouse seems to be the guys between 30 and 100 or so. I would imagine this is about the group where SK, Evans, Cumberland, Clark etc came from. I am sure I am wrong on some of these but that is not the point really. These guys are not 1 and done but are very successful.
Click to expand...

I don't think SK was ranked on any site. Just fyi.

I have a hard time believing that the chances for a successful career drop by half if you're ranked 101-150 as opposed to 30-100 (I know you were just spitballing). So much of all of it goes into the player themselves (work ethic), the system they're going to, the culture in the program, the coaches, coaching, strength and conditioning, etc. Even if those %s are accurate, I'd be willing to bet that some coaches/programs have a much higher rate at developing players. I mean, it's pretty much a given at this point that if you exhaust your basketball eligibility at UC, you're going to play professional basketball for a living.

I really do wish they would re-rank the rosters based on who actually sticks around and produces. I think 247 does it for football. But for us on the basketball side, I think we'd see a majority of the guys who make it to their JR and SR year jump up the rankings as college players, compared to where they were as recruits. Chad was confident enough about that with Williams and Diarra that he volunteered to eat a flip-flop if he's wrong. And those guys haven't even played yet. The rankings can be a good baseline...but that's about it bc so much changes from the time they're 17, until the time they're SRs in college. Just to use Evans as an example, I believe he was borderline Top 100 on all sites. But once you take out one and dones, guys who flamed out, and guys who haven't blossomed (yet or maybe never will) the way Evans has, he's gotta be a Top 25 JR right now easily. If not better.

Another benefit, as you mentioned, is that with a full roster our practices should be more competitive just by virtue of having more bodies who aren't walk-ons. A guy like Nsoseme or T Moore who weren't blue chippers can gain a lot of ground in 3-4 by playing every day against the talent we have. So 3* recruits in our program can easily turn into 4 or 5* players when it's all said and done.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
I don't think SK was ranked on any site. Just fyi.

I have a hard time believing that the chances for a successful career drop by half if you're ranked 101-150 as opposed to 30-100 (I know you were just spitballing). So much of all of it goes into the player themselves (work ethic), the system they're going to, the culture in the program, the coaches, coaching, strength and conditioning, etc. Even if those %s are accurate, I'd be willing to bet that some coaches/programs have a much higher rate at developing players. I mean, it's pretty much a given at this point that if you exhaust your basketball eligibility at UC, you're going to play professional basketball for a living.

I really do wish they would re-rank the rosters based on who actually sticks around and produces. I think 247 does it for football. But for us on the basketball side, I think we'd see a majority of the guys who make it to their JR and SR year jump up the rankings as college players, compared to where they were as recruits. Chad was confident enough about that with Williams and Diarra that he volunteered to eat a flip-flop if he's wrong. And those guys haven't even played yet. The rankings can be a good baseline...but that's about it bc so much changes from the time they're 17, until the time they're SRs in college. Just to use Evans as an example, I believe he was borderline Top 100 on all sites. But once you take out one and dones, guys who flamed out, and guys who haven't blossomed (yet or maybe never will) the way Evans has, he's gotta be a Top 25 JR right now easily. If not better.

Another benefit, as you mentioned, is that with a full roster our practices should be more competitive just by virtue of having more bodies who aren't walk-ons. A guy like Nsoseme or T Moore who weren't blue chippers can gain a lot of ground in 3-4 by playing every day against the talent we have. So 3* recruits in our program can easily turn into 4 or 5* players when it's all said and done.
Click to expand...

I agree rankings and stars are mostly irrelevant on an individual basis because some pan out and some don't. It's hard to tell who those will be year in and year out. I was looking at this more from a group standpoint....5 stars vs 4 stars vs 3 stars etc.

It seems to me the higher the rank the higher the probability of success for the most part which makes total sense. There are booms and busts of course in every category but one would expect more busts from 3 stars than 5 stars. Not sure how many booms we have gotten from ranks above 150 but I am surprised to hear SK may not have been ranked.

I placed some arbitrary cut off points for recruit rankings. In general I think the rankings are a decent predictor probability wise. More 5 stars will pan out than 4 stars and more 4 stars will pan out than 3 stars and on and on generally speaking. I think that's what the rankings are all about, probabilities. We shouldn't look so much at the exceptions rather than the rule.

If we take a look back we have had very few 5 star guys and they did rather well except Lawrence. Our 4 star guys have generally been better than our 3 star guys as a % of the amount of recruits in each category. It's not like we get a lot of 4 and 5 star guys so it should be easy to tell. I think we have recruited a lot of 3 star guys over the years.

Obviously there are going to be diamonds and duds. A lot of that depends on the coach who can spot the diamonds and or develop them. Cronin has done well at spotting some but he has obviously had a few duds as well. Either way I think stars and rankings are a pretty good predictor of success when taken as a whole and not on an individual basis.
 
waterhead said:
I agree rankings and stars are mostly irrelevant on an individual basis because some pan out and some don't. It's hard to tell who those will be year in and year out. I was looking at this more from a group standpoint....5 stars vs 4 stars vs 3 stars etc.

It seems to me the higher the rank the higher the probability of success for the most part which makes total sense. There are booms and busts of course in every category but one would expect more busts from 3 stars than 5 stars. Not sure how many booms we have gotten from ranks above 150 but I am surprised to hear SK may not have been ranked.

I placed some arbitrary cut off points for recruit rankings. In general I think the rankings are a decent predictor probability wise. More 5 stars will pan out than 4 stars and more 4 stars will pan out than 3 stars and on and on generally speaking. I think that's what the rankings are all about, probabilities. We shouldn't look so much at the exceptions rather than the rule.

If we take a look back we have had very few 5 star guys and they did rather well except Lawrence. Our 4 star guys have generally been better than our 3 star guys as a % of the amount of recruits in each category. It's not like we get a lot of 4 and 5 star guys so it should be easy to tell. I think we have recruited a lot of 3 star guys over the years.

Obviously there are going to be diamonds and duds. A lot of that depends on the coach who can spot the diamonds and or develop them. Cronin has done well at spotting some but he has obviously had a few duds as well. Either way I think stars and rankings are a pretty good predictor of success when taken as a whole and not on an individual basis.
Click to expand...

Looking at this a different way. In the Cronin era. I don't know where Vaughn was ranked so I don't know where to put him.

We have had say 3 five star guys and 2 of those were really good.

Let's say we have had 10 four star recruits and 5 of them went on to be really good.

Let's say we have had 25 three star guys who produced 5 really good players.

So that is a grand total of 12 really good players in the Cronin era.


Let's call the 5 star guys Gates and Lance.

Let's call the 4 star guys Evans, Cumberland, Clark, Cash?

Let's call the 3 star guys Caupain, Jackson, SK, Dixon, Parker, Sanders, Bishop etc. I will also put Vaughn here since I don't know his rank.

Again...IDK know their actual rankings but I don't think a lot of our past 3 star guys can play on this team this year as a starter. Obviously we have had some transfers (either juco or otherwise) who have been big contributors as well but I am specifically talking about HS recruits here.
 
waterhead said:
Looking at this a different way. In the Cronin era. I don't know where Vaughn was ranked so I don't know where to put him.

We have had say 3 five star guys and 2 of those were really good.

Let's say we have had 10 four star recruits and 5 of them went on to be really good.

Let's say we have had 25 three star guys who produced 5 really good players.

So that is a grand total of 12 really good players in the Cronin era.


Let's call the 5 star guys Gates and Lance.

Let's call the 4 star guys Evans, Cumberland, Clark, Cash?

Let's call the 3 star guys Caupain, Jackson, SK, Dixon, Parker, Sanders, Bishop etc. I will also put Vaughn here since I don't know his rank.

Again...IDK know their actual rankings but I don't think a lot of our past 3 star guys can play on this team this year as a starter. Obviously we have had some transfers (either juco or otherwise) who have been big contributors as well but I am specifically talking about HS recruits here.
Click to expand...

I think Dixon was underrated. He could be frustrating but was also one of my favorites to watch. I don't know if he'd start over cumberland or evans though.
 
I love how the video that Jake posted on 8/8 starts with Johnson blocking two shots against the backboard. I know it's just high school ball, but I can't remember the last time I saw a UC pg do that. Considering that the kid was only a junior at the time and that with strength & conditioning he's guaranteed to add to his vertical, it's going to be fun watching him play!
Also, the next video on youtube to play was Logan v. LaMelo Ball. Apparently Logan's team dominated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THb9eV641Ic
What a great start to the class!
 

Similar threads

F
'18 JUCO G/F Rashawn Fredericks (Commit)
8 9 10
Replies
194
Views
129K
waterhead
W
T
'18 GA CB Jaylen Jackson (Commit)
Replies
2
Views
16K
the_one_32
T
B
'18 OH F Jerome Hunter
Replies
2
Views
13K
UCalum08
U
B
'18 FL SF Nassir Little
Replies
15
Views
39K
Bearcat513
B
B
'18 GA RB Charles McClelland (Commit)
Replies
3
Views
20K
jacobkdoyle
J
Back
Top