I've seen some pretty good explanations of looking for a recruiter or developer, but this isn't one of them.
Weight training isn't that important? Seriously? Did you ever watch the Bob Huggins teams at the University of Cincinnati? He has been a huge advocate of weight training, going so far as to print the player's bench press max in the programs. I'd say he's done a pretty fair job over the years. Remember a kid named Ubel who played for the Huskers? How about Reid? Chubick? All these guys looked dramatically different after a couple of years of S&C, and it helped them become great contributors to the program.
So you can't run plays because a guy can just jump over a screen? First, I need to see this guy, because I don't recall seeing a conference full of 'screen jumpers' prior to the popularity of the free flow offense. Second, I want to have about 30 minutes of time to show this screener who allows the 'screen jumper' access, exactly how to set a solid screen/pick. You have some interesting ideas about spacing.
Yes, you do need people who are at least close in size, and you are correct, mismatches can be problematic, but that goes both ways. How would you feel about Jordy having to cover some of those 6'9" guys who can face up on the wing or at the top of the key? Any thoughts as to how much foul trouble he'd be getting into? You always exploit what your strengths are, you just try to reduce the gap in what your weaknesses are.
There are only a handful of teams that consistently recruit well enough to spend most of their time in the upper echelon of college basketball, and they all have massive amounts of history behind their programs. Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arizona are probably the best at it, at least over the last 30 years. Even schools like Louisville, Georgetown, St. John's, UCLA, Syracuse, UNLV, Michigan, teams that were once the 'sexy' program to play for have all struggled to recruit at that extremely high level. With few exceptions, recruiting is an inexact science. Even when teams are successful at recruiting, there is no guarantee of success on the court unless they develop that talent into a cohesive team.
Personally, I think developing a formula, an identity that a program can maintain, a coach can recruit to, and players don't need to be 'blue chips' to be successful in. When you build something like this, and you get that occasional great recruit, you are ready to make a run at something more. I'd prefer being in the top third of the conference year in and year out, making the tourney more often than not, and if we catch some magic, we actually make some noise in March. I understand the notion of 'glamour' in recruiting a Fab Five, but in reality, who here wouldn't take Wiscy's results since 2000?