2017 - PG - Eli Brooks (Commit)

One thing to keep in mind here: Five guards can’t be in a rotation at once—not if you go 8 deep like Beilein prefers to. The one caveat is the possibility that Watson or Matthews gets thick enough to become a real option at the 4 (not just spot minutes there). But that’s at least 20 pounds away for both of them.

What this all points to is there’s going to be some competition for playing time in the backcourt, which is very much a good thing. Simpson has a leg up because he’s a 2016 and is said to be college-ready, but if any one of them lag, Michigan has someone else it can plausibly turn to on the 2017 roster.

Conversely, whoever we bring in at the 4 is almost certain to get major minutes right off the bat, which is scary.

1 Like

If he was brought in to be our backup PG and is better than our previous backup PGs, it quite obviously isn’t a “stand pat move”.

One other thing, we’ve talked a lot about how Matthews being a below average shooter presents some questions, I think bringing in Brooks and Poole really puts some of those to rest. Gives you a little more flexibility with the additional wing spots.

1 Like

Your point has been to upgrade talent at the position they are replacing on the roster. Simpson is replacing Walton and Brooks will be replacing Albrecht/Dakich in the backup role.

The only way your case holds water is if you think Albrecht/Dakich have a higher ceiling than Eli Brooks. If that’s the case then lol @ you.

1 Like

North Carolina just had a commitment form Andrew Platek, ranked 213th in the composite. He is there for the sole purpose of coming off the bench to hit threes. I don’t think I saw a single person on the boards there complaining about that. If the top teams in the entire country are recruiting guys to be backups, I think it’s more than fair for Beilein to do the same.

1 Like

I guess my point is that they complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses well. Matthews as a slash and defend type and Brooks as a PNR guard who can shoot.

Not one college team has a roster with only starter-quality players. All teams recruit for depth (in addition to the instant impact guys) with the expectation that certain players can eventually grow into reliable rotation players. Michigan certainly needs more instant-impact starter quality players, but that doesn’t make Brooks a bad pick-up, considering the position he plays.

I’m not convinced that Brooks is a “backup by design” because, while I expect that Simpson will be our starting PG in '17-'18, I haven’t seen him at the college level, not have I seen enough of Brooks at all, and I would need both to conclude that. However, even if he is, I 100% disagree with you that PG, whether a backup or not, wasn’t an essential in the class of '17. You can’t go into a season with one true PG, backed up solely by your starting 2G who has 88 career assists in over 1550 minutes. And if you’re talking about winning championships, it is worth noting that the last 3 national champions started 2 PGs together (Arcidiacano and Brunson, Jones and Cook, Napier and Boatwright), and even Louisville, the season before, started a PG (Siva) and an undersized combo (Smith).

I don’t know whether Brooks will be good or not–too little film, independent evaluation and/or games against really strong competition to date, though I’m encouraged by the film Dylan just put up and his offer sheet. I do like his fit on the roster though. Best talent available regardless of position is all well and good, but putting together a roster with components which blend and compliment each other is also extremely important.

6 Likes

OK, I can understand that. I do think players sometimes need to be evaluated in light of the team and recruiting class situation, as in the UNC example above.

If we close with one of Cain or Wilkes and one of Livers or Tillman, then I’ll think that we adequately addressed the big gaps in our lineup.

I’m not sure why taking a borderline 4* PG who had offers from Villanova, Ohio St, and NC State would cause so much stink.

I would have rather taken Nojel Eastern but as mentioned previously, the timeline was better.
Brooks looks like a good passer and good scorer. I think we COULD have rolled the dice and let MAAR/Poole help with PG duties in a pinch but if Xavier ever got hurt, that would really suck without a backup.

We still have 2 spots to fill out the wing/forward position and hopefully we’ll do well with those openings.

2 Likes

I agree that MAAR could play the position for 5-10 minutes per game. However, if Simpson goes down with an injury, we’d be totally screwed if our only option was MAAR at the point, and even foul trouble could cause real issues in an individual game.

We’ll see on Brooks. Certainly college coaches aren’t always accurate, but having Jay Wright, Thad Matta and John Beilein, all of whom have had substantial success with PG identification and development, offer him at this stage of the recruiting process, holds some real weight with me.

5 Likes

Only a brief highlight film, but a lot to like. Nice body control, good natural passer, diverse scoring game including mid-range and distance shooting as well as creativity around the hoop, and nice ability to handle in traffic.

Also, we were told by some folks to watch for offers coming in July and to only trust people who’ve evaluated players in person. Well, Brooks impresses based on those criteria, netting offers (and substantial attention) from Jay Wright, Matta, Gottfried, etc.

I certainly am not relegating to a backup spot and he looks to have a chance of being very good. I really like the two year haul of Simpson, Watson, Poole, Brooks, and Matthews. I think that’s a guard/small wing combination that could do some big things under JB.

1 Like

They have one returning shooting guard who played any significant minutes in Theo Pinson, who is expected to play small forward his senior year. Other than that, all they have is an incoming freshman at SG. That sure doesn’t seem deep to me.

1 Like

I do hate comparisons, but how about Monte Morris as a comparison that we’re all familiar with. Changes speeds, finds guys, hits open shots. Probably more of an offense first PG overall.

(And why I say I hate comparisons is because I’m saying the kid will be a 2x all-conference kid like Monte, just more as the sort of PG-style I think he can play).

3 Likes

If we’re talking comparisons to a guy who hasn’t put up the kind of college production Morris has put up, how about Cassius Winston? Certainly, Cassius has answered the bell against higher level comp at this stage in his career, and he was rated much more highly (though personally, I thought he was a very good player, but not a top 35 kid), but in terms of size, athleticism, changes of speed, shooting ability, and even offer lists, there are some clear comparables.

Brooks is a high character kid who WANTS to be here. He can make a shot and has P/R potential.

That is what JB loves!

He has questionable lateral quickness, and will be a subpar on ball defender IMO. He is a program kid that our coach wanted.

Not much new to this recruiting story.

3 Likes

Gonna have to agree with Matt here. I’m not seeing the Winston/Brooks comparison at all.

I’ll agree on Winston’s passing ability. I’m not as convinced on change of direction, but you may be right. Either way though, my point was not that they’re equivalent but rather that their styles of play are pretty similar. Like Dylan, it’s hard to compare guys like Brooks to guys who were/are all-conference players (or even established starters) without seeming silly, so I tried to take an incoming freshman. If I had to go style plus size plus possible production, that’s much tougher. How about Shep Garner?

1 Like

Watching some more vid from Summer Jam Fest (believe it was last weekend) and it continues to be his ability to shoot off the bounce that is most impressive to me. Smooth, quick, high release off the dribble and he’s pretty consistent from the elbows.

And to clarify on the Monte Morris comment. I wasn’t trying to say he’d be a Monte Morris-caliber player. I think early on in his career he’s a backup to Xavier. More just in their style of games.

If you compare to the 2013 PG class, Xavier is much more like Walton – quick, full court PG, a bit smaller, sometimes limited in the half court – whereas Monte never really stood out physically but a) he won and b) he just seemed to run the offense effectively at all times. I think Brooks is that cerebral type of PG who can run the offense and create off the PNR but might be physically limited especially on D.

1 Like

I think I understand what MattD is saying. If he’s a 10 minute guy that has value. I also understand you want depth to protect against injury. Isn’t there a point though if he’s a 10 minute guy and an injury hits asking him to play 30+ minutes a night would actually hurt the team and effect the performance of that player or the team? For instance if Walton got hurt they would have Albrecht but asking him to play 30+ minutes isn’t ideal either. If Simpson got hurt and you started with a lineup of Brooks-Poole-Matthews-Teske-??? How would that lineup and team perform?