Agreed. Bates-Diop would be another example. We really wanted him.
Nah, JB isn’t coming to any realizations about the role of athleticism in basketball. If anything, it’s the opposite that’s true – other coaches have caught up with him about the importance of shooting. JB has always looked for athletes he can work with, just look at his WVU recruits like Nichols, Alexander, etc. And he’s always been about versatile players, again another hallmark of modern basketball, and again something that’s made it a little more difficult for him to nab certain guys that he might’ve snagged more easily before. Anyone seeing a big change in emphasis was more likely missing what JB was doing before. Except for the possible exception of Donlon, that’'ll be interesting to watch.
Good stuff from everyone here. My quibble would be how many of those guys were 2/3 types like Matthews? Seems like the majority were guys projected at the four.
Certainly Hardway and Robinson were, even if Robinson ended up playing the four. Bates-Diop would be a three for any team but ours, too. And I think you’d have to call Levert a plus athlete, too.
And we recruited guys like Denzel Valentine, and in 2016, Battle and Langford. Jaylen Brown, too.
I think a fair statement would be we really never recruit just athletes with below average shooting ability.
I don’t know that Matthews would see much time at the 2 at Michigan, and probably wouldn’t be slotted differently than Sykes, Ziegler, Pointer, etc. Also, Morris was a PG, where you’d think shooting would be at least as much of a factor as at the wing, Rahkman is a 2, etc… So maybe there’ll be some shift in priority, especially at the 2nd level of recruit – i.e., going harder, earlier, after a guy who is a good athlete and a decent to good shooter (or has other skills) when the guy who’s a top level athlete and shooter doesn’t commit early to make sure he’s got more athletes on the roster – and Beilein has generally been open to changes and shifts, so I’m sure he’s looking at all the various developments in the game, but I don’t see a fundamental shift in the type of player being targeted from recent years.
I tend to disagree here, I think he has most certainly come a realization about athleticism. While I do agree he has looked for versatile players, the caveat is that the versatility was in the context of skill rather than athleticism (IE, he likes players who can pass and shoot, but how many players can ballhandle AND finish, or guard multiple positions adequately?)
“his game has everything you need except shooting. He doesn’t have the
jumper or the FT stroke quite yet and he misses more chippies around the
rim than you’d want, but he’ll play his ass off, defend like a
sonofabitch, and he’s stupid athletic. Many times last year he just out
jumped everyone for high rebounds. Decent passer, decent ball
handler… not great at either. Just shooting. If he can fix that
jumper in the next 3 years he’ll stand a good chance of getting drafted.”
1 Like
Matt, to what extent do you think adding Matthews would affect Cain’s likelihood of coming to Michigan? Although I think Matthews can play the 2, with a pure SG like Poole in the class, I imagine he’ll play the three (I hope we don’t try to sell him on playing the four, in which case we’d be basically handing him to Xavier – he’s not GR3 despite being an “athlete”). Personally I don’t worry about it because they are both exactly what the doctor ordered for Michigan. But still curious. Also, relatedly, do you think we a serious shot with Wilkes?
Well, I think he’s always wanted athletic guys as plan A options, but, like I was trying to say, where you may be right, especially with with plan Bs (and I mean high plan Bs, almost like plan A 1/2 guys, not late signees), is that JB’s seen the danger of when all the second level guys he gets tilt more to the skilled/shooter type than the athlete with some skills type. He may be more determined to ensure he always has more of the latter on the roster.
One thing about Matthews, his FT shooting. Sure, he shot only 4 3s, but he only had 52 FGAs on the year and played minor minutes. But he shot 41% on free throws on 34 attempts. Smallish sample size, but still. Could be a sign that a good shooting coach could make tremendous sense for him, but it’s not just that this guy isn’t a great 3pt shooter.
1 Like
That is certainly an ugly stat. NBA guys talk a lot about using FT% to gauge shooting potential. But again I think the thinking has to be here’s a high ceiling guy with all of the tools, let’s throw out last year due to sample size.
And if you flank him with Jordan Poole and Duncan Robinson, maybe shooting isn’t a huge issue.
(Moved some of the class discussion to @MHoops1’s '17 recruiting thread, BTW)
Yeah, Matthews has enough high end abilities to make him worth a scholarship, plus he’d have a year to work with Beilein and co on his shot. That stat just stood out to me.
When “ifs” and “buts” are candy and nuts, everyday will be Christmas.
It is neither a shift or a tweak. It is merely Beilein looking at the current roster and trying to fill needs. Much the same as he did a few years ago when he said that we need more length.
This guys bio reads: Help Players find Schools & Coaches find Players #CBHoops l @JucoReport l #D-Free l #MaconDreamsComeTrue l #ATLLive l #CBHoopsJuCoJam l #JucoReportElite150
His website is cblackhoops.com
Soooo? We got him?
2 Likes
Has he ever visited Ann Arbor? I’ll wait until a more legitimate source chimes in, but this would be great news if true.
So if your needs are different than what they’ve traditionally been, in response to mediocre performance on the court, this is by definition a tweak or shift, no?
No, IMO, it is not.
If in some future year, due to graduation, transfers or injuries, Mchigan finds itself short on shooters and Beilein says that we need to get more guys who can shoot, that would not be a shift or tweak, merely a good coach reacting to current roster needs.