If there really were only 4 out of all the DI schools, you might have a point, but as I said very clearly, those are only examples. If you’re going to claim that there are only 4 and no more, do that, and I’ll be happy to prove you wrong with more examples.
The point is that there are plenty of schools playing a power forward and a center, AND plenty of schools playing a small forward and a center, along with basically 3 guards. More of the latter, of which Michigan is usually one, but far more than a dwindling handful of the former, and many of the most regularly successful teams are among the former, as I showed.
And there are about 250+ counter examples. Why will you not answer the many people asking what your point is in this?
Hell, even UNC is trotting out a 6’6" 215-220 4 this year. Both of Kansas’ 4’s were 200-205 lbs. Louisville had a 210 lbs stick. Nobody is saying that zero teams play with old school bigs. It’s just an outdated method that requires top notch receruiting to work at the highest level in this current environment.
Ok, so one post ago you were saying there were only 4 teams out of 351 playing a power forward and center, and now you’ve retreated to a 101/250 ratio. Apparently you do grasp my point, though reluctantly.
Our definition of the 5 is Beilein’s definition of the 5. There is no point in speculating Wagner’s position on any other team. He is a 5 in Michigan’s system and has never been a 4. Have you watched Michigan play? Dylan did a great breakdown of Michigan’s offense much further up in this thread that even included a picture. Wagner does not play on the wing, which is where the 4 plays in this system. He runs the pick and roll/pick and pop game from the 5 position.
I have a response saved. I will post it if you answer what your point is in this entire thing and why you refuse to answer that question. Do you deny that college is moving towards wigs as 4’s? Do you still think Beilein would ever play Wagner as a 4 for an extended period? What is it?
This is what is most confusing about this argument. He begins by disagreeing about Wagner’s positioning and then suddenly Louisville, MSU, Kentucky, and Arizona are brought into it as if they have something to do with where Wagner will play at Michigan.
The only explanation is that he disagrees with the notion that teams are trending to smaller 4’s which isn’t even debatable…
Seriously, this is nonsensical. We have 3 guys who will start THIS YEAR who shot 40%+ from 3 in Big Ten play last season, so there is ZERO possibility that this team will have “the top 3-4 three point shooters being no better than 35-36%” (your words, not mine). That’s ZERO. NOBODY is arguing about that. But what you said to start this discussion (again, I’m quoting you, not me) was “The guys we have in the regular rotation at the 1 and the 2 this year will need to do better than 35% for us to have a really successful year.” That means you think, or at least thought, that all of our guards have to be great 3 point shooters. There’s no basis for that statement, especially on a team where the 4 and 5 are both 40%+ from 3.
I don’t want to put words in @Inmycourt’s thread, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems @Inmycourt’s point is that Michigan would be better suited to have Wagner play the Wilson role this year, despite the fact that would leave us with 2 5’s - neither of whom will be our top five players - getting a lot of minutes (~40/game?), and therefore necessarily taking minutes away from another top 5 player and likely from our 6th, 7th, and 8th best players. Doesn’t make sense to me. The reason Michigan could play two 6’10" guys last year so successfully is because they were in our top 5 players so it made sense to give them as many minutes as possible.
The reason Michigan could play two 6’10" guys is because DJ Wilson could handle, shoot, and run a pick and roll well enough despite his size. His height was incidental to the position - not his skillset. Inmycourt seems to be claiming the opposite.
I feel like they should definitely play as much Bridges at the 4 as possible, but I am thinking that he will very rarely if ever play it. Part of it IMO is Izzo’s distaste for small ball (I believe that Bridges was set to play most of his minutes at the 3 last year before their two bigs got injured. There was a lot of whining about “Bridges doesn’t get to play his natural position!!!”) and part of it is just the depth chart.
PG - Winston - Nairn
SG - Langford - Mcquaid
SF - Bridges - Ahrens
PF - Jackson - Goins - Carter
C - Ward - Schilling - Tillman
They have six guys pushing for minutes who are exclusively frontcourt players, and I don’t think any of them have any sort of jumper except for Jackson. They are much much thinner at the wing spots. I’d think that they’d prefer to play those big guys over Ahrens and McQuaid.
I don’t think you’re gonna be able make Bridges pay on defense at the 3. He’s got plenty of quickness to guard 3s along with the size to guard college 4s.
I agree that Bridges has the ability to guard any 3 in the conference or in the country for that matter. Where he may pay is by getting into foul trouble–he’ll be a relative newbie at the college level to trying to contain penetration from 3s, and he may be susceptible to reaching and/or trying to recover and block shots from behind, as happens often to very talented wings adjusting to the college level. Put another way, he may not cost points defensively when he’s in there, but if he has to play less because of foul issues, then MSU may pay at both ends of the floor–he’s that good and that important.
That is what I was referring to in that post possibility of picking up fouls. Bridges is as everyone says very athletic but I would be surprised if he is quicker than most college 3’s.