Sure, but the real issue to me is that Derrick, Zak and Kam didn’t nearly have the skill level of Trey, Tim/Nik, and Glenn.
But of course I agree it would be great to have better athletes. The 2014 team was perhaps my favorite because they had any number of guys who could beat you - in 2013, we often just put it in Trey’s hands. Add Mitch to that group and we might have won it all.
We did have Mitch in 2013.
Pretty sure he’s saying to the 2014 team.
Pretty sure he knows that we had Mitch in 2013. I believe he was referring to having Mitch on the 2014 team, which we didn’t due to injury.
We had those 3 guys, but only 2 played at the same time–the number of minutes Mitch played with Jordan was negligible, and even on the rare occasions when that occurred, Glenn was on the bench. We always had 3 shooters on the floor in those years.
I agree, but you need it to be AVAILABLE as a weapon to the extent that certain match ups necessitate it. In other words, balance.
Yes, I meant 2014. Mitch/J Mo would have been much better than JMo/Horford.
I guess it would be up for discussion as to the value Irvin has had in his 3 years. In his first year he hit 62 3’s, his 2nd season he made 77 but with twice the minutes. This year wasn’t productive either as a shooter. Is he a shooter or just a chucker?
Michigan had 2 or 3 shooters this past year and it didn’t end up having success. I guess this is where the discussion is going though because do these 2-3 shooters bring the necessary athleticism/balance you need to be successful?
What would a good balance be towards the future? Obviously that doesn’t include Irvin/Walton.
Would
Simpson
Poole
Matthews
Jackson
Donnal
be enough balance and athleticism to have success?
I assume you mean Jaren Jackson? I think that’s an obvious yes.
I think the more interesting question is something like Simpson, Poole, Matthews, Donnie Tillman, Donnal? Not sure that’s enough shooting.
Does a backcourt of Simpson, MAAR and Matthews have enough shooting?
Seems to get murky how we are deciding what older players to include in the discussion. Probably makes more sense to look at the 2016/17 groups together where I guess Ibi would be the big question mark into how he fits in that mix.
For reference, here’s the scholarship chart:
I think anyone needs to be cautious saying Beilein won’t change.
When he was hired, we only heard he’d only recruit “shooters” - that’s changed from the Stu/Novak/Vogrich days.
We heard he wouldn’t go after Top 50 recruits. That changed after Mitch and GR3 and Battle, etc.
Many said he would only stick with the 1-3-1 but we haven’t seen much of it lately.
It seemed like he wouldn’t go “big” early on when we were lacking height (and depth) on the front line but then we saw McGary, Doyle, Davis, Teske.
I’m interested to see what he keeps tweaking. I’ve been disappointed in the results but 2017 and 2018 classes look very promising.
I really like that hypothetical 2017-18 lineup. Throw in Wagner and I think you have a potential powerhouse, the kind of lineup that might actually intimidate an Indiana fan for once, especially if Teske can emerge as a force in year two. Love the versatility of Poole backing up MAAR with Matthews and Tillman on the wing, and Duncan as another shooter. If Poole and Simpson are reliable from deep, I think that lots of shooters (and guys who could develop some shooting).
The most notable gap would be the lack of a back-up PG in that scenario but that’s where an experienced MAAR can fill in. If you can magically add Wilkes or Cain to the mix, suddenly you have a Big Ten fave, at least in that season.
If you are looking at MAAR starting as a senior at the two. That lineup would have two guys at the 1 and 2 that aren’t known for their ability to hit threes, a guy at the three that hit one his freshman year, and a guy that is 0-3 all summer on the EYBL circuit.
I guess you still have Duncan Robinson, but I am not sure how that team functions offensively.
In that scenario, I assume Duncan isn’t leaving early. I also assume that Simpson, Poole, and Watson can at least replace Irvin/Walton’s shooting in light of Irvin’s significant regression, with a bit more scoring at the rim and in transition from Matthews/Tillman/MAAR and some kind of improvement in shooting from Wagner/Wilson as well. I think Watson is a question mark, but I would assume he should give them some shooting – if not, you’d have to wonder why exactly they went after him. And it’s reasonably likely that we get Cain.
If this boils down to an argument that this team needs Young to be good, I don’t buy it. Though of course with Jackson or Wilkes you’re laughing.
I’m not trying to say this team needs one thing or another to be good, but trying to look at balancing the roster and how that could change if you add Charles Matthews to the mix going forward.
I have a feeling Wagner will start this year, and Donnal will have to really battle to earn a fifth year.
Yeah, there’s a reason Donnal was listed as a junior last year (and that he’s not on the scholarship chart next year).
Wouldn’t they be in a bind if they took Matthews then with only 3 scholarships left and who knows if Donnal gets another year that would put them at 11?
There’s clearly nothing wrong with a 3-point-centric approach, given what Golden State and Villanova (and Michigan) have done. The problem is when it’s the only thing you’re good at.
Of the top 50 teams in 3PA% last season (that is, percentage of FGA that were threes), only 6 made the tournament. Five of those six were double-digit seeds. Villanova was the other one.
So, while it’s a potentially lucrative approach, it alone hardly gives you a leg up. This dynamic is nothing like what you see, say, in college football, where the top-performing offenses are largely of one variety (spread). Having the right personnel, therefore, is what’s paramount.
The challenge for Beilein is finding a way to achieve some balance between offense and defense in his players’ skill sets while still scoring the ball efficiently.
Sure, but Villanova clearly had the athleticism that we want Michigan to have, given that they finished 6th in the country by kenpom’s defensive rating. It should also be noted that while a high percentage of their field goal attempts were three pointers, their actual point distribution was much more even because of their better ability to draw fouls and get to the line. 33.4% of their points were from threes whereas 39% of ours were. If you look at the teams ahead of us in that factor, none were tournament teams and their average kenpom rankings were 227.75. In fact, when you look at the 2013 team, undoubtedly our best under Beilein, we weren’t even in the top 100 for three point distribution OR 3PA/FGA.
Not sure what you mean. I am all for adding Matthews as I think he brings an element that the roster is lacking. I just think it shapes what you need to use the other three scholarships for to a degree.
