Certainly correct to a certain extent IMO. Where I differ a bit is that the popular view seems to be that there is a minimum threshold of shooting that we need, but somehow we do not need a minimum threshold of athletes and ballhandlers. Ideally, you need a blend of all 3, as opposed to more shooting in relation to the others.
Hereās the difference the way I see it. MattD and others believe outside shooting is āa gimmick to the extent that outside shooting is generally not consistent within a game, let alone a string of games.ā Thatās from the NBA thread. He has also stated that shooting is the last criteria by which he judges a recruit. I doubt this opinion will ever change.
Others see shooting proficiency as necessary for success in todayās game and believe it is hard to find teams that are successful without at least a certain competence in shooting. This is perhaps especially true for JBās system, which has proven it can be successful with the right players.
However, while I am firmly in camp 2, the debate is beside the point to some extent because everyone believes that UM ultimately wonāt be able to achieve the success we want unless the team has a certain amount of players who are āathletesā and āshootersā and at least a couple/few who are both. The exact nature of the perfect blend of attributes is somewhat irrelevant and probably impossible to answer, as different systems and players with different sets of attributes ā i.e. some groups with somewhat better shooting or somewhat higher athleticism ā could have great success.
1 Like
Just one would be a big plus. A few years ago, we had three guys who blended athleticism and shooting and handling relatively well to different degrees. We lost Stauskas and GRIII and then LeVert gets injured two years in a row. We need a guy or two who can be at that level. If we only have a couple options that can fill that role, we need to go after them relentlessly. Cain is one. Jaren Jackson is another. After that, you have to balance the remaining targetsā strengths.
Well stated, and I agree. Thatās why a guy like Cain or similar is huge IMO. Gives you shooting, finishing, AND defense. More 2 way players is the key IMO. Cleveland is showing you exactly what happens when your roster is composed of nothing but offensive players.
Is it possible that this either/or debate with respect to shooting/athleticism has emerged as a result of a tacit agreement among fans & observers (both diehard JB supporters and detractors) that Michigan wonāt (or shouldnāt) seriously target or compete for many Top 40 types (i.e. potential one-and-dones) who give you both things? I mean, if guys like Wilkes and Jackson were serious Plan A targets, weāre probably not having this debate about priorities. If I try to be more ārealistic,ā Iām definitely looking at players like Tillman who can run/slash/finish/rebound more than weāve had recently, since the perimeter-focused game has looked stagnant at times and pretty disappointing against strong, athletic teams like Xavier, SMU, Arizona, and UConn. Especially in the absence of a truly athletic center or point, I think athleticism at the middle three spots becomes more important.
And yes, I think Cain, somewhat like Stauskas before him (obviously without the elite-level shooting), is a rare example of a guy who can do both things pretty well without attracting the blue blood vultures.
I think the thing with Tillman (and weāve been over this Ad nauseum by now) is that heās one-dimensional in the other way ā i.e. not a threat to stretch the floor. Seems like the focus needs to be on kids that are more balanced in the Cain/Young/Jackson/etc. mold.
Even Watson, despite his lower ranking, is a good athlete and shooter. Less one-dimensional than some other players on the roster.
I disagree with that, heās also an excellent passer. In other words he can create for others.
I donāt think anyone believes we should not attempt to recruit elite players, itās just that we havenāt had great success with it for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, we have been really successful developing kids in that 50-150 range into NBA players. I see Cain and Mathews in that vein. You hold a spot for Wilkes, sure. But the competition for him will be nuts. We prioritized guys like Battle and Langford in 2016, and didnāt offer a guy like Kyle Guy. I donāt think youāll see us do that again.
I have changed my view somewhat about the need for elite guys and concede that players like Cain and Tillman suggest that you can build a good team with lower-tier guys, but I think you need to actively emphasize athleticism to compensate. (Hence why I donāt quite agree with the early focus on Easleyā¦ later in the cycle, maybe.) I donāt want to rehash Battle/Langford but that was a fluky situation and shouldnāt have totally changed anything about our recruiting (except perhaps accepting commitments from two similar guys when they are both potential program-changers).
Also, I donāt think Matthews is in the 50-150 range. Anybody who thinks his stock has fallen or that he was āexposedā at Kentucky hasnāt watched enough Kentucky gamesā¦ he never got a proper chance. Heās the kind of elite Chicago guy we had zero chance with (and would never recruit) until Calipari cut him loose. Which Iām glad he did ā I will be pretty disappointed if we donāt get him.
(BTW I am quite happy that JB has gone after an elite transferā¦ now just have to seal the deal. If that means promising to let him crash the offensive glass for some earth shattering put-back dunks, then so be itā¦)
The 50-100 range is literally where he was ranked when he graduated high school.
We get it, you want 5-stars or Donnie Tillman.
I wouldnāt mind Quentin Goodin in the maize and blue either.
LOL, how could we forget?
For me, as someone that scouts a good deal of these players - itās not about the rankings at all. Certain players can be elite/upper tier, but simply not ranked as such. In other words mis-ranked. Donnie Tillman is a universal 3 star, but I still believe heās an upper tier 75-85 type player. Brandon Johns is ranked 21st by Rivals, and I simply donāt see anything approaching that. Kyle Young is #139 to Rivals - I see an upper tier 60-80 type player
And I get it, too. I am supposed to want Young in 2017 and Easley in 2018, cause that is what the staff wants.
(But I am not supposed to blame anybody if those guys commit elsewhere.)
1 Like
Young and Tillman are under ranked, they gotta be unless this class is unreal.
Mathews was the consensus #56 recruit.
I think we should certainly pursue recruitable five stars. If a Wilkes wants to come visit, of course you roll out the red carpet and offer if heās a good fit. But I think our bread and butter has been, and will continue to be, the top 50-150 range: Morris, Hardaway, Robinson (when he committed), Stauskas, Burke, Walton, Irvin, Simpson, Teske. And then some occasional under the radar types (Morgan, Spike, Caris, MAAR, Duncan, hopefully Watson), and a five star here and there (McGary, Chatman - though he didnāt work out).
I see Mathews and Cain in the Hardaway and Robinson mold (6-5+ wing athletes), and absolutely want them both.
1 Like
I wouldnāt even qualify everything as āif heās a good fit.ā Wilkes would be a good fit.
Or, at least if heās not, there has to be at least one other guy in the ESPN Top 50 (besides Jackson) to look at and offer, just like our peers do.
I do think Hardaway and Robinson are appropriate comparisons for Cain and Matthews, as both have NBA-level athleticism despite relatively low ranking. A guy can be ranked 500th and Iāll still want him if he has a 41 inch vert and a nonstop motor. Just my bias.
Who do you consider our peers? Just curious.
Xavier would be a good place to start. Theyāve been remarkably successful over the last couple decades but until recently they were in the Atlantic 10 so if anything, calling Xavier Michiganās peer should be flattering to them, not us.
Maryland would be another example.
Other than Blueitt - who Michigan stopped recruiting - what top 50 prospect has Xavier landed in recent years? I really donāt recall any.
When I think of a āpeer,ā I think of schools located in the game geographic region as us (and thus, likely to pursue many of the same kids), and schools that have at least some tangible admissions standards, and some expectation that players will attend class and treat academics seriously. I know many Michigan fans will hate to hear this, but Notre Dame is probably our closest āpeerā in the Midwest. Iād probably also include Indiana on that list - decent academics, and we seem to be after at least some of the same kids.
Maryland? I think most people clued in to recruiting realize the Diamond Stone recruitment was not one in which we could have competed, if you catch what Iām saying. The Under Armour/Maryland ties are, well, something we donāt have. So I wouldnāt really consider them a peer.
Of course we should absolutely target any top talents who show us legitimate interest, but merely āprioritizingā those guys doesnāt mean theyāll commit. We prioritized Booker, Blackmon and Kennard, but didnāt get any of them.
Iām not saying we canāt recruit as well as Xavier or Maryland - of course we can, and indeed, for the most part weāve landed better talent than either of them during JBās tenure. Iām just saying weāre not exactly targeting the same type of kids they are, for a variety of reasons. Cain and Mathews are really about the first head-to-head battles weāve really had with them. If those kids are interested in playing in the NBA, and getting a quality education along the way, itās hard to think they pick Xavier.