Defense and rebounding?
2 Likes
Probably needs to reassure the Milwaukee folks that he personally values these things.
1 Like
And he meant those things. Bacari will say similar words soon too.
Thatās Jordan trying to publicly separate himself from JBās philosophy.
1 Like
Iām not suggesting defense is unimportant, but JB is an offensive minded coach and when he has the right players, his offense is really, really good. Another guy who is an offensive minded coach is Roy Williams - his teams are not exactly great on defense most of the time, but they can really score. Iād generally say the same about Coach K.
My point is, you grind on this message daily. We get it - you think defense is really important, and you think JB undervalues it. But the fact is, his approach has been very successful here. So whether you agree with it or not, itās pretty hard to argue that his philosophy isnāt successful with the right players.
And you canāt say that about just any coach. Tommy Amaker, for example, recruited enough talent at Michigan that if he had a good system, he would have been a lot more successful.
With our current roster, yes, we probably do need to change our approach to defense, as we just donāt have the star PG and wing players that we did from 2011-2014. Iām also confident weāll restock this roster soon, too.
In any event, weāll see what Jordan can do on his own.
5 Likes
Iām confused. He snagged three of them in 6 years at Michigan. . . without defense?
2 Likes
I will continue to harp on the fact that JB ignores half of the game of basketball.
Very successful 2 year stretch? Yes. He had one of those when he had the right players. More successful than the previous 2 coaches? Yes, by miles. Consistently successful at Michigan? Thatās debatable.
1 Like
Well, given the fact that we are operating under different recruiting rules than most, Iād say yes.
This is, maybe, the great divide between my views on JB, on the one hand, and the views of you and MattD. You refuse to believe college recruiting - and especially recruiting five star kids - is a dirty business, and weāre not going to bend the rules like we did under Frieder and Fisher.
If we have to generally limit ourselves to top 50-150 players, with an occasional five star falling into the ārecruitableā category, then Iād say JB has been very successful. If we could follow the Kentucky, Duke or Kansas model, then sure, Iād expect to see better players and better results.
1 Like
And there you have it, folks. The reason Walton hasnāt developed is because Val lost interest in developing the offensive game of his PGs.
BOOM.
I openly acknowledge there are many shady dealings in the recruiting world. I have heard stories from the players involved themselves. Not sure why you keep implying I am blind to what takes place on the recruiting trail for the majority of 1 and done types.
I do refuse to believe that Michigan is the ONLY team playing by the rules and thatās why JB has wiffed on the recruiting trail more often than succeeding on it. Thatās a cop out.
JB should be cleaning up with the top 50-100 range kids each cycle. Xavier this year and Poole next year are starts. He needs to really build on them whether itās with grad transfers or incoming freshmen.
1 Like
Well, hereās the thing. After the title game, we obviously chased more elite kids - Looney, Booker, Blackmon, Kennard, Thornton, Langford, Battle, Dozier, Leaf, etc. As long as their interest seemed sincere, we would be stupid not to, right?
But obviously beating out Duke and UK for recruits has proven very difficult - as it is for everyone else too.
I think weāll go back to the 50-150 range and enjoy success. Whatās killing the current team IMO is Walton, Irvin, and Chatman not playing at the level we anticipated.
3 Likes
Sure, beating out Duke/UK/KU is very difficult, but again, itās a cop-out to just say thatās our problem on the recruiting trail.
Langford went to State. Brown went to Cal. Blueitt went to Xavier. We canāt just say every lost recruitment was either corrupt or unwinnable. Thereās clearly some things Michigan ought to do differently. Even Beilein has tacitly acknowledged that by being willing to oversign.
As for whatās killing the current team, I think the problem is a little broader than Walton, Irvin and Chatman.
Several players on this team are being asked to play a role thatās beyond them. Of course, thatās been in part because of the injuries, but itās also because of how the team was designed.
Donnal isnāt a 5, but he is here. Walton is more of a 2 than a PG, but he has to play the point for us. Irvin obviously isnāt a 4 and Robinson shouldnāt be a 30-minute player with his limitations, but those are the roles theyāll likely continue to play, since there are few options.
1 Like
Well, we told Langford we didnāt have room after Battle committed because we still needed a PG. Probably a mistake, but thatās what happened. And if Battle had simply remained committed, it would probably be a non-issue.
Brown was never coming here IMO. And we were the only finalist on his list that wasnāt questionable from a recruiting standpoint.
We dropped Blueitt. Maybe a mistake, maybe not. We set up an official visit just for him, after recruiting him for a long time, and he abruptly cancelled to visit UCLA, where he committed and then changed his mind. I can understand why we passed the second time. FWIW, heās an average athlete at best - certainly wouldnāt help in that regard.
Disagree on this. Walton is absolutely not a two guard. And Donnal was recruited to be a five. Weāve always gone small at the four - Irvin is no worse from a height perspective than Robinson, and if Chatman had panned out as anticipated, heās probably our four anyway (and capable of playing it from a size perspective).
Walton was ranked in the 35/45 range, Chatman around 25, Irvin around 25-40. Those were clearly the guys we envisioned being the next wave of stars. They just arenāt so far, and time is running out. Obviously losing Caris and Spike had an impact too - kinda hard to plan for that.
3 Likes
āWalton is absolutely not a two guard.ā
I am not sure how to make that statement meaningful. Are you saying Walton is not good at catch and shoot? Are you saying that Walton is more than just a shooting guard? Are you saying that Walton absolutely is the best player at initiating the pick n roll? Positions are relative to teammates, right? The things that Walton does well in half court (catch and shoot) are more in-line with a shooting guard than a point guard. To the coaching staffās credit, even though Walton at first glance appears to have everything necessary to be an great point guard, the way Walton has been used in the half court reveals that the coaching staff do not see him as having all the strengths of a traditional point guard. Walton was not used much as a point guard in the half court his first year and frankly it did not appear that Walton was going to be used, more than sparingly, as the point guard,in half court sets, prior to Levert and Spike going down from injuries this year.
Two guards typically have some ability to score off the dribble. He has almost nothing around the rim, or inside the three point line. Most two guards are much taller than Walton (who appears to be about 6-1). And while heās not great in the pick and roll game, heās very good at pushing the ball in transition, and makes some really nice passes.
Heās a good, but inconsistent and imperfect, point guard. And I think some of that is the turf toe - credit to MP for identifying the seriousness of that injury.
His freshman year, we already had two guys who were great at initiating offense, and Nik was great with the pick and roll - on a Big Ten title and #2 seed. Of course youāre not going hand him the keys to the offense in that situation - the same way UK didnāt ask Ulis to be āthe manā from day one.
1 Like
Walton was recruited to be our next great point guard. It was between him, Monte Morris and Jackson from ND. The fact that his best skill set now is that of an extremely undersized shooting guard just furthers LAWās point that our problems stem from the recruits we landed not living up to the roles we recruited them to play IMO.
1 Like
Walton is the best player at getting the team into its sets. The best a leading the fast break. Does most of the heavy lifting bring the ball up the court and against pressure and as of right now the best a finding open teammates in the offense. Sounds like a point guard to me. Does he have a hard time finishing at the rim. Yes.
1 Like
We might agree more than we disagree. I am not sure. I guess my argument would be that Walton is a good point guard except for in half court sets where it actually counts. All the things, typical of a point guard, Walton does well, can be done from a two guard position-- like get the ball past the half court line and push the ball in transition. It seems to me that we typically differentiate who is and who is not a point guard by what they do in the half court. Even this year (his junior year) it seemed clear to me that Levert and Spike were going to be the primary initiators of the high pick n roll. Even after they were hurt it was not clear to me that the plan was to have Walton run the high pick n roll over a hobbled Irvin. So, take away the injuries and I think Walton was seen (and rightfully so), by the coaching staff, as the fourth option for running the high pick n roll. Yet, he still played a lot (and rightfully so)ā¦If he falls drastically short of being the best at high pick and roll in the half court and if he is not an ideal shooting guard then what is he? By any measure and relative to his teammates he excels at rebounding and catch and shoot in the half court. What does that mean?