I'll just take your word that there are "tons".Anyways, Kansas is on the ropes at home even with their defensive anchor
Sigh.
You make yourself foolish.
Kansas is young and will be a different team come March.
The fact they arenât even half as good and steal competing with a ranked, veteran SDSU is not a bad thing.
Wait until Emblid gets his conditioning up and can play more than 20 mpg 
What are we betting?
Are you talking about the same Embid that just made a potentially game saving block - yeah Iâll take one of those
By the way, when I mentioned Kansas losing, I was saying that tongue in cheek. I love Kansas and Arizona this year. I just had to throw that in there because the three teams I mentioned yesterday all lost. Relax, buddy.
But I still will take the field.
Who wouldnât take an Embiid? Embiid was a 7â0 5* recruit. Those players donât grow on trees. Just because Michigan is one of many, many schools that doesnât land a Joel Embiid doesnât mean Michigan is doomed.
Not saying weâre doomed, because thatâs an exaggeration that I never claimed. However, I am saything that we need some versatility on the inside. A lot of posters claim JB likes versatility, but honestly, the claim is restricted to the offensive side of the court. I want a few post players that are shooters, a few that can rebound/alter shots, even if it is at the expense of shooting.
Actually, I agree with you. It would be nice to have a defensive stopper to play offense/defense with at the end of games. JB does this with Morgan/Horford, but letâs not kid ourselves here. It would be nice to put in a rim-protector in end game defensive possessions.
On the contrary, having a rim-protector that lacks offensive skill (ie. free throw shooting) would cause problems on offense.
Getting a guy that is the total package would likely mean convincing him that Michigan is a better place to play basketball than Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc., etc. I think JB has the recruiting skills to make that happen here and there, but a lot of the times our big men will have some flaws.
Two bigs that can score and one that can protect the rim would be ideal, IMO. If one scoring big is off, play the other. The nice things about a defensive big is that if you are a good defender, you never really have an âoff nightâ, because defense doesnât go cold.
In some ways it does seem strange that the staff doesnât seem to target the gritty hard-nosed bigs. Itâs worked so well with the gritty hard-nosed little guys for North Central Indiana.
Who wouldn't take an Embiid? Embiid was a 7'0 5* recruit. Those players don't grow on trees. Just because Michigan is one of many, many schools that doesn't land a Joel Embiid doesn't mean Michigan is doomed.
Emblid was a 3 star when Kansas discovered him and got his commitment.
We donât necessarily have to LAND elite big men right out of high school. Those kinds of players are few and far between, highly competed for, and likely to bolt for the NBA after a year or two, anyway. What would be nice is if we did a better job DEVELOPING those types of players ourselves. Beilein and his staff have done a very good job of pulling in under-the-radar guards and wings and getting a lot more out of them than people expected, but not so much with bigs. Look at a guy like Frank Kaminsky, just to name one. Three star recruit with an unimpressive offer list, but Bo Ryan has developed him into a high impact player against quality competition. Same for pretty much all of the bigs on Iowa. But in all the time Beilein has been here, he hasnât had a single big man be a top contributor as a junior or senior. Morgan has come the closest, but his stats have not improved significantly since he was an underclassman. Hopefully Doyle will be the kind of guy who will play four years and get better every year, but even then, it will be a while before we have a deep, productive AND experienced front court. Or it may be that we never doâŚ.itâs just not Beileinâs style to have a top-heavy roster.
Bottom line is this, it may be true that it us difficult to land elite bigs due to a shortage from a numerical standpoint, however, if we want our bigs to be better on the defensive end/rebounding, then JB has to make a philosophical change to the type of big he recruits. If we canât land a big with shooting range from 3 and shot blocking ability (ie Looney), then JB has to focus on landing more athletic and agile bigs that may not have range on the jumpshot (ie Johnson). I donât care how much JB develops Donnal and Doyle, those guys will never be shot lockers because they simply lack the athleticism to do so. In an ideal world JB will have a good mix of both type of bigs, and hopefully that will come to fruition.
I think they try for the top bigs but it seems like JB is stereotyped with the Pittsnogle style of big man. It certainly limits recruiting when there is a limited number of Bigs and he is known for developing shooters and guards. The creativity of the game is focused more on the wings today and you can very successful with 3 ballers and low TO teams.
Canât be too critical of JB, heâs done a great job turning around the program and getting to a National Championship game. Itâs been very difficult to recruit at Michigan but the brand is coming back. I would not expect JBâs philosophy to change anytime soon! Value each possession, shoot the three, play sound MTM defense, and teach your kids to get better every day. He getâs a lot out of his teams! He would never turn away a great Big Man, but every team in the country wants one as well.
Itâs not really a stereotype more than reality - JB simply prefers shooting/offense from his bigs at the expense of defense/athleticism/mobility if forced to make a choice between the 2. You might have been somewhat convincing to some people until you stated JBâs philosophy is to play sound MTM defenseâŚ
I know that he believes in sound MTM defense, just because his kids canât execute is a different story.
You might have been somewhat convincing to some people until you stated JB's philosophy is to play sound MTM defense..........
I think this is the disconnect. Sound MTM defense does not mean youâre going to guard like OSU. Or that you are going to have erasers at the rim. Aggression does not equal sound defense. I know this is a stretch, and no I am not comparing Michigan to them, but the SA Spurs are always a good defensive team. They may have one really good defensive player and several defensive liabilities. The are good because of positioning, sound concepts and effort. Not because they have the best athletes on the floor.
I cannot concur that JBâs teams donât play sound defense. They may not be top tier on D, but they also arenât Middle West Texas State of Tennessee.
I know that he believes in sound MTM defense, just because his kids can't execute is a different story.
In my opinion, it is the job of the coach to ensure that the players do execute. If not, why even have a head coach? Thatâs simply an excuse. If players donât have the physical ability to execute a certain defensive scheme, that could be seen as a lack of execution on behalf of the players, but even then, it is the job of the head coach to utilize a scheme that does allow the players to execute. Bottom line, if certain players canât execute defensively, sit them on the bench. Splinters have a way of providing motiviation.
Not every player has the same talent or skill setâŚitâs not always about coaching. How can you coach Nik to have quicker feet or would you simply sit him because he gets beat off the dribble? Itâs not always about scheme, he has to guard someone. What fundamental scheme would you suggest other than the fundamentals of moving your feet and staying in front of your man? If you think sitting Nik is your best option good luck!
You might have been somewhat convincing to some people until you stated JB's philosophy is to play sound MTM defense..........I think this is the disconnect. Sound MTM defense does not mean youâre going to guard like OSU. Or that you are going to have erasers at the rim. Aggression does not equal sound defense. I know this is a stretch, and no I am not comparing Michigan to them, but the SA Spurs are always a good defensive team. They may have one really good defensive player and several defensive liabilities. The are good because of positioning, sound concepts and effort. Not because they have the best athletes on the floor.
I cannot concur that JBâs teams donât play sound defense. They may not be top tier on D, but they also arenât Middle West Texas State of Tennessee.
I can agree that âsoundâ MTM doesnât necessarily mean athleticism, and may correspond to effort/positioning at times. BUT, if you consistently have players on your roster that donât display those traits, wouldnât one be inclined to perhaps recruit a different type of player or change philosophies in terms of what amount of weight is given to defense vs. offense in the grand scheme of things.
Hereâs a look Defensive efficiency statistics during JBâs tenure at Michigan:
2007-2008: #247 nationally/#10 Big Ten
2008-2009: #152 nationally/#10 Big Ten
2009-2010: #129 nationally/#7 Big Ten
2010-2011: #140 nationally/#6 Big Ten
2011-2012: #176 nationally/#7 Big Ten
2012-2013: #97 nationally/#7 Big Ten
This is what the above efficiency stats tell me on a macro level:
A) JB is not a defensive oriented coach, and will probably never field a dominant defensive/rebounding team - I think most would concur
B) Iâm sure most would agree that the 2012-2013 national runner up team was our most athletic team during JBâs tenure
C) The most athletic team was our best defensive team by a significant margin
D) Our most atheltic/best defensive team also happened to be our best overall team
Not every player has the same talent or skill set....it's not always about coaching. How can you coach Nik to have quicker feet or would you simply sit him because he gets beat off the dribble? It's not always about scheme, he has to guard someone. What fundamental scheme would you suggest other than the fundamentals of moving your feet and staying in front of your man? If you think sitting Nik is your best option good luck!
You basically make my point for me - if you know that you are recruting players that donât have the ability to play sound defense, why not recruit players that can play sound defense? The answer is obvious, because the coach priortizes offense over defense.
What stats are you pulling? Maybe the raw efficiency numbers?
Anyway, the correct adjusted defensive efficiency ranks are as follows (conference only for the Big Ten games):
Year: Overall/Big Ten
2012-13: 48th/6th
2011-12: 61st/4th
2010-11: 37th/7th
2009-10: 58th/5th
2008-09: 69th/7th
2007-08: 100th/9th
