We made the title game with a bunch of recruits in the 80-120 range when they committed, and McGary. If we had offered those same type of recruits for 2015 (say, for example, McQuaid, Barefield, Ahrens), people on this board would be saying, “Why aren’t we targeting better players?”
Again, it seems fairly clear to me that with most of the 2014 and 2015 kids, playing time was an issue. Dozier, I agree, just wanted to play close to home where his dad and uncle played - totally understandable.
When it’s all said and done, I’d be fairly surprised if, when the 2016 season starts, we don’t have at least 3-4 future pros on the roster, whether those guys are elite recruits or Plan B guys. And that’s generally what you need to make a deep run in the tourney - future pros.
I don’t much care about rankings, we simply need upper tier, multi faceted players that have at least above average/good skill in 2 of the following areas ballhandling/shooting/passing/athleticism/rebounding
Well, you’re apparently assuming several of our current guys don’t have that, I guess. By 2016, I think both Wilson and Chatman will meet those criteria rather nicely, and I think there’s a solid chance Dawkins will too.
Beilein should’ve known that Dozier was a long shot, but he still backed off from Harris, Coleman and McQuid, and flew to Germany to recruit Wagner. He has no other 15’ target had Brown not approached him first. Something tells me that he is not worrying as much about the backcourt next season.
I certainly could’ve been more clear with my post above. We need our guards/wings to have at least 2 of the following - ball handling/shooting/passing/athleticism
Our bigs need 2 of the following - rebounding/athleticism/shot blocking/passing
PG/Wing - in 16 Walton is most likely the only player we will have on the current roster that will fit that criteria , MAAR has the potential to get there if the shot improves. Dawkins is nice vertically, but isn’t good laterally. I think people see a guy that can jump and think he’s a great athlete. Verticality is only one piece of athleticism.
Bigs - in 16 Kam is most likely the only player we will have that will fit the criteria in my view. Wilson is above average in terms of verticality, but needs a lot of work in every other athletic area in addition to skillset. Teske will help tremendously but probably won’t play until 17.
Can these guys get better, sure they can, but maybe the growth is marginal.
I think Teske will be ready to go right away. He looks like a project type now, but has 2 full yeasr of high school and a college summer. He’ll be ready from day 1, not all B1G type probably, but he’ll be a significant contributor.
In an ideal world, I agree, we would have everything you lay out. But again, I come back to the 2012-2013 squad. At best, we had 1.5 creators - Nik got to the rim at times, and was a good passer at times, but the more athletic, better teams were able to bottle him up at times - see tourney games against Cuse, Kansas and Ville, and his shot was really off against VCU too.
Similarly, Tim and Glenn were athletic, but neither was a good ballhandler or passer (though Tim did surprisingly well as a press breaker against VCU), and Glenn’s outside shot wasn’t special.
McGary was obviously great in the tourney, but inconsistent during the year.
We had one truly great player, and several very good complimentary guys who filled important roles (Nik and Tim as shooters, Glenn as an above-the-rim finisher).
Last year was really the first time that we had three guys who could, in essence, play the lead guard on offense.
So sure, I’d like to have that versatility every year, but I’m not sure the lack of three guys who can play lead guard is fatal. I think Walton and Chatman will be good passers and creators, and that could be enough if both are good enough at it.
I mean, yeah, we probably won’t be Big 10 champs or make an Elite 8 but at the same time, we took Manny Harris and pushed Oklahoma (Blake Griffin) in the NCAA tourney.
We took Darius Morris and pushed Duke to within 2 pts in the NCAA Tourney…they had Kyrie Irvin, Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee, Nolan Smith, etc.
Walton + Irvin + Chatman could still do some work.
The sky is not going to fall…relatively speaking. I think we all know the distinction we’re talking about…the difference of being truly elite (which means S16 and above pretty much every year) vs. being a middle of the pack B10 team that is competitive, usually a tournament team, and makes a deep tourney run every 4-5 years. We are at the crossroads as we speak in my opinion, the recent trajectory is very encouraging, but with any college sport, recruiting is the lifeline. You add the right pieces in terms of creators to go along with Kam/Teske and very nice supplementary players, we will be an elite team for the next 2-4 years, but if you add one dimenional players that don’t necessarily have the ability to make shots for themselves or teammates, then you are most likely looking at an above average team.
We have offers out to three highly regarded PGs in '16. And two elite wings. Signing day is a year away. Other prospects will emerge by next summer. Beilein and his staff never stop evaluating and recruiting players. Too soon to start worrying about not having enough talent.
We have offers, but no commits, hence there is some level of concern. It is admittedly early. At this point the only PGs with high interest in UM are DT and Ramsey, either of which would be a great pickup. Get either of those guys, preferably DT, and I think you have a really, really nice 16 class and the potential to be an elite team for the next 3-5 years.
MattD, I agree with that. In my opinion it is fine to add guys like Duncan Robinson to play well-defined roles so long as you can get some difference makers too. For 2016, I think we need one PG, one good SG (can even be a guy like Hughes if we miss on Battle and Langford), and one SF/PF type like a Towns or Leaf.
If we get burned again in our quest for top rated guys, you might see a return to recruiting somewhat lower ranked, easier to land guys. Guys like Moyer and Guy might have been strong targets for 2016 had we done that, McQuaid in 2015, Barnett in 2014, etc. I don’t blame the staff for aiming big, though.
I don’t blame the staff one bit for going after elite players, why wouldn’t you? The task now, is to start landing those types of players. In my opinion, McGary was elite, and Kam was borderline, but not quite there. We are taking steps, and the staff has shown the ability to cast a wider net in terms of the number of offers and the type of player(s) they are now targeting. But, as in any business, the ultimate barometer of recruiting success is results. Being in the mix just doesn’t cut it after a while.
PG is obviously the most pressing need at this point…we are in desperate need of an upper tier PG for the 16 class. SG is second on the wishlist, and I agree that we would do fine with Hughes as opposed to Battle (overrated in my opinion) or Langford, although Langford would be #1 on my list. Of course, if I could have one guy, Jaylen Brown is certainly it…he does everything, and does it well. I can only dream
Well, that’s the thing - what does “elite” mean? Do we go by rankings, or something else? I’ll bet very few people considered Stauskas, Burke and THJ to be “elite” recruits, but they were elite players. We could get a hypothetical class of Ramsey, Guy or Hughes, Teske and Cook and I’ll bet this staff could make a deep tourney run with those players and develop them into NBA talents. Yet none are ranked in the top 30-40.
Two issues with targeting top 1-25 guys: (1) you compete against the Dukes and UKs of the world - Kennard would fit our offense perfectly but obviously loved what he saw at Duke; and (2) many of those kids are not recruit able. See Josh Jackson. As the #2 ranked kid, I’d be surprised if Jalen Brown is recruitable. It didn’t surprise me that kids like Dwayne Bacon and Prince Ali never made it for a visit, and it wouldn’t shock me if that Brown OV never materializes. I hope to be wrong about that.
I would say Stauskas was elite. His skillset, at least from the HS film I saw, was very advanced. The onlyl questions about him were lateral movement and being in good condition/shape. Way underranked in my view. Burke was very much underranked (75-140ish), but wasn’t elite in HS in my opinion. He was a 50ish type recruit in my opinion out of HS. THJ was appropriately ranked in the 80ish range in my opinion.
I do agree with you that we could take Ramsey, Guy/Hughes, Teske and Cook to a deep tourney run. Although none of those guys are elite per se, Ramsey and Cook are borderline elite, and the Guy/Hughes/Teske are upper tier supplementary players. Our supplemental players on the current roster, ie Wilson/MAAR/Dawkins/Doyle/Donnal are a cut below those guys in my view. I guess what I’m saying is I agree with you, if you give JB a roster full of borderline elite guys, and elite supplemental players, then I think he can do a lot with it. But if you give him a few borderline elite guys, surrounded by average supplemental players, especially average supplemental pieces without experience, that’s asking for a lot from any coach. The game is about Jim’s and Joe’s rather than Xs and Os in my opinion.
I think you are crippling the program by giving the staff a handicap to the extent some guys aren’t “recruitable”…at some point you have to start winning those battles against the Dukes/UKs of the world if you want to take the next step forward. Again, I think JB is a good Xs and Os coach, but an average salesman…I think he appeals moreso to a certain type of kid/family, and it may be difficult for him to connect with a certain demographic given his age, cultural background, and overall disposition. I can’t speak on Coach Jordan as an Xs and Os guy, but I certainly think Vall would be a better recruiter than JB.
I think the game is equal parts coaching and recruiting. You can’t win big with average players, but I’ve seen a ton of coaches who recruit at an elite level and can’t do anything with the guys they get (Steve Lavin, Gottfried, and sadly enough Brady Hoke too).
When I say “recruitable,” I’m talking about kids who are looking for more than just a scholarship, and kids who have no desire to actually attend class. You can continue to minimize it, but there are a lot of players who fall into those categories. After the Ed Martin deal, we’re just simply not going to be a landing spot for a kid like a Josh Jackson. I’m fine with that.
Though their personalities are different, I see JB as being very similar to Bobby Knight in approach. He coaches a great offensive system, looks for shooters, and occasionally gets a super elite recruit, but won’t bend his principles to cater to recruits. I like coaches who place the team above the individual - I think it serves the program well in the long run.
I do agree coach Jordan has the potential to be a star recruiter as the head coach. I hope we can groom him for that role.
We have offers, but no commits, hence there is some level of concern. It is admittedly early. At this point the only PGs with high interest in UM are DT and Ramsey, either of which would be a great pickup. Get either of those guys, preferably DT, and I think you have a really, really nice 16 class and the potential to be an elite team for the next 3-5 years.
We have offers, but no commits, hence there is some level of concern. It is admittedly early. At this point the only PGs with high interest in UM are DT and Ramsey, either of which would be a great pickup. Get either of those guys, preferably DT, and I think you have a really, really nice 16 class and the potential to be an elite team for the next 3-5 years.
Why did you leave out Winston?
Because he doesn’t have high interest in UM. He has the same interest in UM that Amir Williams did…we’ll be in his top 5 until the end but he’s not coming to UM.