You simply can’t anticipate every player will improve, or to what extent, or at what rate - that is the problem I have with your analysis in a nutshell. You think every player has the P word, and that we have to wait until their career plays our before critiquing the recruiting. No offense, but that is simply dumb.
If that logic were true, every player in the works would be good because of potential. That’s bullshit. Basketball players, to a large degree, are born and not made. Sure, anybody can improve, but if a given players initial athleticism and/or skill is limited out of HS, they are much more limited because they have much more to work on and the ceiling isn’t as high, hence the recruiting rankings.
Anybody can be a genius after the fact. What’s the use of a forum at that point. Just check the box scores and cheer.
We’ve had a number of players improve a great deal. Stauskas and Burke went from top 100 recruits to lottery picks in two years. Irvin was a whipping boy on here for most of the season and then found his groove and was a different play the last few weeks. McGary and Dawkins improved a lot from beginning of freshman year to the end of freshman year. Guys who don’t improve are the exception, and usually don’t hang around. No one is saying that every player will improve at the same pace or at all. But we have 6 freshmen. As LAW says, let it play out.
Not saying that players don’t improve, but the notion that all players are created equal until JB gets a hold of em is absurd. There is a HUGE difference between an improved Josh Langford vs an improved Austin Davis if that makes sense. Bottom line is this, you can have a good player and make them great, or you can get a below average/poor player and make them average. I want great.
Any more straw man than ‘all players improve so just let it play out’?
It’s a strawman to continue implying that anyone is saying “all” players improve. Pretty weak. No one is saying that and we don’t need all players to improve.
Any more straw man than ‘all players improve so just let it play out’?
It’s a strawman to continue implying that anyone is saying “all” players improve. Pretty weak. No one is saying that and we don’t need all players to improve.
Well, if that’s your stance - that all players don’t improve - that would essentially support my contention that you need players that are upper tier out of HS, rather than projects, since by your own logic, the risk of taking a project is much higher since all players don’t improve.
Matt, I’m not assuming all guys improve. But you seem to argue no one will. Moreover, of course Langford is an elite talent - one who will likely play 1-2 years in college, which has to be factored in too.
Any more straw man than ‘all players improve so just let it play out’?
It’s a strawman to continue implying that anyone is saying “all” players improve. Pretty weak. No one is saying that and we don’t need all players to improve.
Well, if that’s your stance - that all players don’t improve - that would essentially support my contention that you need players that are upper tier out of HS, rather than projects, since by your own logic, the risk of taking a project is much higher since all players don’t improve.
It’s not an all or nothing thing. This isn’t the court of law, MattD. If 2 or 3 of Michigan’s freshmen from last season improve, Michigan can be really good. Do all 5 freshmen and 2 sophomores have to improve? No. No one is saying that EVERYONE improves. Either you know this and are trying to play dumb or…
Any more straw man than ‘all players improve so just let it play out’?
It’s a strawman to continue implying that anyone is saying “all” players improve. Pretty weak. No one is saying that and we don’t need all players to improve.
Well, if that’s your stance - that all players don’t improve - that would essentially support my contention that you need players that are upper tier out of HS, rather than projects, since by your own logic, the risk of taking a project is much higher since all players don’t improve.
It’s not an all or nothing thing. This isn’t the court of law, MattD. If 2 or 3 of Michigan’s freshmen from last season improve, Michigan can be really good. Do all 5 freshmen and 2 sophomores have to improve? No. No one is saying that EVERYONE improves. Either you know this and are trying to play dumb or…
I agree with you. My initial point was that LA’s basic stance is you can’t really analyze a kid based on HS film because you don’t know how much they will or will not improve over the course of their collegiate career…that is simply BS.
Also, it’s not about improving, it’s about how much. If Mark Donnal improves, but only marginally…well that doesn’t do much. Same thing with all non Dawkins and MAAR freshman. They need to make BIG steps. That’s basically what my argument is about. The better you are coming in, the more likely it is you are an impact player with less risk involved.
No, what I am saying is that you can’t look at high school film and, from that alone, conclude that a given Michigan recruit is not capable of being a good player - especially a 16 year old big man like Austin Davis. But you do that all the time. Same thing with Wilson - he literally played in about three games this year. You can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from that.
No, what I am saying is that you can't look at high school film and, from that alone, conclude that a given Michigan recruit is not capable of being a good player - especially a 16 year old big man like Austin Davis. But you do that all the time. Same thing with Wilson - he literally played in about three games this year. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions from that.
Not once have I ever said a kid can’t be a good player. I have said I don’t like the fit, don’t think he will be instant impact, think certain players are overrated, not athletic, etc. But I have never categorically said a kid cannot be good, that is patently false.
And yes, I do think you can make conclusions on certain aspects of a recruits game based on film or in person evaluations, especially with respect to athleticism. You either have it or you don’t
Here’s a simple example from my own opinions that might somehow be helpful.
Jon Teske vs. Austin Davis.
We’ve seen highlights from both and even if Teske has reached 17, they’ve both just
completed their junior years. Teske is quicker, more agile, with a wider variety of post
moves (he has a drop-step, for example) and the ability to shoot over someone in his face. His tape shows shot-blocking abilities and a great 3-point stroke. I’ve seen, from Davis, one jumpshot, of about 15 feet.
Do I think both need to improve? Yes. Do I think both will be better in 4 years? Yes. Based on what I’ve seen SO FAR, which would I take? Teske.
And if Davis goes on to play 15 years in the NBA, I’m happy to have been wrong. You cannot make decisions based on what happens after you make those decisions.
I don’t claim to be an awesome evaluator of players based on the minutiae of basketball techniques, so I’m sure I’ll get disagreement, but take my example to be hypothetical if it helps and assume those things are true. Even if Davis were to improve, can’t you get someone who needs to improve less and minimize risk? Or, won’t fans get a little frustrated when you fail to do so consistently enough? And then you get into the
whole argument of since we signed Teske first, with Donnal and Doyle and Wilson, why get Davis, but that’s kind of a different argument.
Wow, if this picture is an accurate representation, Battle just got a bit more attractive as a recruit. Looks to be a legit 6’8. Allen is 6’4, and Battle towers over him.
On the other hand, Teske is thin and will get pushed around a lot, and like most really tall, thin guys, probably does not have a lot of leg strength. Davis, on the other hand, might be a wide body who is really good at using his size to create space. There have been a million guys like him who have been good post players in college, from Big Baby Davis, to Derrick Nix, to a guy like Matt Stainbrook this year (obviously he’s not Big Baby).
It’s entirely possible Davis won’t be good. I just don’t think you can draw any real conclusions from video right now. If our staff thought he was offer worthy, and teams like Wisconsin and ND were showing strong interest, that tells me he’s got some potential.
OK, then reverse him and Teske and pretend I was saying we should go with him and that’s my argument. The argument isn’t which guy is better but just that some guys need less improvement than others, so just saying, well we got X and he improved so it was the best recruitment doesn’t really work.
I’m not saying it was “the best” recruitment. What I am saying is that I think both those guys can become good college big men.
Keep in mind a few things. First, quality big men are the most prized commodity in basketball. With a few rare exceptions (McGary, Cody Zeller, Hansbrough), anyone who is any good at all leaves after a year - other than MSU guys, as Izzo somehow manages to retard their development so much that he keeps them around four years.
We were all excited about Kevon Looney, right? One and done. Indiana just picked up Thomas Bryant. Nice get, but like Noah Vonleh, I’ll bet he plays one year there.
We’re not really an offense that features big men. And the last truly elite bigs we signed were Webber, Howard and Traylor. Does that tell you anything?
I’ll go ahead and assume we will not sign any top 20 big guys for the next five years. If that’s the case, give me four year guys like Morgan, Doyle, Teske and Davis any time. If our bigs can run the pick and roll, finish open looks around the rim, play credible defense and rebound, I’m happy. Morgan did all that by his senior year, and he was really about 6-7. If the rest of these guys (or, at least two of them) can develop like Morgan, I’ll be happy.
Been doing some digging for some under the radar prospects that are underranked/not ranked at all. I’ll tell you what, here is a name to keep an eye out for - Devon Daniels (2016) out of Kalamazoo Central/1Nation AAU (Josh Jackson). Daniels appears to be in the 6’5 range and isn’t ranked by the major services from my brief search. How this kid isn’t a 3 star at minimum is beyond me.
This kid has a decent handle, flourishes in PnR, displays ability to pass in a half court set, a good athlete, and appears to be a good perimeter defender. Appears his jumpshot may be below average based on mechanics, but maybe its just the funky Nick Young over the head release. If we strike out on Battle, Langford, Murray, Jefferson…I wouldn’t mind Daniels at all…and he’s right down the street.
I'll go ahead and assume we will not sign any top 20 big guys for the next five years. If that's the case, give me four year guys like Morgan, Doyle, Teske and Davis any time. If our bigs can run the pick and roll, finish open looks around the rim, play credible defense and rebound, I'm happy. Morgan did all that by his senior year, and he was really about 6-7. If the rest of these guys (or, at least two of them) can develop like Morgan, I'll be happy.
I pretty much agree. But I would like a pretty good capacity to score off offensive rebounds, and one thing you didn’t mention–not commit turnovers by dropping passes. But I think Teske is our best bet to do those and all the things you mention (I imagine he’ll be better, overall, than Morgan: having 4 inches on him doesn’t hurt) and I don’t know how likely it is to get those things from one of the other guys. I know Davis does have soft hands, but I don’t know about D and the various issues you mention.
On the specific issue of the Davis signing, it just seems to me that if you’re going to sign him
this far out (and this is the major “philosophical” thing I was going for above), assuming we do sign a big rather than using the scholly at another place in the lienup, it would be easy enough to be able to get another guy with a higher ceiling who arises from under the radar but hasn’t yet gotten hounded by the top programs. Not a star, but someone with a higher chance of not getting burned during his minutes, or more importantly, be a used scholarship that sorely could’ve been used for depth at another position. However, I do understand that the coaching staff is getting chafed by missing players, and I think that acting quickly on this kid is a matter of being slick and noticing some great player before it was obvious he was great. It’s just so risky. . . There is middle ground and plenty of kids whose tape looks pretty solid and they’re recruited by some big programs and still pick us.