As a reminder ... Tyus Battle's official visit is set for this weekend.
Prelude to another letdown. I’ll be stunned if he comes here.
Prelude to another letdown. I'll be stunned if he comes here.
Then it won’t be a letdown when he chooses another program…
Prelude to another letdown. I'll be stunned if he comes here.Then it won’t be a letdown when he chooses another program…
Not a letdown from the standpoint of this particular recruit, but a letdown for the recruiting trajectory in general. It strongly appears we are going to miss out on all upper tier/elite wing players for 15 and 16. Hard pill to swallow after 12 and 13…hence the skepticism from some.
Battle or Langford would obviously be a homerun, but what if U-M lands some combination of Huerter, Cumberland and Walker (just using an example) will people be disappointed with the class? Basically if they land two bigs, and a few guards in the 50-100 range of the top 100.
With the information the staff has learned post-Louisville (i.e. that we can’t swim with the sharks), I’m in the camp that says we should make a living on the kids ranked 25-100 with upside, rather than going all in on the elites with nothing to show behind that. And that’s what I think is happening. Which isn’t to say we never recruit five stars, simply that there need to be very solid and real reasons why we’d continue to recruit them over a long period of time without widening the net. A few years ago, we’d have been thrilled with that, and it means that so long as we can continue to identify underranked prospects (in this case, underranked means maybe 50-100 but a future pro) then nothing is off the table in terms of program ceiling.
Great question, and I think it depends on the combination.
I think with Goodin you would be fine with a role-player SG/wing but with Walker or someone else at the point we would need a more athletic and versatile creator.
The unfortunate thing is that the scenario you propose is starting to look like a best-case. My guess would be that we get one of the non-homerun guys you listed along with somebody that none of us has ever heard of with like only Bucknell and Albany offers.
As a reminder ... Tyus Battle's official visit is set for this weekend.Prelude to another letdown. I’ll be stunned if he comes here.
Yea. It’s not happening. I don’t think we ever see another class here like the one with Mitch.
With the information the staff has learned post-Louisville (i.e. that we can't swim with the sharks), I'm in the camp that says we should make a living on the kids ranked 25-100 with upside, rather than going all in on the elites with nothing to show behind that. And that's what I think is happening. Which isn't to say we never recruit five stars, simply that there need to be very solid and real reasons why we'd continue to recruit them over a long period of time without widening the net. A few years ago, we'd have been thrilled with that, and it means that so long as we can continue to identify underranked prospects (in this case, underranked means maybe 50-100 but a future pro) then nothing is off the table in terms of program ceiling.
Upside strongly suggests good athleticism (using your future pro language)…that is something we REALLY struggle to obtain and I don’t think that is going to change in the future.
Battle or Langford would obviously be a homerun, but what if U-M lands some combination of Huerter, Cumberland and Walker (just using an example) will people be disappointed with the class? Basically if they land two bigs, and a few guards in the 50-100 range of the top 100.
Not me. We need 2 ball handling creators. As I stated before, I don’t like the Walker/Cumberland fit because Walker seems to be a shoot first type which would really limit Cumberland. Same thing with Huerter. We just need 2 guys with ball handling, passing, finishing, and shooting ability
Upside strongly suggests good athleticism (using your future pro language).......that is something we REALLY struggle to obtain and I don't think that is going to change in the future.
That’s weird…I could have sworn we put multiple guys into the pros over the last few years…
Upside strongly suggests good athleticism (using your future pro language).......that is something we REALLY struggle to obtain and I don't think that is going to change in the future.That’s weird…I could have sworn we put multiple guys into the pros over the last few years…
And every one of them has struggled badly outside of McGary. Big difference between getting a guy to the league because he is allowed to be a volume scorer and sufficiently preparing a guy for NBA level competition.
And every one of them has struggled badly outside of McGary. Big difference between getting a guy to the league because he is allowed to be a volume scorer and sufficiently preparing a guy for NBA level competition.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. I don’t think we need NBA stars to win championships, but we definitely do need (multiple) NBA players. That’s not in doubt.
And every one of them has struggled badly outside of McGary. Big difference between getting a guy to the league because he is allowed to be a volume scorer and sufficiently preparing a guy for NBA level competition.Now you’re moving the goalposts. I don’t think we need NBA stars to win championships, but we definitely do need (multiple) NBA players. That’s not in doubt.
I can agree to that, but it sure would help if one of our players was a star. More visibility and recognition
Burke will REALLY need to up his offensive game to be even in the conversation as Conley since Burke will never be in the same realm as MC defensively.
Conley's solid, but he's not a top 10 PG nor has he ever been an NBA all star (as far as I know - don't recall him ever making it or really being in consideration). Burke could easily have a Conley-like career.Conley is probably top 10 PG right now, terrific defensively and finally hitting shots.
There isn’t a GM in the Association that would take Burke over Conley. The only reason he hasn’t made an all star team is because of Lilliard, Parker, Westbrook, Curry, and Paul. He’s so much better than Burke it isn’t even comparable.
Conley’s solid, but he’s not a top 10 PG nor has he ever been an NBA all star (as far as I know - don’t recall him ever making it or really being in consideration). Burke could easily have a Conley-like career.
Conley's solid, but he's not a top 10 PG nor has he ever been an NBA all star (as far as I know - don't recall him ever making it or really being in consideration). Burke could easily have a Conley-like career.
Conley is probably top 10 PG right now, terrific defensively and finally hitting shots.
Matt, you said “upside” means “good athleticism,” and that’s something we “really struggle to obtain.”
You need to distinguish between good athleticism at the college level, and at the pro level. Yes, I’d agree, we haven’t recruited many guys who have good NBA athleticism. Probably only Robinson, and he might just be a bit above average in the NBA.
But college athleticism? Any of Burke, Robinson, Stauskas, Levert, Hardaway, and McGary would qualify, as would Dawkins and arguably Walton. Heck, possibly even MAAR.
We’ve never had any trouble finding guys in the 50-150 range with “upside” in the college game. I’d agree that upside hasn’t made any of these guys NBA stars, but so what? Who’s the last NBA star to play at Ohio State, for example? If we keep putting guys in the league, and especially first round picks, that’s a selling point.
Would it help if we had an NBA star or two? Of course.
Who's the last NBA star to play at Ohio State, for example?
Mike Conley is doing pretty well for himself, although he was only there for a year.
I’d be pretty happy if we just focused on the 50-150 guys for the most part. Obviously go after the top 50 guys who have some kind of connection to UM or show high and consistent interest, but we need to stop spending so much time and resources on guys who end up at Duke or UK (or Cal?!?) while we come away empty-handed and scrambling.
Conley is good, but he has improved a lot over the last few years. His first two years in the league were pretty comparable to Trey’s. He’s a better player than Trey for sure, but it’s not like reaching Conley’s level is this utterly impossible task for Trey.
Better PGs than Conley: Curry, Westbrook, Rose, Paul, Lilliard, Wall, Irving, Rondo, Deron Williams, Parker. You could easily make an argument for Bledsoe or Teague, too.