2017-18 Roster Breakdown


#21

I guess my point is that Eli is the sort of traditional PG that can run the offense through the PNR game if Xavier struggles in that regard.


#22

I just disagree, I don’t think he’s a traditional PG at all. I’d much rather have X with the ball in his hands in relation to Brooks, who’s much more comfortable as a catch and shoot guy.


#23

Is it guaranteed that Donnal won’t be back in 17-18? I know he was re-classified before last season, but now that he’s the starter any chance they reconsider and let him and Mo Wagner man the “5” in 16-17 & 17-18 while Teske/Davis grow into B1G sized big men?

Add another tall wing to go with the 2 guards in the '17 recruiting class and then bank the Donnal scholarship for the '18 class? (Or chase a NBA caliber 1-2yr player and have Donnal as a plus fall back option if you miss)


#24

Catch and shoot guy? I don’t see that at all in the film. Strange takeaway.


#25

Not a strange takeaway at all IMO.


#26

Well, it’s certainly unusual. Of all the scouting reports and everything I’ve read about Brooks, you’re the only one calling him a catch and shoot guy. And it’s certainly a significant minority of the film that I’ve seen in which Brooks is in catch and shoot situations.


#27

I think most agree that we needed one or two higher ceiling players with filling out the 17 class. Matthews is one of those IMO. I think Brooks will be a contributor at Michigan. And I think he is good enough to take the bird in hand. Eastern is waiting til the spring to decide. It’s like the Winston/X situation. Could you we wait and end up with a higher upside player? Yes. Is it worth the risk? I don’t know.

Personally, I don’t think we could find someone like Brooks late in the process. We could find someone like Spike that late. But Brooks is gonna be better than Spike IMO.

We need someone on the level of Young/Cain/Tillman. Brooks commitment had no effect on that. We would have still needed one of those guys even if Eastern committed IMO.


#28

I just don’t think we can stand pat with the bigs we have. Wagner has yet to prove that he can be anything more than a marginal backup against Big Ten level competition, height and weight gain notwithstanding. Ditto for Wilson. Despite promise, Teske is unproven as well, and Davis has “project” written all over him. That’s a lot of finger-crossing. Maybe the season will provide reasons for more optimism, but it would be nice to have one or two bigs at least on the radar for 2017 by November. Even if you call the guys we’re looking at now a “4” or a “combo forward”, none of them are inside players.


#29

Whatever they are if it is a 3 or 4 we need 2 guys who can penetrate and finish at the rim. Looking at the roster that to me is the biggest thing missing.


#30

I think another 5 in the 2017 class is the last thing that we need.


#31

I think Kyle Young, Jaren Jackson definitely qualify as inside players. Have some stretch to their game and can spread the floor, but can and do play inside.


#32

Is Justin Smith big enough to guard the 4?


#33

In high school maybe, but Young is 6’8", 205 and Jackson is 6’9" 200. Those are not major conference bigs. Beilein does not turn guys like that into inside bangers who can start in the Big Ten. Compare them to guys like Diamond Stone or Caleb Swanigan.

The notion of a “combo forward” or a “stretch 4” sounds cool to talk about, but when have we ever had one that was actually any good?


#34

Well, look ahead to 2018. Who are our bigs? Wilson (even if you count him as a big) probably will not get a 5th year, so that leaves Teske, Wagner and Davis. We’d have to cross our fingers that all three will be playable and none of them would get hurt. We have plenty of room to sign a 5 in 2018, you say? Except that Beilein does not have a good track record for recruiting bigs who can make a first-year impact. History is that whoever we sign as a big will likely be a project, hence the need in 2017.


#35

That entire post is full of assumptions. You could say the exact same thing about any position on any team. What if Simpson and Brooks are busts? What if one gets injured? Do you want us to take another point guard in '17 too? The fact is that we have 2 legitimate positions of need at the starting 4 and backup 3/4. There would be zero reason to ignore those neads to get yet another center when we are already 3 deep there.

And in response to your comment about Young and Jackson, are you saying they cannot gain weight? Young is 6’7" 205, so it’s safe to assume he’s get to at least 215 and probably 220 by the time he’d be playing. That’s prime size for a combo forward and if you’ve seen his highlights you can tell that he is good in the low post and at rebounding. Jackson on the other hand is 6’10" 220 from the most recent measurements by 247. Not sure where you got 200 from. He’d have the benefits of a stretch 4 with the size of a traditional 4.


#36

Jaren Jackson is a five-star power forward. Yes he can hit some threes, but he’s basically what you are asking for. That being said, it continues to sound like Maryland is in a good spot there.

Kyle Young has basically been offered by the majority of the Big Ten and I would be shocked if other schools aren’t slotting him at the four. He can score with his back to the basket in the paint and can step out and hit a pick-and-pop three. That’s basically what you need from a four-man in the current game.

Livers is a 6-8 forward who rebounds very well and can hit shots. What’s the knock there?

I’m all for improving the five, but let’s at least give Teske/Davis a chance to play. The numbers really dictate that it is hard to take a five in this class given the need at the four and the three.

Michigan has struggled to find good options at the four under Beilein – I don’t think anyone would doubt that. Glenn Robinson III was the best option and they haven’t replaced him since. Finding an athlete and finisher at the spot would certainly help as would maybe a taller more physical player (something like Kyle Young, for example).


#37

Edit: wrong thread


#38

The thing is, we ALWAYS have a need a the 4, but we never really fill it, not if by a “4” you mean an actual power forward, as opposed to the second biggest guy on the court who gets stuck guarding the other team’s 4. Glenn Robinson was a 3. So is Irvin, even though both were superficially in the “4” spot. Guys like Smotrycz, Donnal and Wilson, who were supposed to be sorta 4s who could rebound and also pop from outside have never really worked out that way as regular, reliable players. I could probably have held my breath for all the time that I’ve seen us with a true center and a true power forward on the court at the same time under Beilein.


#39

Dylan’s comment answers yours completely. He listed like 6 targets who fit the bill as a stretch 4/combo forward. There is absolutely no reason to take another center when we have a glaring need at the 4 and backup 3/4.

If for some reason you’re talking about a traditional power forward that is large and can’t shoot, I have no idea why you’d want that. It wouldn’t fit Beilein’s system whatsoever.

So because we haven’t had one work out before we should just stop trying, despite having several targets who are 4’s and legitimately interested in us?


#40

Sure, injuries are always a possibility, but they can happen at any position, and you can only get so paranoid in trying to prepare for them without being ridiculous, whether it’s center or PG. The difference is that Beilein has a much better track record at developing guards than he does at developing bigs. Chances of injury being equal, I like our chances of fielding at least one starting-caliber guy out of who we have right now at PG much better than I do at center.

As far as Jackson, the 200 is listed right on this site. And yes, guys may gain weight, but once in a while, wouldn’t it be nice to bring in someone who didn’t need beefing up? Other teams do it all the time.