2017-18 Roster Breakdown


#41

Wait… What? You are literally arguing against your own logic there. You said we need another center in case of injury (despite being 3 deep at a position where Beilein has only gone 2 deep unless he has to) and then I commented the sarcastic response about getting another point guard since we have less of those and ZERO who have established themselves. Now you say it’s just crazy talk to make a brash move because of injuries? Do you see the problem here?

Jackson is probably listed at 200 here because it hasn’t been updated. He’s at 215 elsewhere, and 220 at 247. Either way, this is not about track record of the coach. This is about roster balance. Sure go ahead and take another center. Too bad you are either missing out an a starting 4 or a backup wing! I guess we’ll just have to live with a random hole on the roster so we can have 15 centers!


#42

The fact of the matter is that even if all the centers on the roster fail, which is quite unlikely given that Wagner has shown the ability to do everything a Beilein center requires (plus more) and just needs to cut down on the fouls, you’d rather have a balanced roster with a good starting 4 and a good backup wing than forfeit one of those on the off chance that every center is bad. So with your plan not only are you definitely giving up something, you’re doing it on the sleight chance that all the centers are busts and the hypothetical center recruit would be better. No thank you.


#43

1986 called and wants to discuss basketball philosophy. What Beilein has tried to do at the 4 is closer to a “true 4” than the 2 post big line up that was left behind in the 90s.


#44

I couldn’t disagree more. I have more faith in Wagner than anyone outside of maar. The talent is there. It’s about using it and him putting it together. I feel like he didn’t play much for more reasons outside of talent. Adjustment period or maturity issues as some hypothesized about.

I know I shouldn’t be but I’m looking at 2017-2018 already. I like our current group but I’m more excited for two years out.


#45

GRIII couldn’t dribble, couldn’t slash, couldn’t shoot. What about his game made him a 3? He was a 4 through and through. I know JB wanted to try him at the 3, but GRIII never developed a handle or a shot.


#46

Um… what? Will you explain to me how the depth at PG (before the brooks commit) or Wing is better than at C?


#47

Sorry, but baloney. Lots of teams are playing a true center AND a power forward at the same time. Do you really need me to go down the list? You’ve seen us get beaten up inside on offense and defense by teams like that, just like I have, so I hardly have to.


#48

Robinson was a small forward. He was not a power forward. Not by any stretch of the imagination. if you thought he was, it’s only because you haven’t seen a true power forward playing for Michigan in so long that you’ve forgotten what one looks like.


#49

Bodies are not “depth”. Not when we don’t have a single proven, starting caliber player among our bigs. We do have such players at G and W. And lack of rebounding, inside scoring and inside defense have been this team’s biggest weaknesses in recent years, not guard play. Which area would you rather see addressed?

We have two slots left for 2017…I’m certainly not saying we should take two more centers, but we can take a W/SF with one, and 5 with the other.


#50

Who do we have at PG that is a proven starter for 2017-2018? We don’t know a thing about how Xavier will do in college.

If anything, we know more about Wagner (1 year) than Xavier (0 years).

So your logic doesn’t hold up, sorry.

BESIDES that small point, an injury at PG means we’d literally have no PG, while an injury at C would mean we still have 2 bodies.


#51

You have a skewed and one sided outlook at what a power forward should be. I’ll make it simple for you: That is not how John Beilein plays, even in his days at West Virginia. We got beat up inside these past 2 years because we had a 6’6" 200 lb. guy at the 4 in Irvin. If you don’t remember, with that “terrible 4” Robinson we were the national runner up and inches away from another final 4. He was 6’7" 215. If that worked out as poorly as you say it did we wouldn’t have made it close to that far. Sure, he was at a strength disadvantage down low, but he had a huge advantage in speed, quickness, shooting, and general athleticism. THAT’S HOW A STRETCH 4 WORKS. THAT’S WHAT BEILEIN’S SYSTEM REQUIRES. Before that we had Novak, and we even did well with him at the 4. Do you remember the Maryland and Purdue home games last year where Irvin forced both to play small ball because he kept blowing past their “big bad traditional power forwards”?

Here’s all I can say: The 4 in John Beilein’s offense is a wing. The exact same thing as a 3 but on the other side. Our current targets at the 4 reflect that by either being good shooters or being able to get in the lane IN ADDITION TO being able to rebound and bang down low. Now we haven’t had a player like that under Beilein. As you’ve mentioned, we’ve had guys who would be small forwards on other teams. But it’s a complete non sequitur to say that means we should just stop recruiting them altogether. Beilein is not going to completely switch his offensive philosophy that he’s had for 30 years because by a recruiting fluke all his 4’s turned out bad and he had to stick a 3 there. But that. Is not. What this. Is about. I don’t know if you purposely put out this huge red herring, but this is about your random desire to have four centers on the chance that all of the current ones are bad and for sure give up another position of actual need. I’m going to quote myself on why that is a (sorry) bad viewpoint.

Hell, I know I can’t prove my point any more than I already have, but you literally just have to look 60 miles down the road. Look at how much the Pistons improved when they got rid of Greg Monroe and put a worse player in his place in Ersan. They went from a bottom dweller to a fringe playoff team. And THEN, look how they did when they replaced a traditional stretch 4 with a large small forward in Tobias Harris, a move that pretty much equals GR3 at the 4 when the average weights and heights of college vs. pros is taken into account. They went from a fringe playoff team to a team that would’ve been on pace to win 56 games that year.


#52

Robinson couldn’t dribble, slash, or shoot. SF’s usually need at least one of those skills to be worthy of SF minutes.


#53

Who are our proven PG and wings for the 2017-18 year?

Here are our proven players that will be on that roster:

  • MAAR
  • Duncan Robinson
  • Probably Mo Wagner

So one guy in the backcourt, one wing and one center. Since there are two guards and two wings on the floor at the same time, I think we should probably focus on those positions in recruiting vs adding a fourth center on the roster when they only take up one spot on the floor.

I’d rather give Donnal a 5th year than give a scholly to a fourth center in the past three classes. At least Donnal would only take up a scholly for a year and then we’d have it for 2018.


#54

Which one of Simpson/Brooks/Poole/Watson/Matthews are proven for the guard position alongside MAAR?

Duncan Robinson is proven at one wing, but who is proven at the other?


#55

If this upcoming year they still struggle defensively and the offense takes steps back like the past couple years does this mean they need better recruits or the system is a problem?


#56

Where did this come from?


#57

Lots of teams are playing small ball with only one traditional big. Do you really need me to go down the list? You’ve seen us get beaten by teams like that, just like I have, so I hardly have to.


#58

When talking about roster composition you look at what positions guys can play. This upcoming year we are either going to see Irvin guard the 3 or Robinson guard the 4 or vice versa. I don’t know if Wagner is going to start or Donnal starts at the 5 at this point. If this team struggles defensively again wouldn’t it be based off Robinson or Donnal? It’s not like Walton/Maar can guard 3s or 4s. Maybe they would need to recruit another 4 or 5 if there is a problem again on the defensive end.

When the team was really good their offensive was so efficient it could make up for a poor defense. The past 2 years offensive efficiency was at 66 and 42. Can the team still have success if their offensive efficiency is hovering around 50 and the defense still isn’t good?

This is why I posed the question because eventually you need to ask the question if it is the system or the players.


#59

Well I think a big part of it was Chatman’s failure. He was supposed to come in and be the starting 4 but we all saw how that went, forcing us to slide down Irvin. As for your comment about hovering the the 40s, I’d say we wait and see how the defense improves with the new staff. I do think we’ll have a top 25 offense though.


#60

I think not having to play Dakich and Dawkins, two matador-defenders, will help defensively.

Still, this is a thread about roster breakdown. Everyone else was discussing roster breakdown and then you’re just going to derail it? Did you know there is a way to start new threads?