You hit the nail on the head, Tillman the better rebounder, much stronger, plays stronger, better lateral movement…neither is a shotblocker. Tillman more skilled in terms of ball skills, but Young the better shooter.
1 Like
Yeah, we’re pretty unlikely to go after many guys who fit your definition of elite. And I’d gladly take three years of Cain over one year of Jaylen Brown.
2 Likes
Speaking of fifth years, is it for sure that Robinson will get a fifth year in 2017-18? He will still have a year of eligibility remaining and could be on track to be a grad transfer.
Other than people here seeing film and liking his game, is there any reason to believe he’s interested in UM, has the grades to get in, etc.? I ask because I simply don’t know either way.
Seems highly likely unless he regresses for some reason. I think it’s more likely he averages 15 a game as a senior than leaves.
1 Like
Giving someone an offer doesn’t automatically equate to that player being a serious target. Who’s the last guy Xavier signed that was really coveted by elite programs?
I’d be shocked if 2016-17 was Duncan Robinson’s last year.
3 Likes
I think you take both Cain and Young - they are both good prospects and good good fits with the roster moving forward. You have guards or smaller wings (Simpson, Watson, Poole) and bigs who perhaps could slide down to the 4 (Teske, Davis, even Wilson and Wagner), so there’s certainly room for some bigger wings/face-up 4 types.
And I think Cain does project well to that GRIII role. Could still defend the three of course, depending on roster composition. But he looks like he also could put on some muscle and guard a lot of college 4s these days. Probably not worth getting too worked up as to position these days. GRIII obviously had a pretty good college career and is in the NBA. And if Cain shows more ability off the dribble, he’ll get the chance to use it.
Who are you referring to - Cain or Tillman?
I think Beilein has said that Robinson is guaranteed a fifth year because he came in as a transfer, so he was guaranteed four years here. He could always leave of course. I, too, doubt that JB would at all be looking to ease Robinson out even if he hadn’t made the guarantee.
1 Like
Matt, I think there’s a middle ground here. Nobody in their right mind would value the high school film of Korver over that of Westbrook, regardless of what order you rank the attributes, because Westbrook was/is elite in multiple categories and a competent shooter, whereas Korver is elite in one category and frankly below average in some areas. That said, if you can’t shoot (and you’re not a superior post-up big), you’re going to have a low ceiling no matter what your other attributes are. Two examples: Tom Tum Nairn is an elite ballhandler and passer and possesses extremely good quickness (straight ahead and lateral), making him a well above average athlete, even at his size, but his inability to throw the ball in the ocean from the beach make him nothing more than a component part. Similarly, if you compared Shannon Scott and Trey Burke coming out of high school (as Thad Matta did and chose Scott), Scott was a much better athlete, and at least as good at passing and handling the ball, but he turned out to be infinitely less productive than Burke because he couldn’t shoot and Burke could. Both Nairn and Scott were decent/good college players. So, too, is/will be Duncan Robinson, who is great at shooting, decent/good at passing, and below average (handle) to well below average (athleticism) in other areas.
Top 20 guys should be elite at something(s) and at least competent at everything. Top 50 guys, if they’re properly evaluated, should be above average to strong in all categories, but not elite in any category. Beyond that, IMO, system dictates who will be the best fit for different programs.
4 Likes
Actually, Westbrook is a really unique case in that he was criminally underrated - WE could have easily had him. UCLA offered in the spring, as an afterthought, and G. Tech was his only other real offer. Huge miss by every coach in America, and he played here in LA.
Not really, Westbrook was not a good ballhandler or shooter in HS. He was a raw athlete in HS, and to a certain extent, he still is. He didn’t have a UCLA offer until after his junior year.
Everyone knows the story about Westbrook being under recruited, but using Korver (who is 35) and Westbrook to make your point, it’s pretty clear that you are using their NBA games as a framework for your comparison.
I think the point that @MHoops1 makes about shooting capping a player’s ceiling just like athleticism can cap a player’s ceiling is a good one.
Fair enough - just in general though, think its much easier to acquire skill vs. athleticism. You either have it or you don’t for the most part. Doesn’t get talked about much around here, but athleticism just enables players to be so much better on defense, which is why I’ll take a player like Cain over Zak 7 days a week at the same stage. Also, motor - Cain has this, it cannot be underestimated how much motor truly means.
1 Like
Yeah I don’t really think there’s anyone here (other than one person) who doesn’t think Cain would be a good fit.
2 Likes
There are examples in all directions. Brent Petway was an insane athlete with a great motor - but it didn’t translate into a lot of productivity. Nor did his skill level ever really improve. Jevon Shepard was a really good athlete, too - same issues.
Let’s not start this. Michigan casts a very narrow recruiting net compared to most other programs of its stature. That’s fine, but I was just responding to Chezaroo that there’s no reason why Williams, Bowen, Tillman should be considered “fantasies” – we should have a few serious targets of that stature in most classes (and Tillman is modestly ranked, last I checked, though I think he is severely under-ranked). None of these guys are in the pipe dream category like say, Malik Monk, Dennis Smith or whatever.
1 Like
I’m with the guys who view the attributes in a more balanced manner, and, especially at this moment in time, shooting in college and the NBA is incredibly important. And I’m not sure that shooting can be taught more than “athleticism.” Guys improve their verticals, their strength, their lateral agility, etc. through college training regimens. Indeed, you might even be more confident that you can turn an average athlete into a good one, a good one into a great one, etc. Although of course there can be substantial improvement in 3 point shooting with good coaching and a lot of work.
Turning back to 2017 recruits, Cain’s shooting is the factor that I think could most determine what kind of career he has. Sure, I’d like to see more playmaking and ballhandling in traffic. But if a guy with his size, motor, and athleticism could become even just a really consistent catch and shoot guy, say shooting 36-38% from 3, he could have a really good career. Anything beyond that in terms of shooting and ball-handling would be gravy and obviously raise his ceiling. But if he couldn’t get to be at least that kind of shooter, it would limit his effectiveness. Looks to me like the has a good shot at getting there with good shooting instruction, which he of course would get at Michigan.
We have “offered” many top 50 kids over the past few years, and will continue to do so.
The caveat being is that when the Bluebloods surface with sincere intent, we are usually relegated to the sidelines.
Williams and Bowen are Izzo priority recruits, as well as having multiple top 20 programs in hot pursuit. That usually doesn’t bode well for M.
1 Like