I think JB learned something out of that debacle, and out of the off-season attrition which occurred, and would have left ample room for Langford even had Battle stuck. Hopefully, we’ll never have to find out if that’s true, because the situation will never present itself again.
Depth at the 1/primary ball handler is a good point, no doubt. It would be dangerous to count on X and MAAR to spend all of the time at the 1. And I dont think I am even that low on Brooks game, but look at the list of names that we are still contending for.
The first and most obvious example, for the 2017 class, is Eastern, who I think most would prefer to Brooks and who could definitely play as a primary handler.
But my bigger point is: are our remaining options good enough combinations of likely to sign/better than Brooks, to justify taking them, even if they wouldnt address the lack of depth at the 1? And that question goes for options in 2017 and 2018.
All this Langford talk is giving me high blood pressure. That whole situation was one of the most frustrating recruiting moments as a fan. I’d rather pretend it never happened.
Eastern absolutely could play the primary ball handler spot–indeed, having seen him live (and admittedly Brooks only on tape), I would personally be more comfortable with Eastern as a 30+ mpg PG than I would Brooks, at least as of now. However, Eastern was by no means certain, or even likely, to sign with Michigan before the Brooks commitment, and I think we absolutely need a guy who can step in and play some PG in the class of ‘17. PGs are crucial–like QBs in football–and after what has happened to us in the last two years, I would never want to take the chance that we would go into a season where 1 injury at PG, let alone 2, would be devastating. In addition, you can play 2 PGs at the same time (unlike QBs)–in fact, the last 4 national champions started 2 PGs (or at least a PG and an undersized combo) together (Arcidiacono and Brunson, Jones and Cook, Napier and Boatright, Siva and Smith)–and Brooks is actually likely a better choice to play alongside Simpson (a decent, but not great, shooter) than is Eastern (a non-shooter) because of Brooks’ shooting ability.
I think that Beilein lost out on a number of long term recruitments because the players, having been offered very early, had no sense of urgency and attracted other big name offers after ours- Thornton, Booker, Bates-Diop, Kennard. Players who were elite when we offered are always low percentage gets, even those who seem to have a strong interest in Michigan at the outset. Many of the short recruitments were late adds - MAAR, Spike, Caris, Dawkins - or lower ranked kids like Teske, Davis, Watson for whom the competition was not great. Even Stauskas, who might have had a Kansas offer but was not otherwise recruited by elite schools. I don’t think that it’s so much that Beilein is “good at” shorter recruitments as opposed to longer recruitments as it is the level of competition for the recruit.
I wont contend just how likely Eastern was to sign, because I simply dont know.
And you’re absolutely right, depth at the 1 is critical, especially if you are counting on them to be the primary ball handler and playmaker (not so much the case, over the last 3 seasons). I do think it’s possible that the importance of having a PG that serves those roles lessens when the 2 and 3 can run the offense (Stauskas/Caris/Zak). I’m not sure anyone other than MAAR is a sure bet to be able to do that, but it’s something to consider, especially because of the quality of players that are still on our board.
The option of playing X and Brooks together doesn’t appeal to me much, outside of dealing with foul issues. I’d prefer our lineup options with a couple of other players at the 2, and that’s not including lineup options that could be available with a different (possibly better) player than Brooks. So, other than just thinking Eastern is the better player, I dont think that being able to pair Broonk and X is a great argument for Brooks >Eastern; I think that basically boils down to how likely landing Eastern actually was.
For me it isn’t a clear answer. Every team needs guys like Brooks and if he is happy to come and play the role we want him to play, I think you take it. It is harder when you look at roster composition and the overall number of guys at his tier, but that isn’t his fault, nor can it be changed. Basically if you take the “history starts in 2016 (or 17)” approach I think it is good as is Livers. I would like to wash out some of the deficiencies of the current roster, but that probably doesn’t happen until 2018. Just want us to be ready to aim higher when that time comes and not be going into a spring dogfight for the first time with this staff.
There are lots of times when we might want to play 2 PGs (or a PG and an undersized combo) together, even if not on a regular basis–against teams which press or at least pressure the ball, when we have a lead late and want more ball handlers and free throw shooters, when we play teams which play 2 smaller guards, when we are behind and want to pressure the ball, etc. We have certainly done so successfully in the past with Spike pairing with Trey or Derrick. As noted, many others have as well.
There is little film out there on Brooks, so it’s too early for me to tell how good he’ll be. If he’s good enough though, being able to play instead of AND alongside Simpson in certainly a plus in my eyes, even if it’s only for a few minutes a game.
Right, it’s too early to know just how good Brooks (or any of these kids, really) really is.
But I’d hesitate to think just because Brooks is labeled a pg/combo guard, that he would be better at breaking the press, handling, FT shooting, pressing, etc. than other options that are already on the roster/committed. I think MAAR, Poole, and Matthews are all capable of at least most of those things, from the 2 spot, and the roster has the ability to fill in the 3 & 4 spots accordingly. And, instead of Brooks, we could’ve signed someone who would better than Brooks, at some or all of those things. The massive catch being: who knows whether any such recruits would eventually commit to us.
Brooks’ current greatest value to us is that he was ready to commit (and, of course, however much quality he will provide), and I am generally all for the “bird in the hand” strategy, it saves us from having to scrape the bottom of the barrel just to use scholarships. I just think that there are options that could provide much more than Brooks, maybe so much so, that it wouldve been worth waiting on Brooks and hoping those superior talents commit.
But I’m far from decided, and we wont know the answer until Brooks plays, because we will never hear whether these ‘other options’ that we dont end up signing, wouldve ever signed anyways.
I appreciate the takes from people, and I guess Ive now been convinced that getting another ball handler (Brooks) in the 2017 class we important enough to justify prioritizing that over a more talented 2018 recruit (trying to bring it back to the page’s topic).
I lump b and c into overall slot management and an overall lack of flexibility. Davis probably didn’t directly correlate to Langford though, that is fair. Ibi though was an immediate reaction to no-Battle and that seemed like settling based on his scouting report.
I hope he did learn. Pretty much everyone else had already learned, and given the constraints the program operates under (no character issues, strong academics, etc) we can’t afford to be the last to pick some of these basics up. Even if he is simply deferring more to Saddi and Donlon, it is a win.
I think DJ’s ceiling will keep him around for a 5th year even if he struggles this year. It is different situation than with Biefeldt and Donnal…If the lightbulb turns on inside DJ and he puts everything together he can be a top 15 or better player in the big ten his senior year. The same could not be said for Donnal and Biefeldt–although I think they are both solid players.
Plus, I wonder how much ofnot granting Donnal a 5 th year was a disciplinary consequence of him failing to take the actions asked of him by the coaches. His body did not seem to change at all and his physical measurable seemed stagnant for 3 years. Not the case with DJ-- he seems to be doing what is asked of him with obvious improvement–we just don’t know if it will translate into on the court success yet. I think it will.
DJ is the big unknown with this team. JB needs a break and have at least two from that class to work out MAAR being the other. But with DJ at the wing/4 if he progresses this would take some pressure off of Duncan and allow any youngsters time to marinate their games and not be thrust into any major role unless some unlikely 5* walks thru the door.
If DJ can play good defense and not turn the ball over I might be satisfied with that as progress. As of right now I don’t have a clue of what to expect from him. Hopefully JB knows.
My guess is we’ll know about Wilson by mid-January. If his role is minimized, the staff will likely re-classify him in short order.
Regardless, it hasn’t been Beilein’s MO to over-pledge without clearly laying out the scenarios to the scholarship athletes on roster. It’s not the mainstream operating procedure in D1 hoops, but it is the way he operates.
Until Beilein tells Wilson otherwise, Beilein will recruit as if he has 2 scholarships available for the class of 18 — especially since there do not appear to be any early entry NBA Draft candidates. If there was a Stauskas or LeVert who could test the draft waters early, Beilein may recruit with that potential attrition in mind, but it’s not in his makeup to recruit expecting Watson or Teske or Davis to transfer early.
I think it might be more that they only plan on having two slots right now, and they are planning on taking a SG and a PF (Johns). They might view Cohill as a point and don’t think they have a spot for him.
