I’ve noticed you have such an uncanny ability to project the entire career paths of athletes by watching their highlight tapes! You need to teach us how to do that!
(On a less sarcastic note, you didn’t address any of the points made by Champions or myself).
Fits right in here.
General comment: For me, I usually take highlight film with a grain of salt. Because most highlight tapes feature impressive plays–making a lot players appear better than they are. A red flag goes up, for me,when a “highlight reel” is devoid of spectacular plays and instead filled with normal/ everyday plays. I think it is entirely fair for a red flag to go up in that situation…
3 positions 3 deep.
True. I still think that we’d take another combo forward (like Johns), another 2/3 (Like Carmody and Ryan) and 3/4 (Hunter). I think a Beilein run offense has to have deep wings to go with the point guard, and I don’t know if we can say that right now. It really depends on how Ibi Watson is, which we have no idea about…
I agree, I like cohill. I think x should be good but I’m not positive how good he will be. I believe he has the mentality we need but let’s see if he can convert it to big time college ball. Have to admit he just gets things done.
I understand though if they think they’re set at point, I mean they did take points in back to back classes. I need to watch more of cohill but maybe he will blow up to the point where he’s good enough you have to take him regardless of position.
Would you say that both Hunter and Johns are combo forwards? Johns being more of a 3/4 and Hunter being a 4/3? I would say that Ryan is strictly a 2 (like a Stauskas, and I’m not saying he is Stauskas), while Carmody could more of a 2/3, like you said.
10/11:
DMo( pg)
Stu (pg/ sg)
11/12:
Trey (pg)
Stu (pg/sg)
Brundidge (pg)
Dmo (scheduled to be on roster but left for nba)
12/13:
Trey (pg)
spike (pg)
Stauskas (pg, sg)
Levert (not ready but had pg skills for future)
13/14:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
stauskas (pg,sg, sf)
Levert (pg, sg, sf)
Trey (scheduled to be on roster but left for NBA)
14/15:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
Levert (pg, sg, sf)
Maar (pg,sg)
15/16:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
Maar (pg, sg)
Levert (pg, sg, sf)
Irvin (pg, sg, sf)
16/17:
DW (pg)
X. (Pg)
Maar (pg, sg)
Irvin (pg, sg, sf)
IBi (?)
17/18:
X (pg)
MAAR (pg, sg)
Brooks (pg)
Ibi (?)
Poole (?)
Mathews (?)
I just tried to include everyone who was either obviously projected to be a pg or people who were capable of running the half court offense–in my mind running the offense =point guard. The year that we were really thin on point guards was 2010/2011. I wonder how secure we are with point guards in 2017/2018? Would it be crazy to argue that we are less secure in 2017/2018 than in any other year except 2010/2011? By “secure” I don’t mean to argue that I think x, MAAR, and Brooks in 17/18 will be better than sophomore Morris. I don’t at all, but if Morris would have gone down with injury we would have been screwed…
You cannot put people “scheduled to be there but left early” on this list. Otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten some of the future guys. Also, some of the wings that you put in there under PG are preposterous (Irvin? Watson? Matthews? Poole? I mean come on). Even ones that did develop to be able to lead the offense were NO way intended to when they were recruited. I also omitted MAAR. As Dylan said in his commitment post, “Abdur-Rahkman is an athletic wing guard that prefers to play with the ball.” Despite what some people here think, he was not recruited to play point guard and has not shown the ability to yet. Here’s an updated and more realistic look at how Beilein’s run his roster for nearly a decade with the weird non point guards and NBA players removed:
10/11:
DMo( pg)
Stu (sg/emergency pg)
11/12:
Trey (pg)
Brundidge (pg)
Stu (sg/emergency pg)
12/13:
Trey (pg)
spike (pg)
13/14:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
14/15:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
15/16:
DW (pg)
spike (pg)
16/17:
DW (pg)
X. (Pg)
17/18:
X (pg)
Brooks (pg)
like I said, I consider a point guard for Michigan to be someone who has the skills to be able to run our half court offense which is dominated by pick and roll. I also included people who either were projected to have the necessary skills but did not (brundidge); and those people who were projected to develop the necessary skills over time (Levert) but who were not immediately ready. senior Levert and Sophmore Stauskas were our functional point guards–I don’t think it is even debatable. It certainly appears that a healthy Irvin is slated to run out offense next year. He ran the pick and roll as much as Walton and was much more effective. I don’t expect Mathews, Poole or Watson to have the necessary skills but I am trying to be open minded. Hearing you suggest that those guys, in your mind, are not capable of running the offense (is that what you are saying?) seems to confirm my belief that searching for another person capable of running the offense is a very good idea. I don’t know, do you see Mathews, Poole or Watson as guys that have the skills to be functional point guards by my broader definition?
I do not remember when DMO declared and Trey committed. Wasn’t it after Trey committed? I also don’t remember when Trey declared and Walton and Stauskas committed–I think he declared after those commitments. The point is,the idea, which you seemed to put forth, that we have 2 pg’s on scholarship at a time, and no more, by design is highly debatable…
Can you please show me any reputable scouting report(s) that projected LeVert and Stauskas as being able to play point guard coming out of high school? What about Irvin, Watson, Poole, or Matthews? I mean come on, I will debate you if you really want, but using blatantly false information to try and further your argument is a bit absurd.
Neither do I. That argument is a complete red herring though. This is about how we should recruit position wise. Nobody, most likely including the coaches, recruited those two players to be functional point guards. They are completely irrelevant to a discussion about recruiting point guards.
Ehh, more like you’re trying to push your point with players who have an extremely low likelihood of running our offense. Try not to make it this obvious next time. I legitimately laughed at those 4.
Neither do I, and it really doesn’t matter. There’s one year where I’ll even come close to saying they recruited 3 PG’s to a roster, and one of them is Stu, who was playing out of position. That’s the outlier here.
I don’t get why either of those players matter. I’ve already debunked any mention of Stauskas or LeVert and Walton didn’t have a single year with Burke. If Burke wasn’t good enough to go pro then we wouldn’t have gotten Spike and we’d still only have Burke and Walton.
No, it’s really not. If Beilein wanted more than that then he would recruit that way. He’s been here 9 years and it’s been like this the entire time except for kinda/sorta 2011. Whether Beilein’s strategy is a good idea or not is debatable. Whether it’s actually his strategy or not isn’t.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Stauskas and Levert being our functional point guards did not happen accidentally. Levert played point guard throughout his high school career on competitive teams. That Levert had pg skills was what made him intriguing! JB, in interviews, prior to Stauskas setting foot on campus, went out of his way to say that Stauskas could get chances to play point guard. Those are facts you apparently missed.
I really think you are missing the point. I am saying that looking for another player with pg skills would fall in line with JB’s MO specifically because I don’t think Watson, Poole and Mathews have the unique skill set to be even good options to be emergency guys to run our offense.
As I already said…
Also,
So then why did you list them as point guards on your little positional breakdown a couple posts up? The only reason we’re even talking about them is because you put them there to try and falsify an argument. Completely switching up your opinion on them after being called out for it while trying to keep the same narrative is a bad look. Please just answer the two questions in this post without all the fluff. Hell, I’ll even take a lowly 3 scouting reports that said that they would be able to play PG and concede.
I suspect JB consulted his own scouting report of Stauskas when he went out of his way to publicly state,on multiple occasions, prior to arriving on campus, that Stauskas could play point guard for Michigan.
I mean, what do you think? Did you think Nik Stauskas “was more than just a shooter” and were you super excited when he decided to learn how to dribble the summer before his sophomore year of college? Lol.
I remember a lot of people talking about Levert’s game being similar to Jamal Crawford (and that was prior to him arriving on campus). It is astounding you missed these things but less astounding when I realize you are missing a lot.
I gave you my definition of point guard in the beginning. Read it. I really think you have a rigid definition of point guard, which is fine in general, but your definition is too narrow when applied to Michigan basketball. By your definition Levert Stauskas and Irvin are not point guards and yet they are/ were our primary functional point guards over the last few seasons and although it is debatable it sure appears to me that Irvin will be running the offense primarily next year. There is solid evidence to suggest I am right. Irvin and Walton’s usage was identical after Levert went down. Irvin was recovering from an injury and still outperformed Walton in the role.
You might notice, above, that I did not label everyone with “pg”. The question marks next to The names of IBI, Mathews and Poole are there in place of “pg” because although I believe they are the closest to having point guard skills (outside of x and brooks) but yet, imo, they seem to fall short of having the skills required to run our offense and I don’t expect them to attain those skills easily or at all. If I am correct, and you seem to agree with me about the status of their point guard skills, then it is a departure from the way JB has recruited in the past–in the sense that he likes to carry 4 or 5 guys with strong point guard skills. THerfore contrary to your statements, we shouldn’t be too surprised if JB offers another player with point guard skills (although I would expect them to be taller than x and Brooks).
Third time’s a charm?
And to respond to your other thing, if you don’t think they’re point guards then don’t put them on a list of point guards under Beilein. Even with question marks you still have guys listed there like MAAR and Irvin who are under no definition point guards.
I would hate to search the Internet and fail to find a scouting report saying Stauskas has point guard skills. why? Because i am afraid it would make JB feel stupid for publicly predicting “Stauskas could play point guard” and then actually being dumb enough to actually let him play point guard.
Levert’s main problem he was skinny. Everybody paying attention knew he had point guard skills mostly due to the fact that he spent a significant amount of time playing a basketball position called “point guard”.
Maar and Irvin are not ideal guys to run our offense in my opinion. JB is working with what he has the best he can. Again, it is for this reason that, contrary to your statements, I would not be surprised if JB offered someone with strong pg skills.
THE END
Now I don’t know if what you’re saying is even true (it’s amazing what a lack of evidence* does to an argument) but you’re talking about the guy who said Manny Harris could play point guard. Manny Harris. Same with Laval Lucas-Perry. He says what players want to hear. Stauskas wasn’t even given the opportunity to be the lead guard until after Walton showed he wasn’t going to be a major cog in the offense. It was never JB’s intent, even into his sophomore year, it was out of necessity. I have his actions, you have his (alleged with still no link) words. Isn’t there some saying about that?
And you’re right, MAAR and Irvin are not close to optimal in terms of running an offense, given that they have very few skills you want in an actual point guard, which makes it hilarious that you includes them on your list.
*The closest thing I found was an article in which Beilein said “Beilein likened Stauskas’ role to that of current Michigan senior Stu Douglass.” That’s not exactly my definition of a point guard and I wouldn’t want him running an offense out of anything other than necessity, which is what we had back then. Moreover, it’s clear what his primary position was when we recruited him, which is what, you know, actually matters here. If you think otherwise you’re just naive.
There was talk about Nik playing some PG prior to his freshman year. I talked to him that summer in Ann Arbor, and he told me that he was working on PG since we had no true PG back-up to Trey. Spike was an unknown quantity at the time.
bam!
What is this discussion about? Is it a critique because Coach Beilein isn’t offering Cohill since M just signed Simpson, and Brooks committed, so M doesn’t need a PG in '18? If so, I agree, and wish Coach Beilein would offer Cohill. I’m just not sure the situation is as simple as Cohill makes it, especially if M is still pursuing Eastern, who is almost certainly a PG first and foremost. I’m hesitant to make wholesale recruiting judgements based on snippets of second hand conversations. Too many unknowable’s for me. I have a hunch there are other more significant factors contributing to Coach Beilein not offering Cohill at this time.