When all is said and done, I am pretty down with Beilein, and can live with neat, innovative teams that over-achieve under the circumstances. A certain kind of overwhelming success on the national stage is, to me, increasingly discredited–viz. the recent success of Duke and KY. (Right now, everyone is patting Coach K on the back because he embraces the dirt–I’ll maintain my moral compass, thank you.) As a proud alum of the UM, I don’t want to be them.
Here’s where I would like to be in terms of recruiting: a little farther along than we are, particularly in terms of someone who can rebound and possibly even score inside. I would have had no problem not bringing in a 5-star forward or center in 2013 or 14 if we would have somehow gotten someone who could’ve helped us out in those areas from day one.
I don’t think this program is ever going to be Kentucky or Duke, whether one looks at it from the POV of “morals” or from success and the ability to get anyone they want. However, there’s middle ground between us and Kentucky–I can’t speak for anyone else, but while I like our recruiting the last few years, particularly guards/wings, I don’t think it has gotten us personnel that bring us where we could be. So when I ask for slightly better recruiting, I’m not suggesting we be Duke, because that’s not in the cards for us.
It’s easy to read someone’s comments as suggesting some major shift or a completely different approach, but if that’s not what the person is explicitly stating, then it’s not.
My anxiety about Wagner is as follows: when I found out we’d offered him, I took that as a clear indicator that Donnal was on his way out. When Beilein said he wasn’t expecting attrition, that kind of bothered me. I’m aware that Doyle plays a straight-up post game, and I’m glad to have him (and hope his rebounding improves) but he’s an exception, not the rule. We keep bringing in non-physical, perimeter shooting bigs and pushing our schollies to the limit that way. I’m not saying that is an outrage or that it makes Beilein awful–I’m saying it’s less than ideal to me.
I don’t look at it as a binary operation, that one has to think of Beilein either as perfect or as terrible. I don’t reject his recruiting style of his coaching style, but because I don’t do that, I also don’t go to the opposite extreme. I like some things about him and don’t like others–that’s not so hard to me.
JBlair - Dawson was a McDonalds All American, five star recruit. Don’t confuse lack of development with lack of talent. Thompson was a top 50 guy - didn’t score a lot early because they had other, talented guys ahead of him (Thomas and Toss, for example).
The reason we lack seniors is that we have lately been a victim of our own success - when players can go pro, they do.
Now that we’ve started recruiting more four year types, you get fans like MattD complaining that we don’t get instant impact guys.
To me, the best mix is to have some good seniors and juniors, and sprinkle in a few elite guys. If we can land an elite 2016 guy, that’s how it will shape up. But obviously we need to make that happen.
MattD - I would think that a kid from Alabama likely reaches out to our staff, or lists us. It's possible we reached out to him first. But generally, I think we (and most schools) recruit from areas where we have contacts (Indiana, Columbus), in-state, friendly programs (St. Marks, for example), personal relationships, and then cast a wider net if necessary. I'd say Battle and Langford come from casting a wider net - no idea who contacted whom first.
If a 5 star recruit, that is originally from Michigan (therefore fitting your contact criteria), has the burden of reaching out to us…then that is a problem in my opinion. Also, I don’t think geography has anything to do with it in terms of initiating interest. Wilson, Chatman, THJ, Doyle, Colton Christian…are all from places not near.
JBlair - Dawson was a McDonalds All American, five star recruit. Don't confuse lack of development with lack of talent. Thompson was a top 50 guy - didn't score a lot early because they had other, talented guys ahead of him (Thomas and Toss, for example).
The reason we lack seniors is that we have lately been a victim of our own success - when players can go pro, they do.
Now that we’ve started recruiting more four year types, you get fans like MattD complaining that we don’t get instant impact guys.
To me, the best mix is to have some good seniors and juniors, and sprinkle in a few elite guys. If we can land an elite 2016 guy, that’s how it will shape up. But obviously we need to make that happen.
I didn’t just mean projects but seniors all around. I watched Dawson in high school. He was NEVER going to turn into a shooter. And that’s not what Izzo used him as. He stuck around 4 years because he’s not an NBA prospect.
Thompson was a Top 50 player. Yeah. What % of guys ranked outside the Top 25 leave after 2 years? Thompson was never thought of as an early exit guy. He’s a good college player. Not an NBA prospect and never was.
Your last statement is exactly what I said…so I suppose we agree.
Matt, we have covered this before - no one knew Brown had strong Michigan ties. Not JB, not Tom Izzo. And if Michigan was his dream school, or really high on his early list, he would have made that known. We have been tracking 2015 kids since 2013 if not earlier, and he reached out for the first time this past fall. During JB’s entire tenure, this is the only time I recall an elite recruit reaching out to us - meaning that this seems like a one time oversight, not some systematic problem.
Matt, we have covered this before - no one knew Brown had strong Michigan ties. Not JB, not Tom Izzo. And if Michigan was his dream school, or really high on his early list, he would have made that known. We have been tracking 2015 kids since 2013 if not earlier, and he reached out for the first time this past fall. During JB's entire tenure, this is the only time I recall an elite recruit reaching out to us - meaning that this seems like a one time oversight, not some systematic problem.
That’s essentially the point…what difference does it make concerning connections/geography. That’s just an excuse in my opinion. I listed several players that are located in excess of 1000 miles…your theory just doesn’t add up.
MattD - I would think that a kid from Alabama likely reaches out to our staff, or lists us. It’s possible we reached out to him first. But generally, I think we (and most schools) recruit from areas where we have contacts (Indiana, Columbus), in-state, friendly programs (St. Marks, for example), personal relationships, and then cast a wider net if necessary. I’d say Battle and Langford come from casting a wider net - no idea who contacted whom first.
I would love 1 instant impact difference maker every year. I'm of the opinion, though, that it will probably have to come from the Trey Burke way (very underrated) or the GRIII way (late bloomer that had already committed to U of M before he really blew up). In the end, it doesn't matter if the player is a top-5 recruit or the 80th ranked player as long as the impact is the same. The past couple of recruiting cycles have just really given me pause about our ability to win head-to-head battles against the Dukes, UKs, etc.
It’s funny to think about evolving expectations. When JB was first hired, I really thought we’d consistently recruit Novak and Douglas types while being an 8 or 9 seed every year with the occasional Sweet 16 run. And after the mess that was Michigan basketball for the better part of a decade, I was kind of OK with that. But then after the 2013 and 2014 seasons, I thought we’d start having our pick of top-30 talent and be a perennial top-3 seed in the tournament. I am now realizing that under JB, we’ll probably settle somewhere in between those situations–albeit closer to the 2nd one.
And that’s essentially my frustration in a nuthshell…our team ceiling under JB isn’t elite for the most part because of his recruiting.
I think the important point about that though is, is that a Beilein problem? Or a Michigan problem?
I would love 1 instant impact difference maker every year. I'm of the opinion, though, that it will probably have to come from the Trey Burke way (very underrated) or the GRIII way (late bloomer that had already committed to U of M before he really blew up). In the end, it doesn't matter if the player is a top-5 recruit or the 80th ranked player as long as the impact is the same. The past couple of recruiting cycles have just really given me pause about our ability to win head-to-head battles against the Dukes, UKs, etc.
It’s funny to think about evolving expectations. When JB was first hired, I really thought we’d consistently recruit Novak and Douglas types while being an 8 or 9 seed every year with the occasional Sweet 16 run. And after the mess that was Michigan basketball for the better part of a decade, I was kind of OK with that. But then after the 2013 and 2014 seasons, I thought we’d start having our pick of top-30 talent and be a perennial top-3 seed in the tournament. I am now realizing that under JB, we’ll probably settle somewhere in between those situations–albeit closer to the 2nd one.
And that’s essentially my frustration in a nuthshell…our team ceiling under JB isn’t elite for the most part because of his recruiting.
I think the important point about that though is, is that a Beilein problem? Or a Michigan problem?
Its a problem for both…who is responsible/at fault is subject to opinion. In my opinion, I think population shifts/economic issues play a role, but I also think JB’s personality looms large. Just my opinion
I would love 1 instant impact difference maker every year. I’m of the opinion, though, that it will probably have to come from the Trey Burke way (very underrated) or the GRIII way (late bloomer that had already committed to U of M before he really blew up). In the end, it doesn’t matter if the player is a top-5 recruit or the 80th ranked player as long as the impact is the same. The past couple of recruiting cycles have just really given me pause about our ability to win head-to-head battles against the Dukes, UKs, etc.
It’s funny to think about evolving expectations. When JB was first hired, I really thought we’d consistently recruit Novak and Douglas types while being an 8 or 9 seed every year with the occasional Sweet 16 run. And after the mess that was Michigan basketball for the better part of a decade, I was kind of OK with that. But then after the 2013 and 2014 seasons, I thought we’d start having our pick of top-30 talent and be a perennial top-3 seed in the tournament. I am now realizing that under JB, we’ll probably settle somewhere in between those situations–albeit closer to the 2nd one.
I would love 1 instant impact difference maker every year. I'm of the opinion, though, that it will probably have to come from the Trey Burke way (very underrated) or the GRIII way (late bloomer that had already committed to U of M before he really blew up). In the end, it doesn't matter if the player is a top-5 recruit or the 80th ranked player as long as the impact is the same. The past couple of recruiting cycles have just really given me pause about our ability to win head-to-head battles against the Dukes, UKs, etc.
It’s funny to think about evolving expectations. When JB was first hired, I really thought we’d consistently recruit Novak and Douglas types while being an 8 or 9 seed every year with the occasional Sweet 16 run. And after the mess that was Michigan basketball for the better part of a decade, I was kind of OK with that. But then after the 2013 and 2014 seasons, I thought we’d start having our pick of top-30 talent and be a perennial top-3 seed in the tournament. I am now realizing that under JB, we’ll probably settle somewhere in between those situations–albeit closer to the 2nd one.
And that’s essentially my frustration in a nuthshell…our team ceiling under JB isn’t elite for the most part because of his recruiting.
Im with you, I don’t think we need 3-4 difference makers per year, but I do think we need 1per year sprinkled in with 1-2 above average role players per year.
Matt - clearly, Langford (a 2016) must have given our coaches an indication he was interested, and he did so far sooner than Brown (a 2015). That, and teams like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky (until recently), UNC, and UCLA aren’t after him.
Matt - clearly, Langford (a 2016) must have given our coaches an indication he was interested, and he did so far sooner than Brown (a 2015). That, and teams like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky (until recently), UNC, and UCLA aren't after him.
So let me get this straight…the burden is on HS kids to indicate their interest? If that’s the case…then wow.
JBlair52, half the guys you list as “senior projects” were elite recruits - Dawson, Yogi, and Sam Thompson - those guys were not being recruited as four year players. Come on.
You get my point though. Where are our seniors?
But I’ll play…Dawson is 6’6" and has taken 9 three attempts his entire college career. He’s never been a shooter, just an incredible athlete. Doubt Izzo has been worried he’d leave early.
Thompson wasn’t an “elite” recruit, and only scored 2ppg as a freshman and 8ppg as a soph/junior.
Yogi - if you want ONE of those guys I listed, here, you can have this one.
I don’t think I’m really getting across what I’m trying to say.
You can be a great recruiter and a bad developer.
You can be a great developer and a bad recruiter. But if you are a bad recruiter it’s irrelevant because you will have no one to develop. I think the development the players have had under JB shows he is at least a more than adequate recruiter because he has had guys with the potential to be developed.
I don’t by any means think he is a great recruiter, I just think we undersell it a little here because of some high profile misses and just the general desire to get all the best players.
The problem with landing guys who are all “instant impact” players is that they leave after two years, and then you either have to find more “instant impact” guys to replace them, or you face some rebuilding years like this year where, if Caris and Derrick are healthy all year, we were probably an 8-9 seed type team.
We’re not going to land as many top 25 kids as Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and the like. Thus, we are probably better off building a team of guys who will stay 3-4 years, and then add a few elite talents to that mix if we can.
JBlair52, half the guys you list as “senior projects” were elite recruits - Dawson, Yogi, and Sam Thompson - those guys were not being recruited as four year players. Come on.
I don't think I'm really getting across what I'm trying to say.
You can be a great recruiter and a bad developer.
You can be a great developer and a bad recruiter. But if you are a bad recruiter it’s irrelevant because you will have no one to develop. I think the development the players have had under JB shows he is at least a more than adequate recruiter because he has had guys with the potential to be developed.
I don’t by any means think he is a great recruiter, I just think we undersell it a little here because of some high profile misses and just the general desire to get all the best players.
I agree that we get decent/above avearge players…but along with decent player, you most likely will have a team with a decent/above average ceiling. If you want an elite ceiling, I think you need elite players if that makes sense.
By the way, plenty of really good teams in college basketball - ND, Iowa State, Wisconsin, and Villanova to name a few - construct their teams this year. So did Izzo this year, albeit involuntarily.