Big Ten Discussion


#3168

Like McGarry, Moe, Teske and Castleton?


#3169

McGary is the only top 100 player of those. I’d have to guess @chazer meant high level recruits. McGary is more the exception than anything at this point.


#3170

We need to stop referring to rankings that aren’t Beilein’s.


#3171

I mean I think it’s a fair thing to point out. McGary is also the only true first year instant impact 5 of all of Beilein’s recruits. Luckily we haven’t been in a situation where that’s hurt us, but it certainly could’ve.

edit: Actually I would argue it did hurt us a lot with Doyle being pushed into action in 2015.


#3172

True but the cupboard was kind of bare at that point. I think our recent big recruiting has been a lot better, to the point that we have a bit of a pipeline going.


#3173

I guess I just don’t see how that’s necessarily contrary to Chazer’s question/point. He can acknowledge the success of the under-recruited guys like Morgan and Wagner while still wondering why we rarely even appear on the top X lists for top centers, although I do think the answer is relatively easy. Beilein prefers high skill players and most top 50 centers are raw athletes or Caleb Swanigans. I’m totally fine with the direction that Beilein has taken, even if it’ll spawn some Donnals.


#3174

It is a tricky situation with the big man recruiting. Most highly regarded bigs are traditional big men who want to play inside and get the ball in the post. That’s why they go to programs like MSU or Purdue who consistently feed the ball there. There’s a notion that being a lob guy or finisher is somehow limited.

Michigan doesn’t really prioritize those back to the basket types because they just aren’t a fit. There also just aren’t many guys like Moe Wagner out there who are truly skilled perimeter bigs.

I would love to see a Clint Capela type, more of a raw athlete and finisher, but Beilein generally isn’t drawn in that direction. Yaklich’s influence with Castleton is really intriguing to me there because Castleton might be a great blend of rim protection and a bit of skill and shooting.


#3175

Yeah, Castleton is one of the most intriguing guys that Beilein’s gotten IMO. He’s always liked bigs who can shoot, but I think Wagner really opened his eyes to how ridiculous the killer pop option makes the entire pick and roll game. I’d be surprised if Beilein didn’t try to have at least one guy like that at the roster at all times now.


#3176

I don’t think, at least now, you can compare Wagner’s pick and pop ability with Castleton’s. Castleton has some nice skill, but Wagner is truly unique in terms of how capable he was with the ball and off the drive for a big man. On the other hand, Castleton might be the best shot blocker that Beilein has recruited at Michigan.


#3177

Well, some recruits will develop as perfectly as you could hope and some will have holes, but I guess I mean “at least one guy with that potential on the roster” I don’t expect him to shoot 40% from deep, but the threat opens up everything.

Although I will say I do think Castleton will be able to drive at a level similar to Wagner, but my scouting sucks so IDK


#3178

They could potentially have the two best shot blockers JB has ever recruited as the big man rotation next year and I love it


#3179

Also weren’t Donnal and Smotrycz top 100 “big men” recruits LOL


#3180

Well, Castleton is top 80 on Rivals and everyone at the time said Mo was the equivalent of a top 40-50 guy.


#3181

It’s not just you, but I find the whole “use the composite every time except when it makes one of our recruits look worse” thing funny.

Responding to the point itself, Mo wasn’t heavily recruited at all so I don’t think that changes much of anything with regards to the original point. Same with Castleton for that matter. It’s not really about ratings, but rather who we beat out for them. That’s great that Castleton got a nice bump and is seen as top 100 player by a couple services. I expect him to be a great player. But I mean… when you’re down to Illinois and Michigan its obvious why you’d pick Michigan right now. It’s not similarly obvious to see why Mitch McGary is the only center we’ve gotten who’s even been sniffed at by blue bloods, or second tier teams even. When I said none of those guys were top 100 it was more a reference to the relative lack of competition compared to our guard/wing recruiting.

Again, it’s worked out fine so far so I have no issue with it.


#3182

Thanks Dylan…that sheds light on my point.


#3183

#3184

Well, as Dylan mentioned, big men want to get the ball in the post and get shots up from there. That’s not really what we do.

In the past, one thing that hurt us was an overall lack of size. We were playing guys like Novak, GR3, and Irvin at the four. That hurt us defensively and from a rebounding standpoint.

We seem to have solved that issue with guys like DJ Wilson, Livers, and Johns.

At center, hopefully we can continue to land guys like Mo, Castleton, and the like - big guys with some inside game, but who can also shoot.

But yeah, we’re probably never going to contend for the straight, back to the basket types. And that seems fine - it doesn’t fit our offense and we have had plenty of success doing it our own way.


#3185

I always thought that Michigan could (should) become Stretch Four University. U-M should be super attractive to skilled HS bigs that can play the 4 in college as well as skilled college bigs who project to be stretch fours in the NBA. Michigan does not need space eaters clogging driving lanes.


#3186

Three jumbo wing perimeter fours on the roster next year is very intriguing with another (Jalen Wilson) in the pipeline. Sign as many guys like that as you can and figure the rest out later.


#3187

Pretty much the only types of 4s that exist in the NBA are stretch 4s now. It’s the college game that is reluctant to move to that point. JJJ played 4 at MSU but should play his entire career in the NBA at C. Same with Bagley. Ayton also got stuck with another post player at times.