Depth and future rotations


#162

Yeah, I’d guess they’d switch out on off-screens. I wonder if we go much zone at all this year to mask some of our lack of interior defense.


#163

They will play a matchup zone. Ward and Jackson aren’t running around through screens.

They’ll switch on every play where it benfits them.

Just a guess


#164

Simmons shot 24.4% last season, but 41% his junior season, averaged out to 34%. I think that he is a good shooter just a lot of desperate last second shot last season. his number should be in the high 30s this season as he will have much better support.


#165

Where are you getting 24%? Simmons shot 35% from three.


#166


#167

I know it goes both ways. I was only being half serious, though it would be more of an advantage if Duncan could indeed put it on the deck.


#168

apparently the number was wrong on 247


#169

Yeah, those numbers aren’t close. Only has 17 games from last year.


#170

I think what we need to realize is that it’s pretty quantifiable a fact at this point that Beilein - either in how he prioritizes recruiting, player development, or scheme (or all of these) - doesn’t care about defense as much as offense. The best defenses he’s produced have managed middle of the pack in the Big 10, the best offenses have been tops in the nation. This isn’t the NBA - the kids who can fill it up and defend like demons stay in the NCAA for a year, and go elsewhere. As a coach, Beilein needs to choose what skills to prioritize (surprise - it’s obviously shooting and passing) and coach to those strengths, and that’s what he does.

It should be blindingly obvious by now - whether you like it or not - that given the opportunity to play a floor spacing defensive liability at the four or a towering rim protector, he will choose the former literally every single time.

He will always choose to play Robinson at the four rather than move Wagner down to make room for Teske in the name of rim protection. Always.

This is not to say he “doesn’t care” about defense - but when our team has hummed, it’s been because we score at a rate nobody can match.


#171

Just reading through the thread I think a lot of you will be surprised by X this year. I could see him and Simmons playing a bunch together. X was completely different towards the end of the year. I was quite comfortable with him starting this year. He was missing badly on open threes and I honestly attribute that to nerves more than " he just can’t shoot." I think he’s going to be very good for us over the next three years. He showed the ability to get in the lane, vision , and was tough on breaks. I expect him to give us a nice 20 mpg.

We could be very good this year but I am nervous about the 4 and our lack of interior d/ toughness. Losing dj really burns. Irvin’s ability to scrap and steal minutes at the 4 will be missed too. I’m praying Mathews is game for those challenges. Upside is our perimeter d could be filthy with maar, Mathews, x ect. Not sure about Simmons d but the point is we have some guys who can defend.

The talents there to do big things. Simmons and maar could be a big time back court. Add in Mathews ( hope he accepts the jack of all trades/ hard hat mentality) Duncan and moe and the potential is big time. Just like I thought last year I could see the whole starting 5 averaging double digits or close too. Again I see our strength being balance. Anyone of them could kill you. Play like a team and keep the ball moving and this is a contender. Simmons sounds like a guy to orchestrate that. I’m pretty psyched. Very optimistic here.


#172

Just watched more video of Simmons and I’m convinced this team will be special. I’m expecting a huge year with Simmons running the show. He appears to be very gifted. Tons of tough pull ups, great vision, awesome p n r moments. Moe and him should be giving coaches heart attacks.

I’m convinced Mathews will be very good too. Simmons and him should be two of the best at their spots in the league. Add in moe/ maar and boy the league should be worried. Those four could all lead this team at different points. Duncan’s lights out shooting on top of it and I don’t see many starting fives with our talent/experience. I’m predicting another deep run, particularly if Mathews reaches his potential. Scary possibilities


#173

The claim I was responding to was that the 4 in modern basketball is a wing position. I offered counter examples to show the claim to be false. How many more do you want? And no, I don’t care what 347th ranked Bumblefuck State does with their lineup.


#174

More cherry-picking of stats. I invite you to look at the Big Ten stats for that year, when the lineup was well-settled. Burke and Hardaway were our two most frequent 3 point shooter, and both were at 40%, with Stauskas at 37%.

I’ll repeat, a Beilein team can succeed playing small ball, but not if its top 3-4 3 point shooters are at 35-36%.


#175

Big Ten starting fours:
Vince Edwards
Jae’Sean Tate
Khalil Iverson (?)
Justin Jackson
Jordan Murphy
Sanjay Lumpkin
Ahmad Wagner (?)
LeRon Black
Juwan Morgan
Lamar Stevens
Isaiah Roby (?)
Deshawn Freeman
Jaren Jackson (?)

MSU will be able to put an old school power forward out there (but they can and I think will still use Bridges at the four at times) and then guys like Jordan Murphy and Leron Black probably qualify, but there are a lot of 6-6ish wings on that list.


#176

So you want to just use Big Ten stats as evidence of how guys shoot. OK. Then MAAR is really a 49% shooter from 3, Duncan is a 45% shooter and Mo is a 40% shooter, because that’s what they shot in conference play last year. So we’re not going to have our “top 3-4 3 point shooters…at 35-36%.” Indeed, we never were going to have guys like Simmons (who actually shot 41% from 3 for the season 2 years ago), Simpson and Matthews be our TOP 3 point shooters, or even among our top 4 or 5 3 point shooters–the question is, and has been throughout this argument, whether they can play together if there are other guys on the court who can shoot from 3. You keep changing the bar. Please show me a Beilein team with 3 very good 3 point shooters (or more) which surrounded them with other guys who weren’t as good from distance and didn’t succeed because we didn’t have 4 or 5 3 point shooters on the floor at once. That’s the argument we’re having.


#177

What is your ultimate point you are trying to make? In Michigan’s offense, the 4 plays on the wing so JB is NEVER going to have an old school PF. It’s not even a talking point. He has had incredible success doing it his way too. So in order to have a taller 4, they must have perimeter skills. We will have that going forward with Livers, Johns and Iggy.

Further, almost every level of basketball has primarily gone away from the old school low post PF in favor of a 4 who can put the ball on the deck and shoot. Obviously there are going to be examples of them because not every team runs the exact same system. But a lot of the NBA is even going away from it.

So again, what is the point you are trying to get at for Michigan’s team?


#178

I was thinking same thing: “what’s the point?”. I might even agree with his seemingly innocuous point if I knew what it was.


#179

Wagner is not an “old school” power forward, and I have never implied otherwise. Not remotely. He can shoot from outside and put it on the deck and drive past people to the basket from out at the three point line. Contrast that to a Jordan Morgan, who was a true 5, and never did either of those things, or toTeske or Davis this year (who will also be true 5s). Wagner is a 4. That’s the point. As I’ve said before, anyone who says that Wagner is playing the same position as Morgan has such a broad and vague definition of a “5” that it’s useless.


#180

Where did I ever say anything about us needing to have 4-5 really good three point shooters on the floor at once? Nowhere. You’re the one moving the bar.

Show me a Beilein team that succeeded with the top 3-4 three point shooters being no better than 35-36%.


#181

What 4 specific schools out of 351 do seems completely irrelevant to the conversation of the trend towards smaller fours, but whatever floats your boat.

And like several have already pondered, what in the world is the point you’re even trying to make?