I’m not too concerned about it. I’ve never bought into this program being “live or die by the three” and especially not with the roster we have now. Play elite defense, take care of the ball offensively, and be able to create shots off ball screens and the rest will fall into place fine. Good shooting could raise the ceiling of this team but Elite defense and not turning the ball over should keep our floor high enough to ease concerns.
You said exactly the opposite:
“However, for this team to reach its potential, IGGY is going to have to adjust quicker”. Not Poole, not Livers, not Brooks, not Teske. A guy who has never played a real game for us is the one that everything is apparently resting on this year.
Weird to put something in quotes that I didn’t say.
For the substance of the argument: having a PG not take a single jumper in this offense suggests he is avoiding it. I’ll assume that means he is no more confident in his shot.
The weaknesses pointed out in Ignas’ game seem pretty self evident. Does that mean he will be ineffective? No. Does it mean he can’t improve? No. I’m not as sold on the idea of so much leaning on him - I think we need him to be a third scorer this year, not an alpha.
It will be interesting to see the team three point t rate throughout the year, I will watch that.
Brooks, Livers and Teske have limited ceilings offensively, so their adjustments to improve are not the difference between good and great. Poole falls into Iggy’s class, and I have said that his willingness to play defense and to be a facilitator are, as is the case with Iggy’s improvement, keys to this team–the difference is that Poole, as a sophomore, has had more time that Iggy to make the adjustments he needs to make. Having your most talented players playing at their peak is generally a key to reaching a team’s peak level. Iggy and Poole are our most talented players. This is 180 degrees from a slam at Iggy–it’s a recognition of the fact that he is very good and necessary now, and that he can be great if he gets better at the things enumerated, and we can be really, really good if he does. And it’s NOT an attempt to place blame on him if he, like most freshmen, doesn’t reach that level–it’s simply a recognition of the questions surrounding this team.
The primary Brazdeikis critic claims that his success prior to coming to Michigan was due to his size. That he simply bullied smaller players and that his tactics won’t work at the college level. If you agree with that criticism then you can’t also argue that Brazdeikis is a major talent. Of course I don’t agree with that claim. I’m pretty sure he’s played against plenty of people his size and larger. If you support Chezaroo’s Brazdeikis theories you can’t have it both ways. He either bullied little kids in high school and has marginal talent at the B1G level, or the truth is something other. Are we talking about Brazdeikis or Austin Davis?
Nobody–not Chezaroo or anyone else–has claimed that Iggy “bullied little kids in high school and has marginal talent at the BIG level.” That would be nobody. Iggy was excellent on the eybl circuit against top level competition. He stood out in post-season All-Star games. Everyone wanted him at Michigan, and believes he will be a very good player here. Period.
There is a difference between saying that a player can improve certain aspects of his game, and will need to do so to reach his peak level, and saying that “his success prior to coming to Michigan was due to his size.”
If people want to argue it would be helpful to actually accurately quote what they say instead of re-wording what they write.
There is a term for that.
What are some timeslots from the game where you saw him not take a clearly open look? The only reasonable rationale behind making a hot take about his confidence seems to be numerous occasions of this occurring.
Iggy was the 3rd highest scorer in the EYBL circuit last year playing against plenty of good sized players. Whoever uses that criticism isn’t being very fair IMO.
I guess Simpson should start forcing threes even if he’s not open so we can conclude he is more confident in his shot.
I’m having a hard time catching up on why everyone in this thread is so upset?
Pointing out that a true freshman in his first exhibition game probably needs to develop counters doesn’t seem to be very controversial. Pointing out that it is really important that he does because he can greatly elevate Michigan’s ceiling doesn’t seem to be controversial.
As far as X, he did all of his scoring at the rim on Friday and hasn’t shown us anything to think that he will be a better perimeter shooter. Maybe he’s saving it for live action.
As I stated on another thread this board is getting touchy leading up to the start of season.
We should all be excited! There is real basketball on Tuesday night.
You’re free to disagree with a perfectly rational opinion - that a players who has yet to demonstrate the ability to shoot well still cannot shoot well - without terming it a “hot take”. Not everyone who you disagree with is stupid or irrational. It would help to remember that.
Like Wolverheel suggested, you can’t infer anything about a player’s lack of confidence, as a shooter, from an outsiders perspective, unless there are instances of that player passing up on open looks or showing hesitation. I am not necessarily even disagreeing with your opinion that Z lacks confidence in his shot. Rather, for me it is more just curiosity if Z in fact did pass up open looks. I honestly don’t remember Z passing up on open looks but I may have missed it…
With a point guard, I think it is more than X is never really looking for his shot rather whether he’s passing them up. He isn’t going to get a lot of catch and shoot looks because he has the ball in his hands so often, but he also never tries to create his own look.
We saw both last year at times… where he would actually end up with an open catch and shoot look and not take it. I don’t remember that happening on Friday, but that is more a product of the game probably.
I don’t think it’s ideal for X to take low efficiency shots or 3 point shots. Not his strong points. He should be looking to be a playmaker first, get to the rim, run the break, and play his usual tenacious D.
I wouldn’t trade X for any PG in the conference. Having said that, I don’t want him taking 15 foot jump shots with any regularity.
I don’t spend anytime focusing on what a player can’t do and lamenting short comings; not sure what it accomplishes. I focus on what players can do and appreciate when they add new wrinkles to their game.
I don’t think anyone here is trying to lament anyone’s shortcomings, but it is a reasonable observation to watch the exhibition game and point out that X didn’t show anything to say that he’s added the new wrinkle of jump shooting to his game.
Yeah, I guess a lot hinges on our definition of “confidence” as well how we think Z ought to play. Too much confidence can be just as bad as too little confidence. I want Z to have a firm grip on the reality of his shot but also not be afraid to shoot when he needs to shoot. Z seems very grounded and reality and never seems scared, so I am not too worried about it…