I don’t see Wilson playing too much, period, at least if Doyle is healthy. I’d be surprised if he got more than 10 minutes a game, at 4 or 5. As I said, maybe he’ll do well enough to steal some minutes at the 4, but not counting on it. And I just don’t think Donnal has enough of a game to be more than a marginal player.
As far as Dawkins, yeah, he might be a nice boost off the bench, and it’s not out of the question that he’d start the season that way, but even if he did, I think that’d go like Stauskas coming off the bench as a freshman behind Vogrich…eventually the guy that’s playing best is going to start, and should.
I don't see Wilson playing too much, period, at least if Doyle is healthy. I'd be surprised if he got more than 10 minutes a game, at 4 or 5. As I said, maybe he'll do well enough to steal some minutes at the 4, but not counting on it. And I just don't think Donnal has enough of a game to be more than a marginal player.
As far as Dawkins, yeah, he might be a nice boost off the bench, and it’s not out of the question that he’d start the season that way, but even if he did, I think that’d go like Stauskas coming off the bench as a freshman behind Vogrich…eventually the guy that’s playing best is going to start, and should.
If you are saying the Wilson will not play much and Donnal does not have enough game, who do you think gets minutes as the backup 5?
I think Doyle gets 25-30 minutes as the main big, and Wilson, Donnal and Wagner compete for the other 10-15. Absent an injury to Doyle, I think it would be a surprise if any of those three gets more than 10 minutes. As I said, Wilson might do more than expected, but Donnal has had two years in the program and hasn’t impressed at all. Wagner is a question mark, but he has to be considered behind all three of those guys for PT at this point.
Pre season polls don’t interest me much. Too hard to project 25 teams, especially this early.
IMO, Irvin will not be the mainstay at the 4. It looks like Beilein is planning on going big. We will have 4 guys in the 6-9 or taller range (Doyle, Donnal, Wilson and Wagner) with 6-10 & 6-11 guys coming next year (not to mention Chatman 6-7 & Robinson 6-8). That is too many guys at your disposal to be playing 6-6 guys at the 4 other than in situational spots. Why recruit them if you are not going to use them?
I agree with your main argument, but one reason why we wouldn’t play a tall lineup (at least at first) is because those guys might be raw. Either freshmen, unproven, or little experience.
Again I agree with you, just trying to think of a reason why we would go small at first
With the roster as-is, i.e. no Brown or Williams, I think a reasonable expectation for the team would be a top 4 finish in the B1G (with Maryland, MSU, Wisconsin, OSU, and IU if Yogi returns in the mix) and 12-13 wins in conference.
As for non-conference, I see the key games as @ SMU, Xavier, a likely road ACC challenge game, and probably two tournament-level teams in Atlantis. Anything more than two losses would be disappointing here.
Hence, a season of that nature would probably get us a tournament seed around 3-4, so getting into the second weekend should be the goal, at minimum.
I think the top x-factors* for these expectations to be met (other than health) would be:
LeVert elevating his stock into lottery potential;
Irvin continuing his play down from the stretch even with LeVert sharing the floor; and
Chatman showing more flashes of “5 star” potential
*I didn’t include anything about the play of Doyle/Wilson/Donnal or whomever is manning the 5 since I don’t believe, even from a realistic best-case scenario POV, that they would become anything more than the fifth option on offense and moderately serviceable defensively.
The experience all those players got with DW and Carris out is huge. Irvin made HUGE strides!! Add Duncan Robinson to the mix and they are going to be really fun to watch.
And if Jaylen Brown comes…WOW# Can’t Wait
This team will not struggle any more than any other team. Take the UM team that finished last season really strong and add LeVert, Walton, Wilson, Robinson and Wagner. That is like adding a whole new starting five. Top four B1G, Sweet Sixteen minimum.
Top 4, S16 for the minimum is REALLY stretching it. I can see a plausible argument for top 4, but you are basically suggesting we’re an elite 8/Final 4 type team - seems a but ridiculous to me.
I think using the tournament as a point of reference when evaluating how good a team will be is very flawed. Was Villanova not a top 10 team this past year? Kentucky was the best team this past season, didn’t win. Was MSU one of the best 4 teams? We could very well have a great season and get knocked out of the first weekend of the tournament. Or we could have an underwhelming season and sneak into the tournament and have a deep run. Neither scenario would really indicate an accurate assessment of the quality of the team.
Maybe I’m just being nitpicky and I guess saying we’re a S16 team just means we’re in the top 16.
I think using the tournament as a point of reference when evaluating how good a team will be is very flawed. Was Villanova not a top 10 team this past year? Kentucky was the best team this past season, didn't win. Was MSU one of the best 4 teams? We could very well have a great season and get knocked out of the first weekend of the tournament. Or we could have an underwhelming season and sneak into the tournament and have a deep run. Neither scenario would really indicate an accurate assessment of the quality of the team.
Maybe I’m just being nitpicky and I guess saying we’re a S16 team just means we’re in the top 16.
I agree, but I mean, college basketball in general is a fluke. The only way you can truly identify which teams are beat is to have teams play a nearly identical schedule and then playoff series formats - basically NBA structure. On a practical basis that can’t work, so I believe the next best thing to evaluate on is the tourney, because presumably you are facing opposition that is relatively equal or better. I don’t think conference championships mean much because the pool is just too limited.
Top 4, S16 for the minimum is REALLY stretching it. I can see a plausible argument for top 4, but you are basically suggesting we're an elite 8/Final 4 type team - seems a but ridiculous to me.
Top 4, S16 for the minimum is REALLY stretching it. I can see a plausible argument for top 4, but you are basically suggesting we're an elite 8/Final 4 type team - seems a but ridiculous to me.
No, I said nothing about Elite 8 or Final Four.
Well, if the minimum, meaning worst case scenario is the S16…the obvious implication is we’re an Elite 8/Final 4 team in most scenarios.
I can see them being a 4 or 5 seed in the NCAA Tournament I am not sure where that falls in the B1G but I have always had an issue predicting a tournament run. A lot of that depends on the type of draw or possible upsets.
I can see us making a Sweet 16. Expecting anything beyond that is a tad optimistic IMO. What is unfortunate is that it is hard to see us being that good again in 2016 or 2017 without a massive influx of talent.
Here is how the NCAA tournament works; you can make the Sweet Sixteen and then lose and thereby not get to the Elite Eight. Or, if you win, you get to be an Elite Eight. So, if we are “at least” a Sweet Sixteen, it means that I think we will get that far. Maybe we will get further, but I didn’t say that we would.
Here is how the NCAA tournament works; you can make the Sweet Sixteen and then lose and thereby not get to the Elite Eight. Or, if you win, you get to be an Elite Eight. So, if we are "at least" a Sweet Sixteen, it means that I think we will get that far. Maybe we will get further, but I didn't say that we would.
Thanks for enlightening me. The fact still remains that you are of the opinion that we areS16 floor and F4 ceiling…which is extreme.
Fact is, you have no clue what I think the ceiling is. I think that we are at least a S16 team. Apparently, you don’t think we are a S16 team. That’s okay, maybe you are right. Time will tell.