Super athlete is a bit extreme
I can’t get past the long sleeves in that bottom video.
Reminds me of Timmy when they were recruiting him. Tim had a little more lift on his jump shot, Frankie with better arm length. I would pursue him. Atheleticism is fine. Above average for B1G in my opinion.
Javon bess is above average, Hughes is average/slightly below in my opinion
Bess? Bess isn’t an athlete. He has a big frame and is skilled but he is below the rim.
Are you kidding me? Beds has almost no skill in terms of ballhandling or shooting. He is definitely above average in terms of verticality, FAR ahead of Hughes
We will have to disagree.
Its hard to compare players who could be 2 years apart in their development. Watching Frankie reminded me a lot of where Timmy was athletically at the same point in his development. He wasn’t near the athlete he was then as he is now. Javon is getting ready to step on the floor, and I also think that Javon is above average athletically. I just predict by the time Frankie is actually in the B1G he will be above average, not as of right now.
Tim was an above average leaper even in HS. When I originally posted this thread that was my initial comparison as well, but I don’t think Hughes is at the same level vertically in relation to THJ at the same time in their development. Skill set Is very similar though, which is what my comparison to him referenced in my initial post
If Hughes got to 6’6-6’7 he would be a really nice player
Fair enough. I don’t know if I am 100 percent correct on this scientifically speaking, but when guys have long arms more often than not I think you could make the assumption that they are still growing. This theory applies to Kam, Caris and even Zak a little bit. That is more the reason I like length even though many people think it is useless. Also gives a little higher release point on jump shots.
Anyways, like this kids game. The intensity on defence quote I also like.
Jumping high isn’t that useful…
Oh wait wrong thread…
We don’t have “issues” in our recruiting. JB is clearly spreading a very wide net and taking care of those who have been good to him and if Frankie develops into so
Somthing worth offering, we will.
In '15
Walton, MAAR (All B1G combo G), Dawkins, Chatman will be able to “create” offense on their own or with high screens, while Irvin will still be around, IMO, to shoot, along with DRobinson.
(And btw, Dozier and Murray are still real possibilities here)
In '16, yes Thorton/Winston are essential. We have offers out to Battle & Langford, both being exactly what your wanting I would assume. Despite what some think, reported as recently as Thursday, we are still in enviable position with both… Same with Leaf.
'16 is our reloading year. Need it to be big, but we might want to stop freaking out about our coaches showing interest in a kid. We don’t have a recruiting issue.
The staff puts together championship caliber, nationally relevant teams. A little better then some of us could do.
Man, the passive aggressive insults around here are rather childish. Can’t speak for others, but at the very least I’ll speak directly to an individual if I disagree with their take on things. Not even worth the time…
It comes with the territory when you take the “expert” role in any discipline or subject matter.
It comes with the territory when you take the "expert" role in any discipline or subject matter.
But the problem is that the so called “expert” only gets backlash when the assessment projects that a given player isn’t all that good, or has limitations to the extent that the “expert” thinks the staff could’ve possibly made a mistake.
On the other hand, if the “expert” projects the given recruit to be a player with good attributes or a good fit, literally NO backlash at all.
The only time I’ve ever received the backlash/“expert” treatment is over Wilson and Robinson (which is funny because I was actually OK with his offer prior to dropping out of the Coleman recruitment). But it’s funny, I never received any scrutiny for being an “expert” when my projections and evals were favorable, with players such as Doyle, Teske, Cook, Donnal, MAAR, Chatman. I challenge anyone to cite examples where I received backlash over my favorable evals and absolute statements on Teske, Doyle, Cook, etc.
I literally take hours at a time and provide film and analyze the same on numerous occasions in an effort to give the board an honest assessment in what I see from a given recruit. The thing that makes me frustrated is that when I have a favorable projection for a player there isn’t an individual around that takes issue, but when the projection is what some consider to be unfavorable, all hell breaks loose.
What I’ve learned is that it’s not really the “expert” role or “absolute statements” that anyone has an issue with, because in reality the expert role and absolute statements are well received provided it’s in accord with with the decisions/recruiting of JB/staff. Some people simply don’t want the staff to be questioned, as evidenced by the selective criticism of my “expert” attempts to evaluate certain recruits.
If we can’t question and/or support the staff and have debates over things of this nature, then really, what’s the point of having a board?
I think some people are “fans” in a traditional sense, meaning they cheer the team 100%, which is great and expected. But those fans are just that, fans, meaning they tend to rubber stamp any and everything the team does.
However, there does exist a population of those that are fans and “critics” at the same time. Those people cheer 100% during games and are just as passionate as anyone else ( personally speaking I’ve invested too much emotion and $ on UM basketball games and trips for my significant other’s liking), but the critic side of that fan tries to be honest in their opinions of what direction the team is headed in terms of recruiting, schematics, etc. At times, the direction of the team may not be what the critic considers to be good, while at others times the direction may be great. Either way, the critic tries to be honest about it to the extent his fan side will allow.
I think a good portion of people here take the “wait and see” approach - meaning don’t criticize a recruit or the staff until it doesn’t work out - in other words give them the benefit of the doubt, which is in accord with a “fan” in my opinion.
There is also a good portion of people here that take a more “proactive” approach - meaning let’s evaluate the staff on recruiting/scheme when such decisions are made and prior to the on court results and independent of the past. In other words, no benefit of the doubt but no presumption against.
What’s wrong with both type of models co-existing?
In general, I think everyone should stop baiting eachother and should not feel the need to argue their side of things on points probably neither side is going to agree upon. Getting rid of the stubbornness and the need to prove one wrong is what is taking away from the upbeat, positive discussion - not saying that everything about michigan basketball program should or has to be positive, just that the way one responds to another’s opinion should be positive. Basically, more civil, less aggressive responses to eachother would make this a better board, without all of the bickering back and forth, and some of these topics wouldn’t be closed before they have to be. Were all on the same side here folks!
Well put NB, and I can certainly be mature enough to acknowledge I’ve been guilty of this.
I agree with both of you. I think when you get into the subject matter of certain topics it drives the harsh feedback. Most of the discussion is on projecting where a player will be vs. who he is today. That player progression is subject to interpretation, luck, work ethic, attitude, injury, maturity…the list goes on I’m sure.
I’m under the assumption that most of us are not just fans but played the game at some level not just watch videos of kids or games on the tube. When you spend 10-20 years playing/coaching a sport you love, some of us wince when things are mentioned like “vertical jump doesn’t matter” or that one can’t improve your handle. It’s all relative and these kids are elite so perspective is sometimes skewed.
I can’t wait for the season to start so we can talk about the game and evaluation of the team. The recruiting talk is what it is…just talk.
Exactly, recruiting talk is just talk and/or speculation because nobody, including the staff, or us here on the board, can speak with certainty as to how a player will shake out.
That being said, if it is all just speculation, I think we should all be more tolerant of the viewpoints of others.
For me personally - I would definitely appreciate if my quotes were given full context rather than selective use (Chazer - that’s aimed at you with the verticality quote - not in an adverse tone, but just an example) So the wince is really a misperception in some cases as opposed to what is truly being conveyed. It is very relative, for instance, I wince when someone claims Robinson is an average athlete tha only needs strength, or that Wilson is a good rebounder. That’s just my take, doesn’t mean either of us are right or wrong, just my 2 cent
Agreed MD, I think its all relative to each person’s experience and interpretation. Topics easily get taken out of context or the meaning ignored completely. Most of the discussion is futuristic and difficult to validate for 2-3 years. If I took your verticality statement out of context I apologize.
I personally would like to see the top 150 kids tracked until they are out of hoops or enter the NBA. The analysis would at least let us measure our own speculation for recruits. Maybe Dylan could come up with a table or chart to help us measure where and what happens to these kids.
I appreciate your perspective and understand your take…I am usually an optimist and favor results over speculation.