I like Wilson's video (and calling out MattD just a little bit)

Recruiting
41
I don't even know how to respond to Matt D. He see's his side and nothing else. Matt, I have tried to explain all I can. For you to not make connections at this point is nuts.

The video shows his offensive skillet. That’s what has high upside in some (most “experts”) opinions, including our staffs. To comment on decision making and defensive abilities in ludicrous to me. Sorry bud… Your looking way too deep into a highlight package. In top of that, you seem to not agree with what the philosophy of Michigan basketball.

But to each his own. I can picture you in the stands…

Say what you want, doesn’t matter if you necessarily agree, but what I say is logical, and I’m willing to give examples that exhibit correlation to my analysis. However, you, and most other people keep stressing offense without analyzing his defensive/athletic abilities. That is simply baffling to me. How the hell are you going to isolate one variable of a player’s skill set and neglect the others… Pardon me, but that just seems plain idiotic.

You say the “video shows his offensive skill set” - according to who, you? What makes your opinion/analysis better than my own. Are we not allowed to disagree? Is it mandatory that we like all the skills of all recruits that may have interest in Michigan, or that the coaching staff has interest in?

You claim I’m looking way too deep into a highlight package, and my response is, you’re not looking deep enough. You say trust the staff, but I trust my own eyes.

Above and beyond all, is the flat out hypocrisy that is driving me nuts. You say I’m looking way too deep into the highlight tape, which would seemingly indicate that we need not examine film in depth to evaluate a player properly. That being said if we don’t have to examine the film in depth, then how are you, or anybody else on the board for that matter, able to formulate an opinion that you feel is superior to my own.

Let’s talk with logic folks, not emotion, and let’s also think independently of the coaching staff. I can respect anyone that flat out states, I don’t know much about the kid, but if the staff likes him than I agree with the staff regardless of what my eyes see.

42
We get it dude. You are not happy with offering Wilson. Fact is - we need another frontcourt player & there are not many left that we can get that are better than him. So "if" we can get him...lets make best out of it. Some think he would be great. Also - everyone thinks its a given that he would come here. He still has offers from other nice schools including Gonzage...so I think we might be jumping to conclusions a bit.

This - I respect this post. You are basically conceding the fact that Wilson may not have been ideal, but we need someone to fill that spot. Honesty necessitates respect in my opinion, it is objective and truthful analysis.

43

I agree with MattD - we can all have our own opinions.
I don’t agree with MattD on any of this. I agree with Wolverine3.

44
I agree with MattD - we can all have our own opinions. I don't agree with MattD on any of this. I agree with Wolverine3.

Fair,objective, and honest, this is all that I ask. Thank you, sir.

45

"To kind of bring this all together, my general point is that you have less upward mobility for athleticism as opposed to skill. To a certain extent you are born with athleticism, but you can develop skill, which explains why coaches at all levels place such a premium on athleticism, and you hear common phrases such as “shooters are a dime a dozen”. "

There are no rules that apply here re: skill upside and physical upside. It depends on the player. The coaches worked like hell with Manny Harris and Darius Morris to improve their 3 point shooting. Manny shot 31.8% as a freshman and 30.8% as a junior. Darius shot 25% on threes before he left. Wilson WILL get stronger, but Jaylen Johnson may never improve his shooting much, which might be fine by Pitino who does not play a stretch 4 the way Beilein does. For what we do, I’d take Wilson over Johnson, which is basically what Beilein did.

You can throw a hundred comparisons out there and I can counter with a hundred of my own, but they don’t tell me much about Wilson. His natural ability and growth will dictate how good he CAN become; and his work ethic will determine how good he WILL become.

46
"To kind of bring this all together, my general point is that you have less upward mobility for athleticism as opposed to skill. To a certain extent you are born with athleticism, but you can develop skill, which explains why coaches at all levels place such a premium on athleticism, and you hear common phrases such as "shooters are a dime a dozen". "

There are no rules that apply here re: skill upside and physical upside. It depends on the player. The coaches worked like hell with Manny Harris and Darius Morris to improve their 3 point shooting. Manny shot 31.8% as a freshman and 30.8% as a junior. Darius shot 25% on threes before he left. Wilson WILL get stronger, but Jaylen Johnson may never improve his shooting much, which might be fine by Pitino who does not play a stretch 4 the way Beilein does. For what we do, I’d take Wilson over Johnson, which is basically what Beilein did.

You can throw a hundred comparisons out there and I can counter with a hundred of my own, but they don’t tell me much about Wilson. His natural ability and growth will dictate how good he CAN become; and his work ethic will determine how good he WILL become.

Your selective analysis regarding players inability to improve skills is totally off to be honest. My analysis in general states that players have more upward mobility in terms of skills, it DOES NOT dictate that x player WILL improve.

Alternatively, it is almost humanly impossible to improve a vertical from 28 to 38 inches regardless of repetition or training.

So yes, with skill it does depend on the player, but with athleticism it does not - you can only improve so much, you are born with a certain amount of athleticism, and are limited as to how much you can improve. With skills, the upward mobility allows a player to improve with almost no limits.

47
"To kind of bring this all together, my general point is that you have less upward mobility for athleticism as opposed to skill. To a certain extent you are born with athleticism, but you can develop skill, which explains why coaches at all levels place such a premium on athleticism, and you hear common phrases such as "shooters are a dime a dozen". "

There are no rules that apply here re: skill upside and physical upside. It depends on the player. The coaches worked like hell with Manny Harris and Darius Morris to improve their 3 point shooting. Manny shot 31.8% as a freshman and 30.8% as a junior. Darius shot 25% on threes before he left. Wilson WILL get stronger, but Jaylen Johnson may never improve his shooting much, which might be fine by Pitino who does not play a stretch 4 the way Beilein does. For what we do, I’d take Wilson over Johnson, which is basically what Beilein did.

You can throw a hundred comparisons out there and I can counter with a hundred of my own, but they don’t tell me much about Wilson. His natural ability and growth will dictate how good he CAN become; and his work ethic will determine how good he WILL become.

Your selective analysis regarding players inability to improve skills is totally off to be honest. My analysis in general states that players have more upward mobility in terms of skills, it DOES NOT dictate that x player WILL improve.

Alternatively, it is almost humanly impossible to improve a vertical from 28 to 38 inches regardless of repetition or training.

So yes, with skill it does depend on the player, but with athleticism it does not - you can only improve so much, you are born with a certain amount of athleticism, and are limited as to how much you can improve. With skills, the upward mobility allows a player to improve with almost no limits.

Generalities don’t mean a lot to me, but, just as it would not be possible to increase a vertical by 10 inches, i.e. make an average athlete into a great athlete, it is rare that you can make an average shooter into a great shooter or an average ball handler into a great ball handler. Looking at Wilson specifically, he has no trouble getting well above the rim, he can run the court, shoot, handle and is smart. He can, with work, improve his skill level and his strength and athleticism, but, at 6’9" with better than a 7’ wing span, he doesn’t need a 38" vertical. As for me being selective, I’m merely giving examples to show exceptions to your generalities. You’ve been citing examples to support your point. What’s the difference?

48

Here is the difference - you offered specific examples of players/skillsets that were not improved as an assertion that skills may not necessarily improve depending on the player. However, you failed to address the athleticism argument. In other words, you could not offer specific examples that would tend to support an argument that athleticism CAN be greatly improved.

Bottom line is this, coaching/repetition can improve a player’s skill quite significantly, but athletic ability in terms of speed, lateral movement, vertical CAN’T be improved by a wide margin regardless of coaching/conditioning/repetition. What it comes down to is this, in terms of athletic ability, what you see on film in high school is not far from what you will get, with strength being the only exception. However, with skills, a player can improve leaps and bounds relative to high school. That being said, athleticism is a much more desired attribute at all levels of basketball because it can’t be taught or obtained, whereas skill can be with coaching and repetition.

49

I’m not going to blame you for having your own opinion. I felt the same way about Reggie Cameron last year. The only difference is that the coaches agreed with me in the end because I’m the man. Try to be more like me Matt. :slight_smile:

50
I'm not going to blame you for having your own opinion. I felt the same way about Reggie Cameron last year. The only difference is that the coaches agreed with me in the end because I'm the man. Try to be more like me Matt. :)

Thanks sven, I think a bit of humor was probably needed in this thread.

Basketball aside, everything I’ve read regarding Wilson indicates he is an excellent student and a young man with great character. As a Michigan alum, I can say I’m proud to have him part of the program, he will represent the university/program well.

51

MattD - please give it a rest. Nobody is going to proclaim a winner and loser on this argument at this juncture. Time will tell if you were off-base or not. You seem to be overly pre-occupied with arguing with anyone that dares to disagree with you.

52
MattD - please give it a rest. Nobody is going to proclaim a winner and loser on this argument at this juncture. Time will tell if you were off-base or not. You seem to be overly pre-occupied with arguing with anyone that dares to disagree with you.

Was that not what I was doing above? Not pre-occupied with views that are contrary to my own, it is the lack of objectivity and logic which frustrate me. In any event, if your goal is to calm the situation, why throw out accusations concerning pre-occupation. Doesn’t make much sense, not very diplomatic in my opinion.

53
I'll be honest that I hadn't paid much attention to Wilson's video because I thought we'd get Grantham and might not even offer Wilson. But I checked it out this morning and was pleasantly surprised. He can really put in on the floor for a big guy, is a good and willing passer, and has a great looking shot. I can see some of the worries about a lack of elite athleticism, which I agree will be more of a factor on the defensive side. However, I like that he appears interested in mixing it up and tries to be a presence inside on both ends of the court. Length and effort can go a long way on defense. I would be pretty happy if he commits and I think he'd be a great player to have in the program the next few years.

Also, I’m hesitant to do this, but while watching the Wilson video I happened to notice the following comment from MattD (who has been has been downplaying Wilson this morning):
"First off, if that guy is not a top 100 player then recruiting analysts simply have it wrong. I have to assume the ranking (or lack of) is simply a product of non-exposure due to injury. Wilson can definitely shoot the rock, even when he misses the shot is on line. Passing ability was well above average for a player that size much like grantham. Can handle the ball with either hand, he even looks to prefer going left. That being said, i prefer grantham as a combo forward. No doubt Wilson can play the 4 on offense but i’m skeptical about his ability to defend either the 3 or the 4 at the college level. "

MattD, it’s okay to be disappointed about Grantham, and I included that last bit because I think you’re viewing this as a Wilson from Grantham letdown. However, your comments this morning seem more based off disappointment than your more objective analysis.

First off, thanks for the acknowledgement, I appreciate your disagreement in an objective manner.

To address your post - my opinion on Wilson is not based on comparison to Grantham, it is a valid concern regardless of who we have in the mix. I think Wilson is a top 100 player, but his problems on defense are too big a concern to warrant a scholarship in my opinion. Keep in mind, we’re not talking about a lack of elite athleticism, we’re talking about what appears to be a below average athlete at the high school level. Taking on a player like Wilson creates the modern day problem of not having 2 way players. Different level of basketball, but the Lakers are a great example - very good offense, but the inability to defend based on a lack of lateral quickness(which is exactly what Wilson lacks in a bad way) is what basically prevented them from winning a championship.

I even think Wilson is limited offensively, he can certainly handle the ball for a player that size, and I don’t think anyone questions his ability to shoot, however Wilson doesn’t have a post game, and doesn’t exhibit an inclination to go to the rim with authority. What you have left is a one trick pony that is relegated to a Smot like role of shooting open 3’s and being a detriment to the team in every way if his shot is not falling.

Wow, a below average athlete at the High School Level who doesnt warrant a Scholarship!!! Laughable. So we have recruited and excepted offers from too many players since Beileins arrival huh? Stu Douglass, Novak, Morgan, Horford, Bielfeldt, Donnal, Stauskas, Darius Morris, Albrecht, Vogrich, McLimans, Brundidge. You get the picture I hope, Because from the film I’ve watched, I think DJ Wilson is more athletic than anyone I just listed. What film are you watching??? Hell Morgan has become one of the better defensive players in the Big Ten. i dont remeber him being more athletic than DJ Wilson at the same stage. I see a Grant Hill/Scottie Pippen type player down the line with Strength and Training. But, everyones entitled to their own opinion, only time will tell.

54
To put the above post in context, let's examine current Michigan players as primary examples. GRIII is generally considered to be a lottery/mid first round pick by all NBA draft boards. Stauskus isn't on anybody's 1st round mock boards, perhaps he is a 2nd rounder on some boards ( I really can't confirm without further research). GRIII is not considered a finished product, but gets the lofty mock position because of "upside".

Comparing those 2 players, Stauskus literally does everything better from an offensive skill perspective - he has better handles, better court vision, and definitely shoots the ball better. Neither of those individuals are world class defensive players, I’m sure we’d all agree about that. They are roughly the same height/length, so we have to ask why is GRIII so desired by the NBA while Stauskus is not? Very simple, GRIII is an all world athlete that has an NBA physique right now.

Bottom line is that “upside” in the traditional sense means that a player has the requisite athleticism as opposed to skill/length. I’d be shocked if DJ Wilson was on anybody’s mock board because of his “upside” in the next few years.

Stop it. Youre entitled to your opinion though. But, for you to say Stauskas has better handles and better court Vision and does everything better from an offensive skill perspective?? Well, I beg to differ and it is of my Opinion that, the only things Stauskas does better than GRIII, is shooting from behind the 3pt line and at the Free Throw line. What about shots inside the Arc?? What handles and what court vision did Stauskas display last season?? GRIII ast/to margin was the 3rd highest of any player who played meaningful minutes (at least double digits) last year. Or are you just basing this off your personal opinion??

55

Stauskas got to the rim quite a bit last season. The dribble drive was often there for him when he wanted it. GR3 struggled a bit handling the ball on the perimeter despite being guarded by bigger slower players. Nik clearly had the better handles.

56
To put the above post in context, let's examine current Michigan players as primary examples. GRIII is generally considered to be a lottery/mid first round pick by all NBA draft boards. Stauskus isn't on anybody's 1st round mock boards, perhaps he is a 2nd rounder on some boards ( I really can't confirm without further research). GRIII is not considered a finished product, but gets the lofty mock position because of "upside".

Comparing those 2 players, Stauskus literally does everything better from an offensive skill perspective - he has better handles, better court vision, and definitely shoots the ball better. Neither of those individuals are world class defensive players, I’m sure we’d all agree about that. They are roughly the same height/length, so we have to ask why is GRIII so desired by the NBA while Stauskus is not? Very simple, GRIII is an all world athlete that has an NBA physique right now.

Bottom line is that “upside” in the traditional sense means that a player has the requisite athleticism as opposed to skill/length. I’d be shocked if DJ Wilson was on anybody’s mock board because of his “upside” in the next few years.

Stop it. Youre entitled to your opinion though. But, for you to say Stauskas has better handles and better court Vision and does everything better from an offensive skill perspective?? Well, I beg to differ and it is of my Opinion that, the only things Stauskas does better than GRIII, is shooting from behind the 3pt line and at the Free Throw line. What about shots inside the Arc?? What handles and what court vision did Stauskas display last season?? GRIII ast/to margin was the 3rd highest of any player who played meaningful minutes (at least double digits) last year. Or are you just basing this off your personal opinion??

Quite frankly there is no need for me to respond to this post, you have absolutely no clue about basketball if you think GR3 has any singular skill that is superior relevant to stauskas, its not even worth debating - it’s really that mindboggling

57
To put the above post in context, let's examine current Michigan players as primary examples. GRIII is generally considered to be a lottery/mid first round pick by all NBA draft boards. Stauskus isn't on anybody's 1st round mock boards, perhaps he is a 2nd rounder on some boards ( I really can't confirm without further research). GRIII is not considered a finished product, but gets the lofty mock position because of "upside".

Comparing those 2 players, Stauskus literally does everything better from an offensive skill perspective - he has better handles, better court vision, and definitely shoots the ball better. Neither of those individuals are world class defensive players, I’m sure we’d all agree about that. They are roughly the same height/length, so we have to ask why is GRIII so desired by the NBA while Stauskus is not? Very simple, GRIII is an all world athlete that has an NBA physique right now.

Bottom line is that “upside” in the traditional sense means that a player has the requisite athleticism as opposed to skill/length. I’d be shocked if DJ Wilson was on anybody’s mock board because of his “upside” in the next few years.

Stop it. Youre entitled to your opinion though. But, for you to say Stauskas has better handles and better court Vision and does everything better from an offensive skill perspective?? Well, I beg to differ and it is of my Opinion that, the only things Stauskas does better than GRIII, is shooting from behind the 3pt line and at the Free Throw line. What about shots inside the Arc?? What handles and what court vision did Stauskas display last season?? GRIII ast/to margin was the 3rd highest of any player who played meaningful minutes (at least double digits) last year. Or are you just basing this off your personal opinion??

Quite frankly there is no need for me to respond to this post, you have absolutely no clue about basketball if you think GR3 has any singular skill that is superior relevant to stauskas, its not even worth debating - it’s really that mindboggling

Well I would have to think running the floor, rebounding, finishing through contact, and man to man and help side D are skills.

ESPN’s Jeff Goodman visited practices at Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Oklahoma State and Louisville. Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player he saw.

"Michigan’s Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player of anyone I saw on the trip. GR3 will see more time at his natural position, small forward, this season. The 6-7 Robinson has added weight and become more athletic.

The questions regarding the son of the “Big Dog” were about his perimeter shot and ability to put the ball on the floor. Robinson buried deep jumper after deep jumper and appears far more comfortable at the 3-spot in John Beilein’s offense. It’s still yet to be determined whether this aspect of his skill set will translate in games, but it’s a good sign with Robinson more assertive on the offensive end. If he can gain a consistent jumper to go with his athleticism, he’ll almost certainly be a lottery pick."

58
To put the above post in context, let's examine current Michigan players as primary examples. GRIII is generally considered to be a lottery/mid first round pick by all NBA draft boards. Stauskus isn't on anybody's 1st round mock boards, perhaps he is a 2nd rounder on some boards ( I really can't confirm without further research). GRIII is not considered a finished product, but gets the lofty mock position because of "upside".

Comparing those 2 players, Stauskus literally does everything better from an offensive skill perspective - he has better handles, better court vision, and definitely shoots the ball better. Neither of those individuals are world class defensive players, I’m sure we’d all agree about that. They are roughly the same height/length, so we have to ask why is GRIII so desired by the NBA while Stauskus is not? Very simple, GRIII is an all world athlete that has an NBA physique right now.

Bottom line is that “upside” in the traditional sense means that a player has the requisite athleticism as opposed to skill/length. I’d be shocked if DJ Wilson was on anybody’s mock board because of his “upside” in the next few years.

Stop it. Youre entitled to your opinion though. But, for you to say Stauskas has better handles and better court Vision and does everything better from an offensive skill perspective?? Well, I beg to differ and it is of my Opinion that, the only things Stauskas does better than GRIII, is shooting from behind the 3pt line and at the Free Throw line. What about shots inside the Arc?? What handles and what court vision did Stauskas display last season?? GRIII ast/to margin was the 3rd highest of any player who played meaningful minutes (at least double digits) last year. Or are you just basing this off your personal opinion??

Quite frankly there is no need for me to respond to this post, you have absolutely no clue about basketball if you think GR3 has any singular skill that is superior relevant to stauskas, its not even worth debating - it’s really that mindboggling

Well I would have to think running the floor, rebounding, finishing through contact, and man to man and help side D are skills.

ESPN’s Jeff Goodman visited practices at Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Oklahoma State and Louisville. Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player he saw.

"Michigan’s Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player of anyone I saw on the trip. GR3 will see more time at his natural position, small forward, this season. The 6-7 Robinson has added weight and become more athletic.

The questions regarding the son of the “Big Dog” were about his perimeter shot and ability to put the ball on the floor. Robinson buried deep jumper after deep jumper and appears far more comfortable at the 3-spot in John Beilein’s offense. It’s still yet to be determined whether this aspect of his skill set will translate in games, but it’s a good sign with Robinson more assertive on the offensive end. If he can gain a consistent jumper to go with his athleticism, he’ll almost certainly be a lottery pick."

Well, in all fairness, the poster I responded to limited the comparison to ball handling and court vision, while conceding shooting to Nik. There is simply no question that Nik is better in all three of those areas.

Concerning help man to man/side D and rebounding I don’t really think your argument holds much weight because both Nik and GR3 are below average in those areas, and that’s being generous

Running the floor is not a skill, neither is finishing through contact, in my opinion. It doesn’t take skill to run the floor, it takes willingness and speed, which is athleticism and/or effort.

Finishing through contact is balance and strength, which again is athleticism vs skill. Perhaps the focus element is skill but the majority is athLeticism

59
To put the above post in context, let's examine current Michigan players as primary examples. GRIII is generally considered to be a lottery/mid first round pick by all NBA draft boards. Stauskus isn't on anybody's 1st round mock boards, perhaps he is a 2nd rounder on some boards ( I really can't confirm without further research). GRIII is not considered a finished product, but gets the lofty mock position because of "upside".

Comparing those 2 players, Stauskus literally does everything better from an offensive skill perspective - he has better handles, better court vision, and definitely shoots the ball better. Neither of those individuals are world class defensive players, I’m sure we’d all agree about that. They are roughly the same height/length, so we have to ask why is GRIII so desired by the NBA while Stauskus is not? Very simple, GRIII is an all world athlete that has an NBA physique right now.

Bottom line is that “upside” in the traditional sense means that a player has the requisite athleticism as opposed to skill/length. I’d be shocked if DJ Wilson was on anybody’s mock board because of his “upside” in the next few years.

Stop it. Youre entitled to your opinion though. But, for you to say Stauskas has better handles and better court Vision and does everything better from an offensive skill perspective?? Well, I beg to differ and it is of my Opinion that, the only things Stauskas does better than GRIII, is shooting from behind the 3pt line and at the Free Throw line. What about shots inside the Arc?? What handles and what court vision did Stauskas display last season?? GRIII ast/to margin was the 3rd highest of any player who played meaningful minutes (at least double digits) last year. Or are you just basing this off your personal opinion??

Quite frankly there is no need for me to respond to this post, you have absolutely no clue about basketball if you think GR3 has any singular skill that is superior relevant to stauskas, its not even worth debating - it’s really that mindboggling

Well I would have to think running the floor, rebounding, finishing through contact, and man to man and help side D are skills.

ESPN’s Jeff Goodman visited practices at Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Oklahoma State and Louisville. Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player he saw.

"Michigan’s Glenn Robinson III was the most impressive player of anyone I saw on the trip. GR3 will see more time at his natural position, small forward, this season. The 6-7 Robinson has added weight and become more athletic.

The questions regarding the son of the “Big Dog” were about his perimeter shot and ability to put the ball on the floor. Robinson buried deep jumper after deep jumper and appears far more comfortable at the 3-spot in John Beilein’s offense. It’s still yet to be determined whether this aspect of his skill set will translate in games, but it’s a good sign with Robinson more assertive on the offensive end. If he can gain a consistent jumper to go with his athleticism, he’ll almost certainly be a lottery pick."

Well, in all fairness, the poster I responded to limited the comparison to ball handling and court vision, while conceding shooting to Nik. There is simply no question that Nik is better in all three of those areas.

Concerning help man to man/side D and rebounding I don’t really think your argument holds much weight because both Nik and GR3 are below average in those areas, and that’s being generous

Running the floor is not a skill, neither is finishing through contact, in my opinion. It doesn’t take skill to run the floor, it takes willingness and speed, which is athleticism and/or effort.

Finishing through contact is balance and strength, which again is athleticism vs skill. Perhaps the focus element is skill but the majority is athLeticism

I’d tend to disagree. I’m sure when GR3 slides back to the 3 position, the notion that he can’t rebound or defend will be a silly notion.

60
I'll be honest that I hadn't paid much attention to Wilson's video because I thought we'd get Grantham and might not even offer Wilson. But I checked it out this morning and was pleasantly surprised. He can really put in on the floor for a big guy, is a good and willing passer, and has a great looking shot. I can see some of the worries about a lack of elite athleticism, which I agree will be more of a factor on the defensive side. However, I like that he appears interested in mixing it up and tries to be a presence inside on both ends of the court. Length and effort can go a long way on defense. I would be pretty happy if he commits and I think he'd be a great player to have in the program the next few years.

Also, I’m hesitant to do this, but while watching the Wilson video I happened to notice the following comment from MattD (who has been has been downplaying Wilson this morning):
"First off, if that guy is not a top 100 player then recruiting analysts simply have it wrong. I have to assume the ranking (or lack of) is simply a product of non-exposure due to injury. Wilson can definitely shoot the rock, even when he misses the shot is on line. Passing ability was well above average for a player that size much like grantham. Can handle the ball with either hand, he even looks to prefer going left. That being said, i prefer grantham as a combo forward. No doubt Wilson can play the 4 on offense but i’m skeptical about his ability to defend either the 3 or the 4 at the college level. "

MattD, it’s okay to be disappointed about Grantham, and I included that last bit because I think you’re viewing this as a Wilson from Grantham letdown. However, your comments this morning seem more based off disappointment than your more objective analysis.

First off, thanks for the acknowledgement, I appreciate your disagreement in an objective manner.

To address your post - my opinion on Wilson is not based on comparison to Grantham, it is a valid concern regardless of who we have in the mix. I think Wilson is a top 100 player, but his problems on defense are too big a concern to warrant a scholarship in my opinion. Keep in mind, we’re not talking about a lack of elite athleticism, we’re talking about what appears to be a below average athlete at the high school level. Taking on a player like Wilson creates the modern day problem of not having 2 way players. Different level of basketball, but the Lakers are a great example - very good offense, but the inability to defend based on a lack of lateral quickness(which is exactly what Wilson lacks in a bad way) is what basically prevented them from winning a championship.

I even think Wilson is limited offensively, he can certainly handle the ball for a player that size, and I don’t think anyone questions his ability to shoot, however Wilson doesn’t have a post game, and doesn’t exhibit an inclination to go to the rim with authority. What you have left is a one trick pony that is relegated to a Smot like role of shooting open 3’s and being a detriment to the team in every way if his shot is not falling.

I may be wrong, But it was my understanding that he didnt play much this past year as a junior right? So if that holds true, you do understand these highlights you are so critical of are Highlights of DJ Wilson as a Sophomore no? If so, very impressive. He did go to work on Looney once he was healthy in the spring. Did he not go head to head with nice results against Ivan Rabb, often listed as the best or Top 3 player in 2015.