damn, this thread blew up. at the end of the day, it’s just nice to have a basketball program to be passionate about again. i don’t think any of us could see michigan being close to a national championship game 2 or 3 years ago.
I commend you for that response, Matt. I think the blowback on Wilson was because of the prior thread, where you were hard on the kid. There's an unspoken code of conduct where you take it easy on the student-athletes, no matter their shortcomings because they're just kids doing the best they can. I do think that if you keep this stuff in mind in future posts, you'll see less and less of it.
In the interest of peace , I really didn’t want to respond to this, but I think it is necessary to clear the air moving forward.
When we say “hard on the kid”, what exactly do you mean. If you mean I critiqued his game, both good and bad, then I’m guilty as charged, but nothing more.
This “unspoken code” is new to me, or perhaps it is something reserved for this board. There are other very respected Michigan blogs (admittedly more football centric), which not only permit critique of a player/recruit, but it is actually invited to a certain extent. The only “unspoken code” is that you don’t attack a player/recruit on a personal level, which is totally understandable and expected.
Furthermore, if this code really exists, I think we’d both have to admit that it does a severe injustice to the term objectivity and/or realism. When you insert the phrase “take it easy on the student athlete, no matter their shortcomings”, that seems to imply a standard in which we can discuss and highlight the positive basketball attributes a player/recruit may have, but must turn a blind eye in relation to those that are not. In my opinion, that just doesn’t make sense if we really are being objective and realistic.
Additionally, the standard, if it does exist, hasn’t been applied by at least a decent portion of the board. If memory serves me correctly, I remember certain posters being just as harsh, and in many instances, more harsh than I in relation to Corey Sanders, but yet nobody had an adverse reaction. So, if the standard does exist, lets apply it in equal fashion, and not just reserve it for guys that are committed to Michigan.
In closing, I will make all attempts to be more diplomatic with my posts, but I can not buy into the “unspoken code”, it just fails to make sense in my view. I will be respectful toward all other posters, but expect the same in return. We can all have variation in our opinions, and that’s what makes the board great.
“Take it easy” doesn’t mean “lay off entirely”. It can mean, critique specific plays/decisions on the court, sure. Maybe it’s like they say about porn…it’s hard to define but you know it when you see it. Maybe it’s the way you’re so certain that you’re right. The thing is, Wilson is still in HS. How did you “critique” Novak and Douglass before they got to Michigan? Were you wrong?
MattD, as someone who doesn’t post very often, but definitely reads most of the comments in the forums, I want to touch on a few things. I have no dog in this fight, but I would like to present my point of view, as an unbiased lurker that is getting tired of the arguing between fellow Michigan fans. I just want to reiterate this is not an attack on you, just merely an observation that I hope you can read and getting a better understanding as to how people construe what you say as being negative.
At this point in the post, I read the last few comments that I somehow missed before beginning to write my comment, but I feel like I’ve already invested some time so I might as well finish what I started, even if I’m just beating a dead horse. Anyways, as a realist, I’ll be the first to tell you how much I value objectivity. Even if something is bad, I like it when people tell it as it is. But as other people mentioned, you’re mixing objectivity with very negative undertones. You may not have the intent of being polarizing, but to most everyone else that’s what it seems like.
Honesty/Truth/Objectivity are far from negativity, in fact proper assessment requires those attributes. I live in the real world, and if some posters, including yourself, don't want to read objective and honest opinions, then perhaps refraining from reading/responding to my posts would better serve your purposes.
Statements like this may sound harmless to you, but it’s just not being respectful to other members on the site. If you truly want to be objective, only contribute facts. For instance, “I prefer Bolden over DJ Wilson because Bolden averages X RPG, while Wilson only averages Y RPG.” Evidence is the best way to support your arguments because facts are facts. Attacking a recruit because you think he may be too soft, too weak, not athletic enough, etc. just rubs people the wrong way. I would agree with many of these statements but you need to tell us why you think the way you do. And when doing so, don’t include any undertones. The worst thing that you’ve done is tried to attack other members’ opinions. It’s hard to change other people’s minds, which is why when someone disagrees with you, just politely tell them you think otherwise and don’t bother doing anything else.
Lastly, I just want to touch on the fact that many people get caught in the hype and try to shrug off weaknesses. I appreciate that you are willing to point out our flaws because it’s refreshing to hear that another person gets it. Yes, we just made it to the championship game a year ago, but there’s still so much left to be desired. 2nd place isn’t something to be satisfied about, we as fans need to constantly be hungry for more. Celebrating mediocrity (not to say reaching a final four is mediocre) is the easiest way to turn a motivated team into a complacent team.
In summation, I just want to let you know that I agree with many of the points that you bring up and hope that you continue to contribute to the discussion boards because you are willing to play devil’s advocate and not make this site such a circle jerk. Just be wary of counterproductive posts that can be considered offensive or overly negative because that is the easiest way for people to write off your opinion. Anyways, let’s enjoy this upcoming season. I’m sure it will be filled with plenty of ups and downs like last year, but I think we can all agree that Beilein has the program in the right direction and that Michigan basketball has become enjoyable to watch once again.
Burke - well put and point taken.
A lot of your points are certainly applicable and helpful. In my view though, some of what you say doesn’t make sense - you advise that “attacking” a recruit based on a lack of certain characteristics rubs people the wrong way. In all honesty, saying X player isn’t athletic simply isn’t an attack, it’s a basketball related observation that relates to on court productivity. An “attack” would imply something of a more personal nature, at least as commonly used by the general public. In my defense, if people don’t like the fact that I point out a particular recruit’s athletic limitations, I mean, what am I supposed to do about that? That would imply that I simply have to refrain from stating my honest view, and that just doesn’t seem proper to me. It would seem to me that we should be able to have honest and objective dialogue without people getting worked up. Would it be proper if I suggested to other posters that they refrain from saying Wilson IS athletic? We have to be honest here, if I did that, people would think I belong in mental institution. That being the case, that would seemingly imply that people simply don’t want o hear that X recruit is unathletic vs. the “tone” in which it is conveyed or any other premise.
You essentially urge me to tell people why I prefer X recruit over Y recruit - wouldn’t my explicit statements that X recruit isn’t physical enough, not athletic enough, doesn’t rebound well, etc. suffice in that department? Those are the exact reasons for my preference, hence I’m telling you why. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
My take is that some people are overly protective of the program, and that is certainly understandable considering the reniassance we’ve experienced and depths from which we came up, but we have to open to various opinions, whether we agree or not. We can’t shut out a portion of the UMHoops community simply for offering basketball related observations.
delete
My point exactly. Today's college basketball climate compels teams to re-load not rebuild. In my opinion, coming off a national championship game, we should be more selective to the extent that we reload rather than rebuild. Replacing players like McGary and GR3 with the likes of Wilson, rather than Bolden, is an extreme dropoff in my opinion. In retrospect, I'm sure if you had known that we would take Wilson OR Bolden rather than Wilson AND Bolden, your opinions would have been a bit more pessimistic in regards to taking Wilson. Simply put, if you are going to replace McGary and/or GR3 with a first year DJ Wilson, your team is going to suffer in production by a wide margin.DJ Wilson>Bolden when all said and done.
No one knows what type of player Bolden will be when he reaches college. Yet we have you here proclaiming he will be an Instant impact.Did Kentucky lose in the first round of the NIT last year? Or was that just my imagination. Seems like a BIG DROPOFF IN PRODUCTION.Louisville had a great mix of talent - highly rated kids, glue guys, etc. No one is denying that you need talent to win.
The problem isn’t that DJ Wilson isn’t an All-American. Sure it would be nice to have Kevon Looney but you can’t build a program to rely on guys like him. If you want to point to a problem it’s probably that there wasn’t a DJ Wilson a couple of classes ago. Michigan didn’t recruit like GR3 (and to a lesser extent) Mitch McGary was one-and-done.
But this is also a program that was pretty successful with Jordan Morgan as it’s only big guy for a while. Perhaps they won’t be National Title contenders but are you telling me a frontcourt with Horford/Bielfeldt/Donnal/Doyle/Wilson/Chatman can’t be at least competitive with Walton, Irvin, Stauskas and LeVert as perimeter options?
Ok Dylan, if you want to play devil’s advocate in the face of reality, let’s play the game my friend.
Kentucky, did in fact lose in the first round of the NIT last year. That being said, what is UK currently ranked? That being said, would you take Kentucky against the field of 64 this year? That being said, is Kentucky going to be more successful than the other 99.99% of college basketball teams in the foreseeable future? Spare me the exceptions, we all know what the standard is with UK, they are simply the most talented team year in and year out, period.
Sure they suffered a big dropoff in production, but will that dropoff be longterm? Hell no it won’t. And why? I’ll tell you why, because each and every year they reload with 5 top 30ish type players, THEY DON’T REBUILD THEY RELOAD WITH ELITE TALENT.
Now I’m not saying Michigan can do that, because quite frankly our program isn’t that good yet. That being said, we don’t have to settle, BE MORE SELECTIVE. Nobody in their right damn mind would take DJ freaking Wilson over Bolden, it’s just that simple. With all due respect to DJ, there is simply no way in hell that any competent coach would take that dude over Bolden. If it is indeed a Wilson OR Bolden choice, then the coaching staff made a mistake in my opinion. You have to look at the cost/benefit analysis - the benefit to getting DJ Wilson is that you MIGHT have a decent player 3 years from now, while the cost is the likelihood that you miss out on what was seemingly a Michigan lean that would have made an instant impact with. I’d take the risk with Bolden 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Seems like an easy choice to me, but what the hell do I know?
Common sense would tell anybody that if you replace an All American and an All Big Ten player with a player that is at least 2 years away from being a positive impact on the team (using Guestavo’s projection) here, then you will have a dropoff in production. If you are banking on Horford who has shown only marginal improvement during his entire tenure (and that is being generous), Bielfeldt who is simply occupying space, Donnal who certainly needs time to work on his body, Chatman who isn’t really a post player, and 2 freshman to replace those players and be competitive then I would suggest you reexamine things.
I guess it depends on what you define as competitive - if losing in the 1st/2nd round is acceptable to you, then hey, have at it, BUT I WANT MORE. Michigan is on the brink of being not just relevant, but PROMINENT, IF they can sustain success. But I simply don’t think you can be successful with Horford and 1 of Bielfeldt/Donnal/Wilson starting next year. That is absolute disaster on the defensive end of the court and we all know it. Hell, it’s bad now with Horford and Morgan, and Morgan is a hell of a lot better than Horford or any of those other players.
C’mon buddy, let’s face reality here.
Kentucky in general does agree.DJ Wilson High School Career isnt over. How do you know any of those individuals he mentioned will have been more highly touted??That being said, you are comparing apples to oranges - the individuals you just mentioned were more highly touted (with the exception of Hancock/Smith) coming out of high school than DJ Wilson, so not really a fair comparison in terms of talent level. In terms of Wichita State, sure they had a nice run as a Cinderella team last year, but what is the likelihood they are a contender on a regular basis - I’d venture to say not very high. Face it, the Kentuckys of the world are going to compete at a high level year in and year out, simply because they have the talent to do so.
Secondly, if you think for 1 second that a team with a starting frontcourt of Horford and any combination of Donnal/Doyle/Wilson can be effective next, you’re in for a serious surprise next year.
It’s not about a dropoff, that’s a given, the question is how steep do you want the dropoff to be? Hence the need for immediate impact players, at least on 1 side of the court - that’s how you avoid lulls in recruiting - WINNING CONSISTENTLY WITHOUT BIG DROPOFFS IN PRODUCTION
UK has jumped in with Bolden officially sigh
No one knows what type of player Bolden will be when he reaches college. Yet we have you here proclaiming he will be an Instant impact.Did Kentucky lose in the first round of the NIT last year? Or was that just my imagination. Seems like a BIG DROPOFF IN PRODUCTION.Louisville had a great mix of talent - highly rated kids, glue guys, etc. No one is denying that you need talent to win.
The problem isn’t that DJ Wilson isn’t an All-American. Sure it would be nice to have Kevon Looney but you can’t build a program to rely on guys like him. If you want to point to a problem it’s probably that there wasn’t a DJ Wilson a couple of classes ago. Michigan didn’t recruit like GR3 (and to a lesser extent) Mitch McGary was one-and-done.
But this is also a program that was pretty successful with Jordan Morgan as it’s only big guy for a while. Perhaps they won’t be National Title contenders but are you telling me a frontcourt with Horford/Bielfeldt/Donnal/Doyle/Wilson/Chatman can’t be at least competitive with Walton, Irvin, Stauskas and LeVert as perimeter options?
Ok Dylan, if you want to play devil’s advocate in the face of reality, let’s play the game my friend.
Kentucky, did in fact lose in the first round of the NIT last year. That being said, what is UK currently ranked? That being said, would you take Kentucky against the field of 64 this year? That being said, is Kentucky going to be more successful than the other 99.99% of college basketball teams in the foreseeable future? Spare me the exceptions, we all know what the standard is with UK, they are simply the most talented team year in and year out, period.
Sure they suffered a big dropoff in production, but will that dropoff be longterm? Hell no it won’t. And why? I’ll tell you why, because each and every year they reload with 5 top 30ish type players, THEY DON’T REBUILD THEY RELOAD WITH ELITE TALENT.
Now I’m not saying Michigan can do that, because quite frankly our program isn’t that good yet. That being said, we don’t have to settle, BE MORE SELECTIVE. Nobody in their right damn mind would take DJ freaking Wilson over Bolden, it’s just that simple. With all due respect to DJ, there is simply no way in hell that any competent coach would take that dude over Bolden. If it is indeed a Wilson OR Bolden choice, then the coaching staff made a mistake in my opinion. You have to look at the cost/benefit analysis - the benefit to getting DJ Wilson is that you MIGHT have a decent player 3 years from now, while the cost is the likelihood that you miss out on what was seemingly a Michigan lean that would have made an instant impact with. I’d take the risk with Bolden 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Seems like an easy choice to me, but what the hell do I know?
Common sense would tell anybody that if you replace an All American and an All Big Ten player with a player that is at least 2 years away from being a positive impact on the team (using Guestavo’s projection) here, then you will have a dropoff in production. If you are banking on Horford who has shown only marginal improvement during his entire tenure (and that is being generous), Bielfeldt who is simply occupying space, Donnal who certainly needs time to work on his body, Chatman who isn’t really a post player, and 2 freshman to replace those players and be competitive then I would suggest you reexamine things.
I guess it depends on what you define as competitive - if losing in the 1st/2nd round is acceptable to you, then hey, have at it, BUT I WANT MORE. Michigan is on the brink of being not just relevant, but PROMINENT, IF they can sustain success. But I simply don’t think you can be successful with Horford and 1 of Bielfeldt/Donnal/Wilson starting next year. That is absolute disaster on the defensive end of the court and we all know it. Hell, it’s bad now with Horford and Morgan, and Morgan is a hell of a lot better than Horford or any of those other players.
C’mon buddy, let’s face reality here.
You criticize me for “proclaiming Bolden will be an instant impact”, despite the fact that I never made such a statement. And to top it all off, you say “no one knows what type of player Bolden will be when he reaches college”, while at the same time claiming “Wilson>Bolden when it’s all said and done” in literally your post directly on top of the quoted post. So if "no one knows what type of player Bolden will be, how do you know what type of player Wilson will be? Furthermore, how can you objectively compare each player to one another if you follow your own logic that “no one knows”. That simply doesn’t make any sense.
I mean, I’m trying to be diplomatic, but c’mon, if that isn’t total hypocrisy…this totally compromises any credibility that you may have.
I’ll simply refrain from responding to you in the interest of peace.
Something to consider with Bolden. Interesting tweet from Evan Daniels
Bolden is going to be one of that group of four. Everyone looking to add to their class is going to take a pass at him so competition will be tough.
That also means that some sleepers will emerge that were overlooked on the AAU circuit though.
So which player were you referring to when you stated, "the cost is the likelihood that you miss out on what was seemingly a Michigan lean that would have made an instant impact with."?No one knows what type of player Bolden will be when he reaches college. Yet we have you here proclaiming he will be an Instant impact.Did Kentucky lose in the first round of the NIT last year? Or was that just my imagination. Seems like a BIG DROPOFF IN PRODUCTION.Louisville had a great mix of talent - highly rated kids, glue guys, etc. No one is denying that you need talent to win.
The problem isn’t that DJ Wilson isn’t an All-American. Sure it would be nice to have Kevon Looney but you can’t build a program to rely on guys like him. If you want to point to a problem it’s probably that there wasn’t a DJ Wilson a couple of classes ago. Michigan didn’t recruit like GR3 (and to a lesser extent) Mitch McGary was one-and-done.
But this is also a program that was pretty successful with Jordan Morgan as it’s only big guy for a while. Perhaps they won’t be National Title contenders but are you telling me a frontcourt with Horford/Bielfeldt/Donnal/Doyle/Wilson/Chatman can’t be at least competitive with Walton, Irvin, Stauskas and LeVert as perimeter options?
Ok Dylan, if you want to play devil’s advocate in the face of reality, let’s play the game my friend.
Kentucky, did in fact lose in the first round of the NIT last year. That being said, what is UK currently ranked? That being said, would you take Kentucky against the field of 64 this year? That being said, is Kentucky going to be more successful than the other 99.99% of college basketball teams in the foreseeable future? Spare me the exceptions, we all know what the standard is with UK, they are simply the most talented team year in and year out, period.
Sure they suffered a big dropoff in production, but will that dropoff be longterm? Hell no it won’t. And why? I’ll tell you why, because each and every year they reload with 5 top 30ish type players, THEY DON’T REBUILD THEY RELOAD WITH ELITE TALENT.
Now I’m not saying Michigan can do that, because quite frankly our program isn’t that good yet. That being said, we don’t have to settle, BE MORE SELECTIVE. Nobody in their right damn mind would take DJ freaking Wilson over Bolden, it’s just that simple. With all due respect to DJ, there is simply no way in hell that any competent coach would take that dude over Bolden. If it is indeed a Wilson OR Bolden choice, then the coaching staff made a mistake in my opinion. You have to look at the cost/benefit analysis - the benefit to getting DJ Wilson is that you MIGHT have a decent player 3 years from now, while the cost is the likelihood that you miss out on what was seemingly a Michigan lean that would have made an instant impact with. I’d take the risk with Bolden 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Seems like an easy choice to me, but what the hell do I know?
Common sense would tell anybody that if you replace an All American and an All Big Ten player with a player that is at least 2 years away from being a positive impact on the team (using Guestavo’s projection) here, then you will have a dropoff in production. If you are banking on Horford who has shown only marginal improvement during his entire tenure (and that is being generous), Bielfeldt who is simply occupying space, Donnal who certainly needs time to work on his body, Chatman who isn’t really a post player, and 2 freshman to replace those players and be competitive then I would suggest you reexamine things.
I guess it depends on what you define as competitive - if losing in the 1st/2nd round is acceptable to you, then hey, have at it, BUT I WANT MORE. Michigan is on the brink of being not just relevant, but PROMINENT, IF they can sustain success. But I simply don’t think you can be successful with Horford and 1 of Bielfeldt/Donnal/Wilson starting next year. That is absolute disaster on the defensive end of the court and we all know it. Hell, it’s bad now with Horford and Morgan, and Morgan is a hell of a lot better than Horford or any of those other players.
C’mon buddy, let’s face reality here.
You criticize me for “proclaiming Bolden will be an instant impact”, despite the fact that I never made such a statement. And to top it all off, you say “no one knows what type of player Bolden will be when he reaches college”, while at the same time claiming “Wilson>Bolden when it’s all said and done” in literally your post directly on top of the quoted post. So if "no one knows what type of player Bolden will be, how do you know what type of player Wilson will be? Furthermore, how can you objectively compare each player to one another if you follow your own logic that “no one knows”. That simply doesn’t make any sense.
I mean, I’m trying to be diplomatic, but c’mon, if that isn’t total hypocrisy…this totally compromises any credibility that you may have.
I’ll simply refrain from responding to you in the interest of peace.
Webb - I really would like to keep the peace if at all possible, and taking into account the content of your previous posts, I can’t ascertain what your intentions are, so I’ll keep this brief.
No doubt I was referring to Bolden in my quoted statement above, but the words “liklihood” and “seemingly” within the statement are qualifiers that basically convey the fact I’m not making a declaratory statement or a prediction.
In this context, the word likelihood essentially translates to opportunity costs and seemingly essentially translates to Bolden might have favored Michigan and been a player ready in year 1 on 1 side of the floor.
Once again, in the interest of peace, let’s just say that we’ll agree to disagree in relation to our thoughts on certain recruits. I understand you are a proponent of Wilson, and I respect that.
Forum posting 101:
- don’t over post. No one cares that much about what you have to say
- don’t use big words. No one comes to a sporting forum to dig deep into their vocabulary.
- don’t type in paragraphs…over…and over…and over. No one wants to come to a forum and read a book.
I’ll start this post off by saying - I have attempted to be much more diplomatic in recent posts in an effort to keep peace.
That being said, what does your “forum posting 101” class instruction bring to the table other than fuel to the fire? Not to mention the fact that you are wrong in many regards.
Big words are a problem? It is simply baffling that you would actually post that.There are very respected Michigan blogs that appreciate a more academic/intellectual style of posting rather than the MLive type of garbage where you see uninformed and in many instances, downright offensive type of content.
Paragraphs provide structure to a post/response/contention to the extent that it allows the reader to identify a change in topic.
If you don’t care for my posts, that’s fine, but I don’t need your “forum posting 101”, I highly doubt you can teach me anything, much less proper etiquette on a sports forum.
I’m closing this. Everyone needs to quit the personal attacks. Discussion is good, but keep things civil. The back-and-forth can stop after both sides have made their point. Let others get involved, etc.