Matt, on "accounting for everything," shouldn't you, with respect to Wilson, be accounting for the almost two months he missed during the summer with a broken finger, including the preparation for and games played in Europe, and then the similar amount of time he missed before he was able to begin practicing again after he sprained his knee in the Villanova game? I know you're not a fan of Wilson's game--we'll see whether you're right or not this year-but using the fact that he couldn't beat out guys who played and practiced throughout (or with minor interruptions) as proof that he wasn't very good seems a bit disingenuous to me, as does basing a thorough evaluation of his readiness, had he been healthy, on 24 minutes total of playing time.
Mitch had to miss considerable time because of conditioning/back issue both during his freshman and sophomore years…didn’t stop him from being effective. You can either play or you can’t. If the coaches felt Wilson was ready irrelevant of the summer, he would’ve played, and its really that simple.
Also, the fact that he played only 24 minutes at a position where we were obviously short on talent should tell you something as well…kid just wasn’t good enough to warrant significant PT.
I don't avoid weakness' lol. I'm just usually on here counter analyzing an inaccurate analysis from MattD. Talking about someone's lateral agility time after time again when it plays into very little of who they are as..... Yea, ya know what?
Your right. Your a top scout and haven't been wrong yet...
Cassius, Cumberland, don't recruit Battle, Dawkins, Wilson, Wagner I could go on and on. I'll stop. Your right.
So let me ask you, have you seen a full game of Moritz Wagner. If so, please tell me which parts of my analysis are inaccurate…I’m VERY curious.
In your opinion, why doesn’t lateral agility play a part of who recruits are as players? Is it because it doesn’t play to their respective strengths, and therefore not a part of their game…LOL
If you’re going to throw jabs at me, at least be on point. I’ve always stated that I would love to have Cassius, said Cumberland is a decent player just not what we need (and damn sure not the scorer that Battle is), I did say we were wasting time on Battle (was obviously wrong, but never said he wasn’t a legit talent), I was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on Wilson (let me guess…he’s still going to be a 2 and done), and I would love to know how I’m wrong on Wagner.
Matt, on "accounting for everything," shouldn't you, with respect to Wilson, be accounting for the almost two months he missed during the summer with a broken finger, including the preparation for and games played in Europe, and then the similar amount of time he missed before he was able to begin practicing again after he sprained his knee in the Villanova game? I know you're not a fan of Wilson's game--we'll see whether you're right or not this year-but using the fact that he couldn't beat out guys who played and practiced throughout (or with minor interruptions) as proof that he wasn't very good seems a bit disingenuous to me, as does basing a thorough evaluation of his readiness, had he been healthy, on 24 minutes total of playing time.
Mitch had to miss considerable time because of conditioning/back issue both during his freshman and sophomore years…didn’t stop him from being effective. You can either play or you can’t. If the coaches felt Wilson was ready irrelevant of the summer, he would’ve played, and its really that simple.
Also, the fact that he played only 24 minutes at a position where we were obviously short on talent should tell you something as well…kid just wasn’t good enough to warrant significant PT.
Mitch was out of shape his freshman year, but not due to injury, and, unlike Wilson, he practiced and played the whole season. He was behind JMo until JMo suffered the high ankle sprain. I just don’t see how Mitch playing a full season is comparable to Wilson missing most of the pre-season and almost all of the regular season. If we judged Dawkins or MAAR only on their first 24 minutes of play last season, our conclusions would be based on inadequate data and not very reliable.
Matt, on "accounting for everything," shouldn't you, with respect to Wilson, be accounting for the almost two months he missed during the summer with a broken finger, including the preparation for and games played in Europe, and then the similar amount of time he missed before he was able to begin practicing again after he sprained his knee in the Villanova game? I know you're not a fan of Wilson's game--we'll see whether you're right or not this year-but using the fact that he couldn't beat out guys who played and practiced throughout (or with minor interruptions) as proof that he wasn't very good seems a bit disingenuous to me, as does basing a thorough evaluation of his readiness, had he been healthy, on 24 minutes total of playing time.
Mitch had to miss considerable time because of conditioning/back issue both during his freshman and sophomore years…didn’t stop him from being effective. You can either play or you can’t. If the coaches felt Wilson was ready irrelevant of the summer, he would’ve played, and its really that simple.
Also, the fact that he played only 24 minutes at a position where we were obviously short on talent should tell you something as well…kid just wasn’t good enough to warrant significant PT.
Mitch was out of shape his freshman year, but not due to injury, and, unlike Wilson, he practiced and played the whole season. He was behind JMo until JMo suffered the high ankle sprain. I just don’t see how Mitch playing a full season is comparable to Wilson missing most of the pre-season and almost all of the regular season. If we judged Dawkins or MAAR only on their first 24 minutes of play last season, our conclusions would be based on inadequate data and not very reliable.
Fair enough…but interesting how you failed to account for Mitch’s sophomore season.
Point is the fact that he only played 24 minutes is indicative of how the staff felt towards his readiness whether some want to admit it or not. We can play hypothetical games all day, bottom line, he wasn’t good enough to play.
Mitch is better than Wilson, even if everything else is equal. No one is arguing otherwise. By his soph year, he had a full season of play under his belt. The question is whether we have enough to judge Wilson based on the very limited amount of time he played. Keep in mind also, that Wilson missed a year of high school ball due to injury.
No one is asking or expecting Wilson to be McGary. It’s a silly comparison. What I want and expect from Wilson is to be a consistent contributor throughout his career. And 24 minutes is not enough to determine that. Kam had a lot of minutes at the 4 early in the year. By the time his pt diminished, Wilson was injured so I don’t think him not getting minutes at the four tells us much. Other than that he wasn’t ready this season - which is understandable considering how much time he missed. We will see what the future holds.
Mitch is better than Wilson, even if everything else is equal. No one is arguing otherwise. By his soph year, he had a full season of play under his belt. The question is whether we have enough to judge Wilson based on the very limited amount of time he played. Keep in mind also, that Wilson missed a year of high school ball due to injury.
In this context, the question is not whether we have enough to judge Wilson for his career…but rather was he good enough to be an impact player/significant minutes last year? My contention is that he was not (which was my prediction based on HS film), and all evidence points toward that conclusion, while others want to use the injury as an excuse.
Mitch is better than Wilson, even if everything else is equal. No one is arguing otherwise. By his soph year, he had a full season of play under his belt. The question is whether we have enough to judge Wilson based on the very limited amount of time he played. Keep in mind also, that Wilson missed a year of high school ball due to injury.
In this context, the question is not whether we have enough to judge Wilson for his career…but rather was he good enough to be an impact player/significant minutes last year? My contention is that he was not (which was my prediction based on HS film), and all evidence points toward that conclusion, while others want to use the injury as an excuse.
If the injuries are not an “excuse”, then you must be saying that Wilson would not have played had he been 100% healthy in the pre-season and regular season - because he’s just “not very good.” It’s all speculation as to where he would have been readiness-wise had he not been injured pre-season and fully healthy for the regular season. Had he played in Italy and been able to practice in the pre-season, he might have looked better in those two games he played. All of the freshmen looked lost to some extent early in the season, but Dawkins and MAAR were just as bad as Wilson early in the season, only to become significant contributors by season’s end. OTOH, Chatman looked better early on, e.g. the Syracuse game, but struggled for most of the rest of the season. No way to know Wilson’s learning curve when he couldn’t play for most of the season. That they didn’t burn his red shirt after he had already missed most of the season and had little game experience and missed a ton of practice time is just a risk-reward analysis. It says nothing about his development had he been 100% healthy throughout.
I am in the camp of few that feels that Wilson is going to be a long term project. He has athletic ability but his game at this point is based on limited action is solely that. Meaning he is long and active but his ability to contribute in a meaningful enough way to move someone aside I think is a ways away… As far as Wagner I think he just simply has more desire and skill set coming in the door, and probably will have a shorter learning curve.
Your right. Your a top scout and haven't been wrong yet...
Cassius, Cumberland, don't recruit Battle, Dawkins, Wilson, Wagner I could go on and on. I'll stop. Your right.
When trying to win an internet argument, one of the worst things to do is consistently use the wrong “your” and “you’re.” Just saying… Makes you look quite unintelligent, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.
When trying to win an internet argument, one of the worst things to do is …
When you try to win an internet argument, you’ve already lost. Discussions can be valuable, but an argument? Nope. Can’t ever get a judgment against the other side, can’t ever stop the other from spouting nonsense. Can say what you think, read posters you’ve come to value (or haven’t yet learned to ignore), and that’s about it.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
“Never argue with idiots. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
I literally couldn’t care any less about what form of your is typed on a post on a basketball forum on my cell phone when I have a second from work…Accept my deepest apologies. I don’t make rough drafts of my posts either.
And I’m not trying to win an argument, simply typing thoughts and enjoying Michigan hoops talk. But thanks for your input, much valued.
And @MattD, I have not watched one full game. I have watched peices of a couple (not highlights) and whatever is avalible highlight wise.
Sane great point of the other freshman. Learning curve. Every kid is different. Does not mean in any way they can’t play. I have a feeling Matt would have kicked Frank Kaminsky off the team after his first season and a half.
When trying to win an internet argument, one of the worst things to do is …
When you try to win an internet argument, you’ve already lost. Discussions can be valuable, but an argument? Nope.
True, but you know what I mean. Not just in an “argument” but just in general, that’s a pretty dumb mistake to keep making, and when trying to express your opinion it’s a less than optimal strategy.
It is a huge mistake to assume someone is using poor reasoning because they are making a grammar mistake. I seriously doubt many readers on this site equate intelligence with proper usage of grammar because to do so would be pretty dumb.
It is a huge mistake to assume someone is using poor reasoning because they are making a grammar mistake. I seriously doubt many readers on this site equate intelligence with proper usage of grammar because to do so would be pretty dumb.
I Completely disagree. If you were wishy washy on an issue, and would you believe somebody who typed like this:
“In my opinion, Mo Wagner does not have the necessary skills, such as lateral agility, shooting touch, and strength, to make an impact in his freshman year.”
Or would you side with this guy:
“Mo Wagner is amazing your wrong dude. To bad u cant tell that in michigans’s offense the 4 position doesnt need to dribble good to be affective.”
While the guy who I’m talking about wasn’t as terrible as that, You are throwing up a straw man right now anyways. I never said that his logic was any worse for using poor grammar, I simply said that it, and I quote, “makes [him] look unintelligent” and it makes him far less persuasive.
It is a huge mistake to assume somebody (me in this case) is saying poor grammar=poor logic when I never said anything close to that. Please read what I write next time you attempt to call me dumb.
Regardless of YOUR logical fallacy, it would be silly to stretch this out any further, and I think Dylan would prefer that we stay on the topic of Wagner.
Grammar police on a message board is a silly concept in the first place bud. Maybe your new. I'm on a phone and not proof reading. :((
So you’re not going to just let it go? Ok fine, You know what takes longer than writing “you’re” rather than “your?” Writing whole comments with excuses like “I’m on a phone, I can’t proof read.” I was simply giving you a helpful suggestion, as the obviousness and easiness of an apostrophe and an “e” make you just look flat out lazy. As for you calling me “new”, you were apparently also too lazy to see that I’ve made far more comments than you have.
It’s not the mistake itself, it’s the fact that you’re really going to make excuses when all I was trying to do was just give you advice, saying that you are less persuasive with errors like that? I don’t know how you can put the “crying” emoticon when you seem to be the one getting defensive. Peace.
Grammar police on a message board is a silly concept in the first place bud. Maybe your new. I'm on a phone and not proof reading. :((
So you’re not going to just let it go? Ok fine, You know what takes longer than writing “you’re” rather than “your?” Writing whole comments with excuses like “I’m on a phone, I can’t proof read.” I was simply giving you a helpful suggestion, as the obviousness and easiness of an apostrophe and an “e” make you just look flat out lazy. As for you calling me “new”, you were apparently also too lazy to see that I’ve made far more comments than you have.
It’s not the mistake itself, it’s the fact that you’re really going to make excuses when all I was trying to do was just give you advice, saying that you are less persuasive with errors like that? I don’t know how you can put the “crying” emoticon when you seem to be the one getting defensive. Peace.
So as I’ve said before, back to Mo Wagner
You are being a big time Richard about something so stupid. I will be sure to act like a clown if I see something wrong in one of your posts.
