MSU continues to reel in former UM prospects. McQuaid should help improve their perimeter shooting.
Yeah, it seems like a solid core. I love Deyonta Davis, still seems like they need that one playmaker on the perimeter though – but that could be said for a lot of teams.
Discrepancy between McQuaid and Robinson much smaller than Coleman and Robinson. Don’t think losing out on McQuaid will hurt us all that much.
1 Like
Think it’s interesting to see MSU loading up on so many shooters on the wings. Ahrens, McQuaid, Harris and Forbes. Seems like something of a log jam.
Said the same thing in the assorted notes thread. They will be hard to handle in a few years, still need a true creator though, as Nairn is more comfortable in transition as opposed to being a true half court PG
Well we will get to watch a lot of Coleman and McQuaid moving forward so we will see how they turn out. I really think if Michigan pushed for McQuaid he was all theirs.
Will be interesting to compare these guys, Duncan Robinson and Kyle Ahrens to see how they all turn out. Michigan definitely put their eggs into Dozier and the 2016 class. They are up there for a lot of big timers. Hopefully it pays off and we get some of them.
Lets see how many of those Shooters on the wing end up transferring out once they get a load of Hizzo. Fred Hoiberg must be chomping at the bit, seeing as thats usually their next destination as MSU castoffs. I guess Hizzo figures he can take Beileins Formula and improve upon it. I think it will backfire on him, Hizzo teams are usually built around tough defense, but those recruits, at the moment, dont seem to be the ideal fit to continue that trend. Only time will tell though, we will see if Hizzo can build a better Mouse Trap/System using the type of recruit we would all love had they landed in the hands of Beilein.
I’ll say this in closing - betting against Izzo is probably not a good idea. Food for thought - if JB has earned the benefit of the doubt Mr Izzo most certainly has.
Well, Izzo ought to wake up everyday and thank God for Ed Martin. Let’s see how he does with Michigan back to being a strong program.
If there’s one thing I can learn from Michigan Football, it is don’t overlook any one opponent or assume you will perennially have an advantage.
Izzo had to counter with the three ball, toughness is great but it doesn’t show up on the scoreboard. It’s tough to remain competitive when you get outscored on the perimeter by three’s.
Actually toughness is reflected in the scoreboard via rebounding, something MSU excels at. It’s also tough to remain competitive if you are constantly disadvantaged in that area because you give up extra shots to the opponent.
You missed my point…6 out of the last 8 games MSU has lost and the reason is they were out scored. MSU was probably tougher and won the battle on the boards but they lost 6 of those games. Being tougher and out rebounding M only brought MSU success 25% of the time. It makes sense that Izzo would adjust…you get no points for rebounds.
Also, you give up two point attempts vs. the three point attempts with the rebound. So Beilein has the advantage if he attempts more threes than MSU attempting two’s, the three ball offsets the rebounding if you have the same or above average scoring percentages.
For Michigan fans, we complain because we sometimes get beaten down because of rebounding and toughness.
For great rebounding teams that are super athletic and play us, they probably complain that they have the physical advantage but just lose because of our elite perimeter shooting.
Obviously both are important. But there’s always going to be a mismatch somewhere. I think the key is to find a middle ground between both aspects of this. Which we seem to be doing.
We only have the advantage if we Make more 3s, attempts alone don’t mean much. Msu has won 3 out of the last 7 so not sure how they’ve lost 6 of 8.
And they usually do make more three’s…sorry if I erred on the number of wins. Still the perimeter offense beat the toughness and rebounding 4 out of the last 7. It would make sense that Izzo would add more scoring on the perimeter.
Agree that MSU did need some perimeter scoring. Both styles can work, as proven by recent seasons. But, and as much as it pains me to say this, MSU’s toughness has withstood the test of time whereas our perimeter oriented success is rather novel and still not proven good enough to win a tourney championship. I think balance is the key for any team at any level unless you have one player that is so dominant that he can compensate for the lack of balance. Really only 5 players I can think of that fit that bill - MJ, Kobe, Magic, Bird, Shaq
I also agree on the toughness issue. Remember though the perimeter success of JB goes back further than WV when he had the same strategy. So it has passed the test of time just not in mainstream B1G. He ran the same spread in the Big east that was very tough and rugged 10 years ago. Agree you need balance.
I think the “toughness” issue is overplayed. We would have been a lot better at rebounding last year with McGary - people seem to forget he was out.
Our recruiting has shifted a bit - Donnal, Doyle, Wilson and Teske are all longer and taller than Morgan, and apparently we are still recruiting some additional bigs.
Meanwhile, the Big Ten is a rugged conference and when teams like MSU and Wisconsin hit the real tourney, they usually have trouble adjusting when they can’t get away with the constant fouling they are used to in the Big Ten.
I like the concept of our team adding some additional bigs so it has the flexibility to play big against certain teams if necessary. At the same time, I like our offense and while I might give our future bigs a few more post touches, I would not want to fundamentally change things. And if we get a TJ Leaf to play the four, well, I can live with giving up a few offensive rebounds here and there as a trade off for his offense.
Oh, and we have won 6 of 9 against MSU.