Moritz Wagner Likely to Play in College, Reportedly Considering (Favoring?) Michigan

Question I have about Cook is…how is he better than Doyle? (I’m asking for opinions) Doyle is big and strong and skill getting better. Cook is a solid player and clearly needs to get in shape. How many HUGE guys does UM see on a game to game basis.

I personally see Doyle and Donnal filling in good as 5’s. Remember, both are freshmen. I just don’t see it with Cook.

I would personally take Wagner over Cook. Adding another skill guy that can shoot the basketball (although, he doesn’t seem to shoot a ton) can’t hurt.

Cook is much more skilled than Wagner in terms of footwork and passing. You just don’t see guys with those skills at that size. Wagner is rather one dimensional

poor man’s TJ Leaf?

He’s intriguing.

If he’s a redundant skill set, but a talent upgrade, you’ve gotta take him at this point in the cycle. Hope Spike, Walton, MAAR and maybe Chatman/Zak pick up the creating in the next year or two. Hope that Robinson and (hopefully) Wagner can simply shoot over people.

I don’t think that we are recruiting Cook beyond maybe checking him out.

Well, I’d say Wagner handles the ball no worse than Chandler Parsons, and really I think his skillset is very similar. And I don’t agree at all that height makes no difference. Frank Kaminski can’t play the wing, but his ability to score off the dribble and use the dribble to set up shots is impressive and helps him tremendously. Another team isn’t going to guard Wagner with a 6-7 player; he could shoot over that guy all day long. You have to use a taller player to guard him, and at that point, his dribbling ability IS relative to his height. In other words, he probably can’t take a Glenn Robinson off the dribble, but he can take a bigger, slower player (a Mark Donnal type) off the dribble. I’d agree that a tall, athletic guy would give him problems, but tall, athletic defenders give everyone problems. There aren’t many Cauley-Steins out there, and certainly not in the Big Ten. Are you telling me you also wouldn’t want a Kyle Wiltjer on the team? I would.

Again, we simply disagree. In my opinion, height/length only aid when using it appropriately. Height/length has not helped Irvin, Doyle, Chatman, Donnal, Caris in terms of finishing around the rim or being plus defenders. It is rather odd that our best defender is our smallest player in Walton. Speed,lateral agility, and verticality are much more prominent because it allows you to get enough separation to get a clean look and it allows you to get beat and recover and deter shots on defense. There simply is no replacement for athleticism…

Also disagree that the opposition would need a taller player to guard him. In fact, I think a smaller player could potentially shut him down. That was the blueprint to shutting Nik down. Wagner simply doesn’t have the handle or lateral agility to get off a quality shot against a quicker player. He would be relegated to taking contested jumpshots unless we surround him with guys that can create open looks. His height wouldn’t aid him because it’s not as if he’s going to bully guys in the paint. That is the problem with recruiting one dimensional bigs

In short, I think Wagner, much like Robinson is a really nice supplemental piece, and not a bad player at all, but unless he is surrounded by players that can command a double then his abilities are severely mitigated in my opinion because of his one dimensional game. Just not a fan of taking one dimensional players as it relates to our current roster needs.

Some more recent film from Dec. 2014. and Jan. 2015. Film looks a lot like a bigger/slightly more athletic version of Duncan Robinson with less handle. A guy that can shoot, release is a bit slow, can pass a bit, not going to create his own shot unless its off a poor close out. Will probably be a below average defender and rebounder.

Don’t know if the interest is mutual, but I just don’t see the need for a guy that can’t handle the ball and create a shot. We have Donnal, Doyle, Wilson as bigs with 3-4 years of eligibility left, with Teske coming in for 16…not really seeing the need here to add another one dimensional player

Matt, you attached 8 1/2 minutes of film. In that film, there were less than 10 defensive sequences in total, all of which resulted in either a steal by Wagner, a block by Wagner, or a dunk by Wagner off a steal by someone else. There were exactly 4 rebound sequences–he corralled 2, and a teammate got the other 2, when the ball bounced right to the teammate. And your conclusion is…“[w]ill probably be a below average defender and rebounder.” Tell me–is that because you believe that everyone JB recruits will probably be a below average defender and rebounder, or you believe that everyone who is not a superior athlete will probably be a below average rebounder and defender? Because it sure isn’t based on anything on the film you posted. I’ll argue whichever position you take, but I’d like to know what it is first. As a preview, guys like Jordan Morgan, Stu Douglas and Derrick Walton, to use three completely dissimilar players as examples, would argue with the notion that JB cannot have good defenders/rebounders, especially for their respective sizes, and a decade and a half of Bo Ryan players would argue that you do not need to be a great athlete to be a great defender/rebounder (and Sam Dekker, the most athletic Wisconsin player in memory, would seem to suggest that being athletic, even with a coach like Ryan, doesn’t make you a great defender/rebounder).

I have absolutely no idea as to whether Wagner can defend or rebound at all. The truth, though, is that you don’t either–you’ve made an assumption based upon zero evidence to buttress the conclusion you’ve reached about whether we should take him. It is perfectly reasonable to opine as to his shot release, his dribbling ability, or the value of taking him from an offensive perspective, etc.–those are on full display, and while I would disagree with you (like Dylan, I see Jerrod Uthoff, who I would be very happy to have), reasonable minds can differ. Opining on rebounding and defense from tapes which show neither–not so much.

In my opinion, any highlight film that lacks a reasonable amount of blocked shots from a player 6’8 or above is probably an indictment on that skillset.

Could be wrong, but I would be willing to wager that Im not. In terms of rebounding, Wagner doesn’t strike me as the physical type. Again, I could be wrong, but I’d be willing to wager im not.

You can claim that Stu, Jordan, and Walton were/are good defenders, and I agree. But when you can only point to 3 players off the top of your head in an 8 year sample size…that’s pretty telling to the extent that the presumption probably shouldn’t be in JBs favor in terms of finding defensive oriented players.

I don’t know that kid is actually pretty solid. hes more athletic than I thought from old highlights. That kid could end up being a nice pick up.

If we’re only taking ONE, this isn’t the one we want.

If we’re taking TWO, which I believe we will, then I suppose this could be a nice get.
Maybe they’re thinking he can play the 4 and move Chatman to the top? I’m not sure.
Or maybe we’re assuming attrition.

In any case, we need a ball handler/creator.
But Wagner looks like a nice player that I wouldn’t mind adding to the roster.
Uthoff seems like the best comparison IMO

If we're only taking ONE, this isn't the one we want.

If we’re taking TWO, which I believe we will, then I suppose this could be a nice get.
Maybe they’re thinking he can play the 4 and move Chatman to the top? I’m not sure.
Or maybe we’re assuming attrition.

In any case, we need a ball handler/creator.
But Wagner looks like a nice player that I wouldn’t mind adding to the roster.
Uthoff seems like the best comparison IMO

Pretty much my thinking in a nutshell…a guy that is a nice supplemental piece, but not a pillar of your roster, and we need a pillar.

Well, define “pillar.”

The reality is this - we made the title game two years ago, and the Elite Eight last year, so now at least some of our fans have the expectation - as unrealistic as it might be - that we can do it every year.

No one - not even the best programs in college basketball - does that.

The best recruits we’ve landed over the past five years - in terms of their impact on the program - are Burke and Stauskas. Hopefully, that’s not even reasonably debatable. Both guys were good players as freshmen; neither guy was one that, if you added him to next year’s roster, would automatically make it a Final Four caliber team. (I’m talking about their impact as freshmen - if you added a sophomore Burke or Stauskas to next year’s team, maybe).

In other words, the “Jaylen Brown or bust” mentality, to me, is somewhat stupid. We have maybe a 1% chance of getting Jaylen Brown, or Josh Jackson, or any other top 5-10 player. Even if we didn’t have to compete against rogue programs for him, we’d still have maybe a 25% shot at best.

I know it sucks, given the immediate success we enjoyed in 2013 and 2014, but the reality may be that going forward, we are going to have to build a team with guys who are, for the most part, three and four year players. And thus, we might be a threat to make the Final Four once every four years or so, as opposed to every year.

For the sake of comparison, it has long been a point of pride for Michigan State that each graduating class of seniors made the Final Four once under Izzo (that streak was broken last year).

The key, again, will be the continued development and improvement of our players. There is no question this has been a rough year - not many teams can lose their two best players and continue to compete at a high level - but I’ve seen a LOT of guys make improvements. Irvin (while his outside shot is still maddeningly inconsistent) has really become a much better ballhandler and passer in recent weeks - he’s now running the pick and roll with pretty good success and is finding open shooters. MAAR, to me, has really impressed at times; at worst, he’ll be a nice rotation player for us going forward. Doyle - while inconsistent - has had some really good games, and is setting picks and rolling to the basket much better than he did early in the year. Even Chatman, over the past couple games, is finding his stroke again and is playing with much more confidence.

Next year, when you “add” a recruiting class of Levert (hopefully - sounds like he’s strongly considering returning), Walton, Robinson, and Wilson, there might be some nice pieces. I’m not predicting a team capable of making the Final Four, but perhaps a team in the 4-7 seed range that can win a couple tourney games and build on that for the following year, where we’ll lose only Spike and Levert.

In reality, before Burke came along and was followed by a spectacular recruiting class of Stauskas, McGary, Robinson, Levert and Spike (four NBA players and a very nice backup PG who could start for plenty of programs), that was the trajectory of the program - good but not elite recruits (Morris, Hardaway, Smote, etc.) who, after playing 2-3 years or more together, might be capable of making a deep tourney run as upperclassmen.

And by the way, for those lamenting that reality, and wishing we could be more like Kentucky or Kansas (“reload” every year with a roster capable of making the Final Four), ask yourself this - what team in the Big Ten (you know, the conference we play in) is capable of doing that? As we’ve seen, Wisconsin has been really successful precisely because they have managed to keep their talented players in school for 3-4 years. MSU certainly isn’t a Final Four threat this year. OSU has a great one-and-done talent in Russell, and some solid complimentary pieces, but they certainly don’t look capable of making a deep tourney run this year. Indiana - after that great year two years ago - has fallen by the wayside in terms of their tourney prospects. The rest are not even worth discussing.

Indeed, other than Michigan in 2013 and 2014, the only Big Ten school I can even think of that made a deep tourney run with really young players would be OSU with Oden/Cook/Conley. Everyone else has had to build a team and let their players gain experience. And even in the case of MSU last year, with two senior McDonalds All Americans (Payne, Appling), a junior McD AA (Dawson), and a sophmore McD AA (Harris), the best they could do was the Elite Eight.

So, I’d say the notion that we can “reload” every year, and should expect to land top 10 talents, is not based on recent history or reality.

If it so happens that instead of our players reaching the Final Four as freshmen and sophomores, it takes them longer to become capable of making that type of run, well, that would be consistent with the rest of the Big Ten’s best teams.

LAW, I agree with much of what you say, but I’d quibble with a couple points.

First, a team like Wiscy who keeps their players 3-4 years isn’t restricted to being a final four threat every 3 to 4 years. They likely will make their 4th sweet 16 in the last 5 years. If you’re making the sweet 16, you’re a threat to make the final four. What happened with UM is that they were SO successful over the last 2 years, AND played with such offensive brilliance, that they had departures for the NBA as if they were recruiting like Duke. (Compare that to Wiscy, where Dekker and Kaminsky stayed, and where they haven’t had an early entrant since, I don’t know, Devin Harris). I believe that if UM keeps its players 3-4 years it will be a final four threat, i.e., have a roster capable of making the final four, more than once every four years. This year was an exceptionally unlucky year - Walton and LeVert injuries, Wilson injury, Spike injury, Horford leaving, - following all the NBA early departures, and I think we’ll look back on it as an aberration. These things happen. Billy Donovan went to two NITs after his back to back championships, but followed that up with three elite 8s and a final 4 in the last five years. Kansas and Duke have went to one Final Four combined in the last 4 years. (And JB’s teams @WVU shows he doesn’t need top 10 guys to be a final four threat). Our top 8 includes 5 freshmen and only 2 upperclassmen. This isn’t about not having a team full of seniors.

But, second, I think you’re being a little pessimistic about recruiting/our players going forward. I don’t think we should quite write off the 2012 class as a complete one-off. Besides possibly McGary, which of those players could we not recruit again? Certainly Nik and Caris are players we could get again. And while Irvin, Walton, Wilson, Chatman, etc., may all end up four year players, we shall see. Finally, we still seem to be in good position for Langford, Battle, Winston, etc. Those guys, with Michigan’s proven player development, certainly could be early entry candidates.

In the end, you aren’t going to be able to convince some people, and it comes down to whether you believe in JB and his staff or not. I do, and I believe this year would’ve been very different, even without all the early entrants, with some better luck, and that going forward we will be very successful on a year-in, year-out basis, with some ups and downs, of course, like pretty much every team.

A few points in response:

  1. I’m not really convinced Wisconsin has been a Final Four threat every year they have made the Sweet Sixteen. Last year, of course, was the first time Bo Ryan ever made it. And that Wisconsin team three years ago, that we hammered at Crisler, was not special. But in general, your point is still very valid - they always have experience, and more often than not, they have the ability to win the Big Ten and make a run in the tourney.

  2. The reason we’re not on the Wisconsin path right now, of course, is due to early departures. Not only did Nik, Glenn and Mitch all leave, but the guys waiting in the wings to take over were, themselves, relatively young. Caris and Walton (who are now of course both hurt) had only been starters for one year, and the rest of our starting lineup when the season began (Irvin, Chatman, Donnal) were first time starters, and in the case of Chatman and Donnal (and Doyle, too), they were playing major college basketball for the first time.

  3. Donovan and Florida is an interesting case study. They are struggling this year, and they have (on paper, anyway) a LOT of talent. But all those guys are young, and most are seeing significant minutes for the first time - not unlike our team.

  4. As far as future recruiting, I agree, we could land guys like Nik (ranked around #80 when he committed) and Glenn (ranked #120 when he committed) again. Right now, for the past 2-3 years, we’ve set our sights on kids in the 20-40 range, with very little success. To the staff’s credit, they branched out and found kids like Wilson, MAAR, and Dawkins when their top targets didn’t pan out. But there’s also a happy medium, too. I think the results from the 2016 class will dictate our future recruiting strategy. If we land one of Battle and Langford, and one of Winston and Thornton, that would validate recruiting the elite guys. If not, we may see a shift back to trying to find underrated players who we believe are elite - like Trey, Tim, and Nik. The competition for those players will be far less daunting.

  5. Given what I saw this year - and certainly some of it occurred before Caris and Walton got hurt - I think it’s appropriate to dial back expectations for 2015/2016 a bit until the team proves otherwise. Again, I could see a top 3-5 finish in the Big Ten, a seed somewhere in the 5-8 range, and maybe a Sweet Sixteen appearance (though if we’re an 8 seed, I don’t see us knocking off a 1 seed), but I’m not going to get crazy with expectations until they prove it on the court. Sure, if everything went right, maybe the ceiling is higher, but until it happens . . .

Great pair of posts, LA Wolverine. The losses have been so overwhelming, I don’t think all of us have fully assimilated that we lost our FIVE best players (three to the NBA and two to injury) from last year to now–it’s a marvel that we have been in the thick of so many games despite it all. Under such circumstances, criticism of Beilein (especially for his recruiting!) is just not going to be terribly persuasive, at least not to cooler heads. I for one not only fully accept but embrace that finding diamonds in the rough and coaching them up may be our MO going forward, and will take it over Kentucky, Duke and Kansas while we are at it: the latter two don’t look so great underneath the magnifying glass, either.

Just agree to disagree..............you think Wagner is a decent dribbler relative to his size. But as we have all seen under JB, basketball is becoming a position-less game.........doesn't matter how big you are anymore, you can either dribble or you can't. As you say, he's not a 5, he's a wing in our offense.........and his handle is nowhere near good enough to handle B10 level defenders. With his current game, I don't think Wagner can create a quality shot for himself or his teammates. If we KNEW we were getting a Winston or Langford, then I'd be ok with it as a supplemental player..........but with the way recruiting has gone recently, I think we have to prepare for the fact that we aren't getting either of those guys.

I’m looking at this from a deduction standpoint…if we get Wagner, that is one less spot for an upper tier creator…we need those MUCH more than we need a guy that can make a shot off a close out.

Well if, as you say, we aren’t getting Winston and Langford, then who exactly is the upper tier creator that Wagner is taking a spot from?

See my paragraph just above the line you reference - I would be fine is Wagner was a supplemental piece…but we NEED a multifaceted player that can handle and create for others exponentially more than we need a one dimensional player. What is the need for Duncan Robinson and Wagner in one class…far too much overlap.

Long story short, get an upper tier creator FIRST, then worry about Wagner. If you can’t land him because you put him on the backburner, then so be it, he’s not going to improve the team next year anyway. Guys like that are not uncommon…and they’re always attracted to UM, there will be other opportunities for oversized wings that can’t handle.

Well I agree that we have a much greater need for an upper tier creator or two, but I am not sure that bringing in a Wagner excludes them.

Just agree to disagree..............you think Wagner is a decent dribbler relative to his size. But as we have all seen under JB, basketball is becoming a position-less game.........doesn't matter how big you are anymore, you can either dribble or you can't. As you say, he's not a 5, he's a wing in our offense.........and his handle is nowhere near good enough to handle B10 level defenders. With his current game, I don't think Wagner can create a quality shot for himself or his teammates. If we KNEW we were getting a Winston or Langford, then I'd be ok with it as a supplemental player..........but with the way recruiting has gone recently, I think we have to prepare for the fact that we aren't getting either of those guys.

I’m looking at this from a deduction standpoint…if we get Wagner, that is one less spot for an upper tier creator…we need those MUCH more than we need a guy that can make a shot off a close out.

Well if, as you say, we aren’t getting Winston and Langford, then who exactly is the upper tier creator that Wagner is taking a spot from?

See my paragraph just above the line you reference - I would be fine is Wagner was a supplemental piece…but we NEED a multifaceted player that can handle and create for others exponentially more than we need a one dimensional player. What is the need for Duncan Robinson and Wagner in one class…far too much overlap.

Long story short, get an upper tier creator FIRST, then worry about Wagner. If you can’t land him because you put him on the backburner, then so be it, he’s not going to improve the team next year anyway. Guys like that are not uncommon…and they’re always attracted to UM, there will be other opportunities for oversized wings that can’t handle.

Well I agree that we have a much greater need for an upper tier creator or two, but I am not sure that bringing in a Wagner excludes them.

From a scholarship standpoint, if you add Wagner, you are down to 1 scholarship available for the 16 class. It essentially negates your flexibility to add a creating PG and a creating Wing…if you add Wagner, and fail to add a PG, the roster will be extremely redundant and limited. As you say, we need to add creators…would much rather have a PG and wing that both have the ability to handle then another catch and shoot type player.

Well, define "pillar."

The reality is this - we made the title game two years ago, and the Elite Eight last year, so now at least some of our fans have the expectation - as unrealistic as it might be - that we can do it every year.

No one - not even the best programs in college basketball - does that.

The best recruits we’ve landed over the past five years - in terms of their impact on the program - are Burke and Stauskas. Hopefully, that’s not even reasonably debatable. Both guys were good players as freshmen; neither guy was one that, if you added him to next year’s roster, would automatically make it a Final Four caliber team. (I’m talking about their impact as freshmen - if you added a sophomore Burke or Stauskas to next year’s team, maybe).

In other words, the “Jaylen Brown or bust” mentality, to me, is somewhat stupid. We have maybe a 1% chance of getting Jaylen Brown, or Josh Jackson, or any other top 5-10 player. Even if we didn’t have to compete against rogue programs for him, we’d still have maybe a 25% shot at best.

I know it sucks, given the immediate success we enjoyed in 2013 and 2014, but the reality may be that going forward, we are going to have to build a team with guys who are, for the most part, three and four year players. And thus, we might be a threat to make the Final Four once every four years or so, as opposed to every year.

For the sake of comparison, it has long been a point of pride for Michigan State that each graduating class of seniors made the Final Four once under Izzo (that streak was broken last year).

The key, again, will be the continued development and improvement of our players. There is no question this has been a rough year - not many teams can lose their two best players and continue to compete at a high level - but I’ve seen a LOT of guys make improvements. Irvin (while his outside shot is still maddeningly inconsistent) has really become a much better ballhandler and passer in recent weeks - he’s now running the pick and roll with pretty good success and is finding open shooters. MAAR, to me, has really impressed at times; at worst, he’ll be a nice rotation player for us going forward. Doyle - while inconsistent - has had some really good games, and is setting picks and rolling to the basket much better than he did early in the year. Even Chatman, over the past couple games, is finding his stroke again and is playing with much more confidence.

Next year, when you “add” a recruiting class of Levert (hopefully - sounds like he’s strongly considering returning), Walton, Robinson, and Wilson, there might be some nice pieces. I’m not predicting a team capable of making the Final Four, but perhaps a team in the 4-7 seed range that can win a couple tourney games and build on that for the following year, where we’ll lose only Spike and Levert.

In reality, before Burke came along and was followed by a spectacular recruiting class of Stauskas, McGary, Robinson, Levert and Spike (four NBA players and a very nice backup PG who could start for plenty of programs), that was the trajectory of the program - good but not elite recruits (Morris, Hardaway, Smote, etc.) who, after playing 2-3 years or more together, might be capable of making a deep tourney run as upperclassmen.

And by the way, for those lamenting that reality, and wishing we could be more like Kentucky or Kansas (“reload” every year with a roster capable of making the Final Four), ask yourself this - what team in the Big Ten (you know, the conference we play in) is capable of doing that? As we’ve seen, Wisconsin has been really successful precisely because they have managed to keep their talented players in school for 3-4 years. MSU certainly isn’t a Final Four threat this year. OSU has a great one-and-done talent in Russell, and some solid complimentary pieces, but they certainly don’t look capable of making a deep tourney run this year. Indiana - after that great year two years ago - has fallen by the wayside in terms of their tourney prospects. The rest are not even worth discussing.

Indeed, other than Michigan in 2013 and 2014, the only Big Ten school I can even think of that made a deep tourney run with really young players would be OSU with Oden/Cook/Conley. Everyone else has had to build a team and let their players gain experience. And even in the case of MSU last year, with two senior McDonalds All Americans (Payne, Appling), a junior McD AA (Dawson), and a sophmore McD AA (Harris), the best they could do was the Elite Eight.

So, I’d say the notion that we can “reload” every year, and should expect to land top 10 talents, is not based on recent history or reality.

If it so happens that instead of our players reaching the Final Four as freshmen and sophomores, it takes them longer to become capable of making that type of run, well, that would be consistent with the rest of the Big Ten’s best teams.

There are a lot of red herrings in your post. I don’t see anyone here saying 1) we have to reload every year, 2) equal the success of Kansas and Kentucky or
3) it’s Jaylen Brown or bust. There is a huge gap between where we are and Kentucky. I think we can reasonably expect to be more like a Wisconsin or Sparty

A few points in response:
  1. As far as future recruiting, I agree, we could land guys like Nik (ranked around #80 when he committed) and Glenn (ranked #120 when he committed) again. Right now, for the past 2-3 years, we’ve set our sights on kids in the 20-40 range, with very little success. To the staff’s credit, they branched out and found kids like Wilson, MAAR, and Dawkins when their top targets didn’t pan out. But there’s also a happy medium, too. I think the results from the 2016 class will dictate our future recruiting strategy. If we land one of Battle and Langford, and one of Winston and Thornton, that would validate recruiting the elite guys. If not, we may see a shift back to trying to find underrated players who we believe are elite - like Trey, Tim, and Nik. The competition for those players will be far less daunting.

  2. Given what I saw this year - and certainly some of it occurred before Caris and Walton got hurt - I think it’s appropriate to dial back expectations for 2015/2016 a bit until the team proves otherwise. Again, I could see a top 3-5 finish in the Big Ten, a seed somewhere in the 5-8 range, and maybe a Sweet Sixteen appearance (though if we’re an 8 seed, I don’t see us knocking off a 1 seed), but I’m not going to get crazy with expectations until they prove it on the court. Sure, if everything went right, maybe the ceiling is higher, but until it happens . . .

re: 4, I wonder if there’s been a trend of players committing later, which has hurt UM as players they like have developed more. I also wonder if there’s been a backlash from UM having such success with slightly lower rated guys – i.e., other coaches going hard after whoever UM offers. But I think you’re right.

re: 5, We’ll see. It’s easy to feel bleak right now, but we also beat Oregon and Cuse, who will or would’ve made the tourney, and played Nova tight early on. But I can see what you’re saying.