This discussion was created from comments split from: Duncan Robinson.
Small point that really irks me - Burke was a top 100 player by every site other than Rivals (#142). Point is I wish people would stop acting like Trey was a nobody out of HS and JB turned him into God because that’s not the case. Was he a 5 star or even an upper tier 4 star, no, but he was still a consensus top 100 recruit that had high major offers that I wouldn’t consider “under the radar” in a traditional sense.
Those offers were Cincinnati and Penn State, though. Relative to his ultimate accomplishments, I’d call that plenty “under the radar”.
Question to all the JB can develop “under the radar” recruits into NBA lottery pick theorists. Would it be fair to say that JB has failed to adequately develop the 5 star/super heralded recruits he has landed? I think it’s fair to say that relative to their potential, GR3 and Mitch failed to fully mature at UM - to me that speaks just as highly as the counter-argument but yet nobody speaks of it. Just some food for thought to bring some balance to the dialogue.
It says a lot more about GR3 than JB that he didn’t develop.
I tend to agree about GR3, but as a coach it is your job to ensure that players (a) maximize their talents and (b) put those players in the best position to succeed, and from that standpoint I think JB could’ve done better, especially with regard to (b)
Nothing is ever JBs fault.
I don’t think anyone thinks JB can develop “all” anyone into NBA lottery picks (nice strawman, since that seems to be the term du jour).
With that established, I don’t think McGary belongs on the list at all given (a) the fact that you could make a case for pretty meaningful development during year 1, (b) his second year injury cost his entire production and therefore evaluation on the court, and © getting drafted at 21 as a sophomore who barely even played his second year (I would call that on par or better than his final ranking would have predicted). So the grade on McGary is basically an “N/A” at worst, or a plus for Beilein at best.
With GRIII, I tend to look at where he was ranked when he committed as a sign of JB’s talent evaluation skill, but in terms of development while in school, he still only had a two year sample size (so failing to “fully mature” at UM is an unfair benchmark). And I’d say GRIII added to his game during that time. Even then, getting drafted 40 as a sophomore was not outside a reasonable range of where he could be expected to go based on where he was ranked by the end. And, further, it sounds like it was intangibles, not necessarily skills, that cost Glenn from being drafted in the first round, as he was rumored to be #2 on the list for multiple teams drafting in the 20s.
Question to all the JB can develop "under the radar" recruits into NBA lottery pick theorists. Would it be fair to say that JB has failed to adequately develop the 5 star/super heralded recruits he has landed? I think it's fair to say that relative to their potential, GR3 and Mitch failed to fully mature at UM - to me that speaks just as highly as the counter-argument but yet nobody speaks of it. Just some food for thought to bring some balance to the dialogue.
Kind of hard to knock Mitch when he only played one season right? And he improved significantly from the first game to the last. Then despite not playing he was drafted in the first round.
GR3… A lot more interesting. He was a guy that was always working against his potential (he was overrated because of his raw ability) so it’s inherently harder to improve. He committed as an unknown and the bulk of his improvement happened during his HS years (when he went from top 150 to top 25 recruit).
Draft position is not your friend in this argument.
The fact that both GR3 and Mitch both slipped in the draft (GR3 literally fell 25-30 spots) is a total indictment on JBs developmental ability (or lack of in this case). So at best JB failed slightly and failed miserably at worst per your draft theory. Really no other way to put it.
Absolute draft position from the 2013 draft to the 2014 draft is not a good argument for two primary reasons: (1) the 2014 draft was much deeper, and (2) skill development is not the sole (or necessarily even the main) criteria on which players are drafted. Even if it were a good criteria, that reasoning inherently penalizes JB for his first year development. Which is of course the sign of bad criteria.
I find it very interesting that you fault JB for not putting GRIII in the place that best maximized GRIII’s talents as opposed to the place that best maximized the team’s talents. JB’s concern is the latter, as is mine.
Also…I just took a quick look at the final 2012 HS player rankings and there are two players that conspicuously stand out as being ranked higher than GRIII but not yet drafted highly. They are both at Kentucky. Wonder what that means about Calipari’s development abilities.
If gR3’s talents were maximized, wouldn’t that inherently maximize the team’s talent?
If absolute draft position isn’t good criteria then how is relative draft position? Point is those guys were getting drafted with, or without JB in their lives, again the draft is not your friend in this debate.
The truth is both Mitch and GR3 could’ve been better utilized and developed at other schools, and I think you know that deep down. I’ll let you use the injury rational with Mitch, because that does carry some weight to a certain extent. However, GR3 did not develop skill that correlates to his potential and that is the truth. He regressed to a certain extent to be honest about it.
You have never heard me say one peep about Cal, so how is that relevant to the dialogue, but since you want to go there, I’ll pose this question - which coach has produced more NBA players, which coach has experienced more success at the college level (since the pro JB argument is he wins so “trust” him), and which coach just ended the the other’s season with not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 freshman starting?
Re: Voltron,
GRIII should’ve stayed another year as THJr did.
If gR3's talents were maximized, wouldn't that inherently maximize the team's talent?
No, there is an opportunity cost involved. If maximizing GRIII’s development for the NBA meant playing him more at the 3, then that would have meant less LeVert/Stauskas and more Max Bielfeldt after McGary’s injury.
If absolute draft position isn't good criteria then how is relative draft position? Point is those guys were getting drafted with, or without JB in their lives, again the draft is not your friend in this debate.
My point was focused on the 2013 vs. 2014 drafts, which was the entire basis of your point. You have to use the 2014 draft as an endpoint, there isn’t another choice. But inserting the 2013 draft doesn’t work, because, among the other reasons I listed, a big part of the reason why each was projected so high could be attributed to JB (less so in GRIII’s case, admittedly).
The truth is both Mitch and GR3 could've been better utilized and developed at other schools, and I think you know that deep down.
Define “better”. Only one school won as many tournament games as Michigan during their tenure (Louisville), and Michigan a tip-in inch away from winning the best conference in the country twice out of two years. I’d say that’s pretty decent utilization.
And the ONLY way in which I’d agree that GRIII could have been developed better elsewhere is if it was somewhere where he could have the ball more, and that’s not JB’s fault. In JB’s offense, the ball flows to where it’s efficient. And given last year’s offense was the most efficient in the KenPom era, you can’t argue against those results.
However, GR3 did not develop skill that correlates to his potential and that is the truth. He regressed to a certain extent to be honest about it.
My eyes disagree with you. I’d be interested in analysis around his regression if you have it. In other words, I’m open to your argument, but you haven’t made a convincing one yet.
You have never heard me say one peep about Cal, so how is that relevant to the dialogue,
Because we’re talking in front of this forum, not directly to each other. Consider that one for Ben.
but since you want to go there, I'll pose this question - which coach has produced more NBA players, which coach has experienced more success at the college level (since the pro JB argument is he wins so "trust" him), and which coach just ended the the other's season with not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 freshman starting?
I’ll use your own argument against you here. For the vast vast majority of Cal’s guys:
“Point is those guys were getting drafted with, or without JC in their lives”
As for who won that game…you know well that anyone can win one game. Fact is, Kentucky exceeded tendency in a couple of crucial areas including the one that directly won the game (three point shooting). There are more arguments, such as why does being a freshman matter when so talented / Michigan was the second youngest team in the tournament, but I’ll just leave it there. Let’s not get off on a tangent or we’ll make Dylan have to create another thread 
Nothing is ever JBs fault.
What’s your deal Ben? What’s your angle?
One thing that everyone needs to realize is that Coach Beilein gets the guys ready for the pros. Maybe not drafted as high as they (or fans) would like but his system makes for it to be an easy adjustment to NBA terminology and picking up offensive and defensive systems.
As much as everyone talks about the pros, it’s Coach Beilein’s job to win. He has and will put guys in position for the team to be successful. Obviously, sending guys to the NBA helps with recruiting. There are too many things that he looks for in recruits to have to deal with posses, handlers, etc. That’s not his thing and will never be his thing and that’s what keeps a lot of high level recruits out.
Calipari has stated that his job is to get his guys to the next level and anything on top of that is gravy. That will never be Coach Beilein regardless of how many 4 and 5 star recruits come to Ann Arbor.
his system makes for it to be an easy adjustment to NBA terminology and picking up offensive and defensive systems.
That’s a great point. I read a great quote from Nik about how learning a NBA offense was old hat because of how complex John Beilein’s reads, calls and terms are.
Don’t know that I agree about defense.
Voltron - I’ll try to make it short, or at least attempt to:
GR3 - I do tend to agree that using him at the 3 probably would’ve meant less opportunity for Levert. However that is only 1 side of the coin. If gr3 gets more time at the 3, production most likely increases, thus mitigating the need for more Levert.
GR3 lack of development/ regression - having the ball in his hands isn’t the only way he could’ve improved his skillset, that’s kind of absurd actually. JB should’ve focused more attention to GR3 in terms of ball handling and change of direction to develop him as a player and placing him in better sets to maximize the skills he did have. Camping out on the right wing for 3s doesn’t suit his game. Pinch post suits his game much better. Transition suits his game much better. JB failed to do both of those things which are more efficient for GR3. Volume, skillset and scheme are distinct terms. Fact is, with his athleticism, GR3 had an unlimited ceiling at UM, and he failed to even come close to that ceiling under JB. In terms of regression, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a player with GR3’s athleticism actually become worse from first to second year on the defensive end in addition to rebounding, but that happened under JB’s watch.
Utilization - my contention was utilization on an individual basis, whereas your interpretation refers to a team concept. As stated, Gr3, as an individual player, could’ve been utilized much better. Team wins don’t correlate to what’s best for an individual, much the same as you essentially said that better utilization of GR3 wouldn’t be beneficial to the team - opportunity cost
Cal - we can say whatever we want about the guy, but the fact remains he’s a consistent winner that puts players in the league. Hard to knock his formula. Truth is he does his work recruiting whereas JB does his work post LOI. Front loaded job vs backloaded job - BUT Cal doesn’t get enough credit for development - would anybody in there wildest imagination have projected UK to the champ game in early March.
his system makes for it to be an easy adjustment to NBA terminology and picking up offensive and defensive systems.That’s a great point. I read a great quote from Nik about how learning a NBA offense was old hat because of how complex John Beilein’s reads, calls and terms are.
Agree as it relates to PGs and certain wings, but other than that JB makes a living out of making guys play out of position and that does not prepare those guys for the league, in fact, it hinders their development if anything.