But this is where your subjective views about “winning” interfere with objective analysis, IMO.
You could have easily said the same for Stauskas as a freshman, or even as a sophomore. He was an extremely skilled shooter, and a good passer, but a defensive liability. Yet the team won big both years, and he played a big role in that.
We are a team that is built on offense. I know you don’t agree with that approach, but there’s a difference between saying “I don’t like our approach” and “our approach can’t be successful.” And I think you, in particular, throw in hyperbole like “struggle mightily on defense” to further advance your agenda.
With all that said, I do like Elliott’s film and if we don’t land Bamba, I think offering him would make some sense. But I do not think he’s as good as Poole for what we’re trying to do. For a team like MSU or Minnesota, he would probably be a better fit. And again, that’s not to say he isn’t a very good player.
And I’ll predict that unless JB retires, there’s a 0% chance he gets fired after this year, tourney or no tourney.
There is a difference between fit…which is code word for shooting and winning
I think Greg Elliott does more to help Michigan win basketball games as a freshman in relation to Jordan Poole next year based on the surrounding pieces. Poole isn’t going to be nearly as effective as Stauskas because he doesn’t have a teammate to create open looks for him and he’s nowhere near the ball handler Stauskas was at the same age.
I’ve seen what JP looks like when he has to create for himself in the halfcourt…and it isn’t pretty
That’s a fair argument. I don’t happen to agree, but that’s irrelevant.
I just think it’s fairly obvious that when JB’s recruits have panned out, what he does is very successful. A few years ago in this forum, you took issue with that.
I fully understand you prefer an approach that places a greater emphasis on defense. That’s cool. Tom Izzo (a very successful Hall of Fame coach) would agree with you. So would Rick Pitino. Roy Williams probably wouldn’t.
I personally think Poole is going to be pretty good. He’s 6-4, so when it comes to passing, I think he’s going to be the slower, craftier type of guy. James Harden and D’Angelo Russell both lack explosiveness, but are very good passers. I also think that when you have range like Poole, it opens up a lot because the defense has to guard you 23-25 feet away from the basket.
As I understand it, JP played for a terrible AAU team. So if you’re basing your comments about him creating in the halfcourt on that, well, you can’t just ignore that.
Either way, I like Elliott a lot. Hard to argue with his film. He’s going to help someone, and if we don’t get Bamba, I’d be fine with offering him. Having said that, though, I think I’d rather have Carmody a year later. But there’s no assurance on him or Ryan for that matter.
On a totally different topic, have you seen 2019 Taylor Currie and what are your thoughts? Seems like he’s a guy we can land.
To be fair, Stauskas is kinda a different situation since he was at an insane level of offensive efficiency at a good volume. Offensively he was arguably better than even Trey Burke (Stauskas offensive rating of 124 to Burke’s 122). That crazy offensive ability for a guard with a high usage rate is once in a decade type talent IMO, so obviously any defensive issues wouldn’t really matter as much.
Marquette is the only P5 team to offer him a scholarship? If he is better than someone you consider a 75-100 player, then why isn’t get getting more offers?
Maybe because he didn’t play with a shoe sponsored AAU club until this past spring/summer. Alternatively, perhaps coaches just don’t think he’s that good.
I think the best thing to do is wait a few months. That offer list might be much more extensive.