Anyone know of any recruits being in Crisler for the game tonight vs. Wisconsin? You would think that the coaching staff would try to get a bunch of recruits there. Dylan??? Anyone???
C.W. I believe is there.
Too bad Jaylen Brown had to reschedule. Would have been a good game for him to see how good the atmosphere at Chrysler can be.
Cassius Winston was there as the above poster said. I’m fairly positive Michigan leads with Winston.
Cassius Winston was there as the above poster said. I'm fairly positive Michigan leads with Winston.
That’s news to me. I hope you are right. I like DT better, but Winston is a very nice offensive player.
Cassius Winston was there as the above poster said. I'm fairly positive Michigan leads with Winston.That’s news to me. I hope you are right. I like DT better, but Winston is a very nice offensive player.
As do I, but it seems we’re fading fast with DT for some reason.
Cassius Winston was there as the above poster said. I'm fairly positive Michigan leads with Winston.That’s news to me. I hope you are right. I like DT better, but Winston is a very nice offensive player.
As do I, but it seems we’re fading fast with DT for some reason.
I think the reason is fairly obvious - we’re not very good and the roster isn’t all that enticing, and will be even less attractive assuming Caris leaves.
For those that disagree, please expand…im curious
I think we are recruiting Winston much harder for a few reasons: (1) at this rate, Walton is a four year player, and I’m sure Thornton is looking for a place where he’ll walk in as the starter from day one; (2) Thornton is likely a one and done guy, and unless you have the players around him to win it all in 2016, you’ll be recruiting a point guard again the next year and possibly without a lot to show for it; (3) MSU is our rival, and getting Winston not only weakens them but it would be a big recruiting win for us in the state; and (4) we are not swimming with the sharks when it comes to recruiting Winston - it’s seemingly a two team battle and I’m confident Izzo is on the up-and-up when it comes to recruiting now that Chris Grier is out of the picture.
Also, there is talk that Battle and Langford’s dads talk and both would be willing to play together.
Don’t get me wrong, if Thornton wants to commit tomorrow you take it without question, and it’s a great get. But I can see the logic of prioritizing Winston, which is what I think we are doing.
I think we are recruiting Winston much harder for a few reasons: (1) at this rate, Walton is a four year player, and I'm sure Thornton is looking for a place where he'll walk in as the starter from day one; (2) Thornton is likely a one and done guy, and unless you have the players around him to win it all in 2016, you'll be recruiting a point guard again the next year and possibly without a lot to show for it; (3) MSU is our rival, and getting Winston not only weakens them but it would be a big recruiting win for us in the state; and (4) we are not swimming with the sharks when it comes to recruiting Winston - it's seemingly a two team battle and I'm confident Izzo is on the up-and-up when it comes to recruiting now that Chris Grier is out of the picture.Also, there is talk that Battle and Langford’s dads talk and both would be willing to play together.
Don’t get me wrong, if Thornton wants to commit tomorrow you take it without question, and it’s a great get. But I can see the logic of prioritizing Winston, which is what I think we are doing.
Fairly confident DT is not a one a done. Not many, if any, players under 6’3 that are one and done.
Austin Davis (Ostego, MI 2016) was also at the game. Since we already have Teske in the mix, I doubt this means much in functional terms.
I think we are recruiting Winston much harder for a few reasons: (1) at this rate, Walton is a four year player, and I'm sure Thornton is looking for a place where he'll walk in as the starter from day one; (2) Thornton is likely a one and done guy, and unless you have the players around him to win it all in 2016, you'll be recruiting a point guard again the next year and possibly without a lot to show for it; (3) MSU is our rival, and getting Winston not only weakens them but it would be a big recruiting win for us in the state; and (4) we are not swimming with the sharks when it comes to recruiting Winston - it's seemingly a two team battle and I'm confident Izzo is on the up-and-up when it comes to recruiting now that Chris Grier is out of the picture.Also, there is talk that Battle and Langford’s dads talk and both would be willing to play together.
Don’t get me wrong, if Thornton wants to commit tomorrow you take it without question, and it’s a great get. But I can see the logic of prioritizing Winston, which is what I think we are doing.
Fairly confident DT is not a one a done. Not many, if any, players under 6’3 that are one and done.
“If any” …Eric Bledsoe, Avery Bradley, Marquis Teague, Tyler Ennis. I realize these are probably guys you’ve never heard of, but they still exist.
Just not a big fan of Winston as he does not look that athletic to me.
I think we are recruiting Winston much harder for a few reasons: (1) at this rate, Walton is a four year player, and I'm sure Thornton is looking for a place where he'll walk in as the starter from day one; (2) Thornton is likely a one and done guy, and unless you have the players around him to win it all in 2016, you'll be recruiting a point guard again the next year and possibly without a lot to show for it; (3) MSU is our rival, and getting Winston not only weakens them but it would be a big recruiting win for us in the state; and (4) we are not swimming with the sharks when it comes to recruiting Winston - it's seemingly a two team battle and I'm confident Izzo is on the up-and-up when it comes to recruiting now that Chris Grier is out of the picture.Also, there is talk that Battle and Langford’s dads talk and both would be willing to play together.
Don’t get me wrong, if Thornton wants to commit tomorrow you take it without question, and it’s a great get. But I can see the logic of prioritizing Winston, which is what I think we are doing.
Fairly confident DT is not a one a done. Not many, if any, players under 6’3 that are one and done.
“If any” …Eric Bledsoe, Avery Bradley, Marquis Teague, Tyler Ennis. I realize these are probably guys you’ve never heard of, but they still exist.
And that is what percentage of 6’3 and under players in proportion to total…I rest my case.
Just not a big fan of Winston as he does not look that athletic to me.
He isn’t very athletic, and he’s not a very good defender, but he can certainly help offensively. Considering our PG options are dwindling by the day, I’d gladly take him and hope what another poster said in relationt to UM having good standing with Winston is true.
“And that is what percentage of 6’3 and under players in proportion to total…I rest my case.”
You said “…if any…” He listed a few examples. You rested your case. If this were a real case, you would lose. I hope you’re not an attorney.
"And that is what percentage of 6'3 and under players in proportion to total...........I rest my case."You said “…if any…” He listed a few examples. You rested your case. If this were a real case, you would lose. I hope you’re not an attorney.
A good lawyer is always familiar with material facts and language. A bad lawyer is not. See, your contention would’ve been just fine had you included the material language verbatim, which read " not many, if any". This is quite different from your convenient contention that I said “if any”.
Just another guy trying to jump on the bandwagon…and once again it failed.
By the way - I am an an attorney by day (and night seemingly), basketball expert in my free time.
"And that is what percentage of 6'3 and under players in proportion to total...........I rest my case."You said “…if any…” He listed a few examples. You rested your case. If this were a real case, you would lose. I hope you’re not an attorney.
A good lawyer is always familiar with material facts and language. A bad lawyer is not. See, your contention would’ve been just fine had you included the material language verbatim, which read " not many, if any". This is quite different from your convenient contention that I said “if any”.
Just another guy trying to jump on the bandwagon…and once again it failed.
By the way - I am an an attorney by day (and night seemingly), basketball expert in my free time.
My point was that another poster responded with a non-exhaustive list of 4 recent players that were one-and-done despite being 6’3" or under. You then rested your case. It didn’t make sense at the time, and your buzzword-filled, non-sensical response does not strengthen your argument.
Maybe you’re a transactional attorney?
"And that is what percentage of 6'3 and under players in proportion to total...........I rest my case."You said “…if any…” He listed a few examples. You rested your case. If this were a real case, you would lose. I hope you’re not an attorney.
A good lawyer is always familiar with material facts and language. A bad lawyer is not. See, your contention would’ve been just fine had you included the material language verbatim, which read " not many, if any". This is quite different from your convenient contention that I said “if any”.
Just another guy trying to jump on the bandwagon…and once again it failed.
By the way - I am an an attorney by day (and night seemingly), basketball expert in my free time.
My point was that another poster responded with a non-exhaustive list of 4 recent players that were one-and-done despite being 6’3" or under. You then rested your case. It didn’t make sense at the time, and your buzzword-filled, non-sensical response does not strengthen your argument.
Maybe you’re a transactional attorney?
Doesn’t make sense to you because apparently you don’t view the “not many” disclaimer language as material…which is why you are a poor lawyer!
If you would have left it at “not many”, I would not have listed several recent 1 and dones under 6’3. I listed those players because you included “if any” and thus implied that there may not have been any one and done players under 6’3. That would be a false implication.