Mitch is a 5. The skills needed for a 4 are not the same at the 5 spot.
I understand the difference, but my premise is still the same - a lack of 3 point range doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t have value to a team, whether it is at the 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 positions. Bottom line is you need defense and rebounding to win, especially on the interior. We desperately need a post presence on both offense and defense.
A lack of a 3 point shot at the 4 position means you have no value in our system.
We just need a combo forward who is a good post defender and solid rebounder. Louisville has found these types since he has been at UL. I think Beilein is starting to get the kind of talent he wants at the position relatively recent. I think GR3 brings what we need against majority of his matchups
Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. There is value in defense/rebounding at the 4 spot regardless of the 3 point shooting ability, irrelevant of the “system”. Any system that doesn’t value defense/rebounding independent of 3 point shooting is a flawed system by any objective measure.
Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. There is value in defense/rebounding at the 4 spot regardless of the 3 point shooting ability, irrelevant of the "system". Any system that doesn't value defense/rebounding independent of 3 point shooting is a flawed system by any objective measure.
I’m confused why you’re even arguing your fundamentally objective viewpoint? Everyone probably wants more rebounding. But AGAIN - Beilein puts a premium on shooting, ball handling, and versatility on offense.
We got to the national title game last year and the previous year won the Big 10 (which is known to be a physical conference). So obviously his way can work. I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time with that?
I don’t have a hard time comprehending that essentially neglecting interior defense can work, however I do question whether that type of system can have sustained success in the long run. In my opinion, that issue has to be addressed for us to take the next step forward as a program. At this point, I think we’re relevant on the national scene, but not prominent. I want this program to be elite year in and year out. It can be done, we are very close to getting there provided we have 2-3 more years of tourney runs where we’re getting to the Sweet 16 at a minimum. However, I think we may be in for slightly down year next year, as I think our interior will be suspect at best to be honest.
I get it full and well that Beilien places offense ahead of defense/rebounding in his pecking order, the true question is does that need to be modified (as opposed to totally changed) in order for our program to improve and take the next step forward. I say it does
I don't have a hard time comprehending that essentially neglecting interior defense can work, however I do question whether that type of system can have sustained success in the long run. In my opinion, that issue has to be addressed for us to take the next step forward as a program. At this point, I think we're relevant on the national scene, but not prominent. I want this program to be elite year in and year out. It can be done, we are very close to getting there provided we have 2-3 more years of tourney runs where we're getting to the Sweet 16 at a minimum. However, I think we may be in for slightly down year next year, as I think our interior will be suspect at best to be honest.I get it full and well that Beilien places offense ahead of defense/rebounding in his pecking order, the true question is does that need to be modified (as opposed to totally changed) in order for our program to improve and take the next step forward. I say it does
I think you can get away with it if you have excellent guard/wing play.
I’d say the key term is BALANCE.
We used to have a 6’3" PF because we didn’t have depth up front. We added depth in size.
We used to have primarily “shooters” on the perimeter. We added some shooters with more athleticism.
…I think we’re seeing a move toward getting “better” overall talent.
If rebounding becomes an obstacle, I believe in Beilein to continue his trend of overcoming them.
Totally agree with the fact that the roster has been upgraded in terms of skill, athleticism, and size.
However, your statement “if rebounding becomes an obstacle” is a bit far fetched to be honest because it already is an issue, and has been for quite some time.
Once again, the ONLY thing preventing a championship last year was the inability to defend the interior and rebound, plain and simple. Not to say that we didn’t have a great year, because we did, but it’s just hard to accept that the difference between a championship and a final four banner is the fact that our players simply weren’t as tough as the opposition. You fix that issue, and you go from good/very good to very good/great.
Totally agree with the fact that the roster has been upgraded in terms of skill, athleticism, and size.However, your statement “if rebounding becomes an obstacle” is a bit far fetched to be honest because it already is an issue, and has been for quite some time.
Once again, the ONLY thing preventing a championship last year was the inability to defend the interior and rebound, plain and simple. Not to say that we didn’t have a great year, because we did, but it’s just hard to accept that the difference between a championship and a final four banner is the fact that our players simply weren’t as tough as the opposition. You fix that issue, and you go from good/very good to very good/great.
I guess I see it as a formula mix. Too much of one thing can throw off the balance or the scales too far in the other direction.
I think Beilein is refining his formula but there will ALWAYS be a weakness. No team is going to be perfect. Does rebounding win championships? Does defense win championships? Mmm…really the only “truth” is that scoring more points than the opponent wins championships.
I find it funny you think the ONLY thing preventing a championship was defending the interior and rebounding? Everything else was perfect…plain and simple?
It didn’t matter that they had a 2-1 TO/A ratio vs. our 1-1 TO/A ratio? …which is really one of the key elements to Beilein’s teams. Or that Stauskas only got 2 shots? Or that they shot better than us from 3 and FT? Those things didn’t matter at all. Only interior defense and rebounding?
Too much of one thing? I mean, really, other than McGary, who on our current roster would you describe as an interior presence on defense? For that matter, who on our entire roster would you describe as currently being a defensive presence in general?
You hit on the key point…balance, we simply don’t have it. I’m not going to sugarcoat it, we are a perimeter oriented/jumpshooting team the most part and that’s reality. Now that’s an entertaining brand of basketball for sure, but let’s call it like it is here, we have no post presence on offense or defense, and hence no balance. So it’s counterintuitive for you to say “balance” can be thrown off by implementing too much of a certain factor(presumably more of a post presence) in that context.
As it relates to the championship game, you’re damn right I’m saying that rebounding/toughness is the only thing that prevented a championship. How can you possibly explain the fact that we shot 52% from the field (44% from 3), matched UL at the FT line and STILL LOST? You bring up assist to TO ratio, but it doesn’t really mean much in the scheme of things. If you say the bottom line is scoring more points than the opposition, then it doesn’t matter if your made field goals are assisted or not, the only factor that is relevant is making the basket independent of the assist.
The reality is that the biggest statistical difference in the game was shot volume. Michigan attempted 48 field goals, while UL attempted 61 field goals. Would you like to know how that came to fruition? I’ll tell you how…we couldn’t get a damn rebound, that’s how. Put this in perspective, Michigan attempted 20 shots in the second half, while Louisville attempted 35! Louisville bullied us around in the second half and that is the truth. The game was lost because we were soft in the second half, and you may want to dance around the issue, but you know deep down that is exactly what happened.
Perhaps most telling, in Dylan’s post game recap, I remember him starting off (can’t say this is verbatim) with something to the extent that “we all knew it would end this way, just 2 weeks later than anybody thought”. Let’s get right to it, that was Dylan basically saying that eventually we would pay for being soft and everybody knew it, we just happened to outplay expectations for 2 weeks. That recap summed up my concerns in a nutshell my friend.
LOL this dude is funny
UL had higher talent level and that’s why they won. Had nothing to do with the system of play. San Antonio and Miami are two teams in the NBA that run systems similar to ours and have no problems.
LOL this dude is funnyUL had higher talent level and that’s why they won. Had nothing to do with the system of play. San Antonio and Miami are two teams in the NBA that run systems similar to ours and have no problems.
Actually, you’re pretty funny. You say “system”, but only apply it to one end of the court. San Antonio and Miami are actually good defensive teams, so that’s a poor example.
UL winning had nothing to do with more talent and everything to do with heart. I guess Penn State beat M last year because they had more talent huh? I guess Ohio State was winning last year because they had more talent? What a joke
Face it, we’re soft, plain and simple. You can justify it with this “system” BS all you want, but at the end of the day let’s stop hiding behind theoretical/strategic terms and get down to the heart of the issue…Michigan is not very good at defense or rebounding, and it has been that way for quite some time. It needs to be addressed period. I don’t care if we have to sacrifice a three point shooter here or there, we need to improve on the other side of the court.
Ever heard of the term anomaly or outlier?
UM’s problem is a talent problem and not a system problem. It’s no coincidence that Miami and Spurs have the most talent and depth in the NBA, which was my point. The talent level is directly correlated to the defense/ rebounding.
I know exactly what an outlier is, that’s the term you use for Michigan making the final four as a substandard rebounding/defensive team.
You have to be kidding me. Talent has a correlation to defense and rebounding?
Andre Drummond, Dwight Howard, Kenneth Faried, DeAndre Jordan, Tyson Chandler literally have no talent whatsoever and yet they are great defenders and rebounders.
We may disagree on some things but you’re generally logical with your posts. Lets just say this wasn’t one of your finer moments in that regard.
As it relates to the championship game, you're damn right I'm saying that rebounding/toughness is the only thing that prevented a championship. How can you possibly explain the fact that we shot 52% from the field (44% from 3), matched UL at the FT line and STILL LOST? You bring up assist to TO ratio, but it doesn't really mean much in the scheme of things. If you say the bottom line is scoring more points than the opposition, then it doesn't matter if your made field goals are assisted or not, the only factor that is relevant is making the basket independent of the assist.
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with on this? I agree we’re soft and need better rebounding. But I don’t think we’ll see that transition fast nor at the expense of perimeter skill. I also don’t think we’ll ever see a Michigan team be “known” for their rebounding.
Fact: Rebounding and interior defense are not the only things contributing to the loss against Louisville. Were those factors? Yes. Were they the only contributing factors? No. Plain and simple. If you objectively look at the game…which was a 6 point loss…you’d see there were many other factors. We could have won that game WITHOUT changing a thing about rebounding and interior defense.
JBlair - this is precisely my issue, you (along with others) are essentially saying “yes, we’re not very good at rebounding/defense, but just deal with it because perimeter shooting is more important”. I understand that may not represent your preferred philosophy, but nevertheless, that just isn’t a sound approach to basketball. In all seriousness, how dumb does it sound to basically say we don’t care about defense and/or rebounding because it may mitigate our ability to hoist 3s?
I agree that rebounding was not the only contributing factor, but I think you can concede it was the primary factor. Let’s be reasonable here though, is shooting 52% from the field and 44% from 3 meeting the standards of a good shooting night - of course it is. Sure, we could’ve shot 60%, but that’s not a reasonable expectation in any setting let alone a championship game. Could we have turned the ball over less - sure, but is 12 TOs outside the realm of acceptability? Is 75% from the FT line reasonable - yes. Could we have nailed all our FTs - sure we could’ve but that’s not a reasonable expectation.
However, getting outshot 35 - 20, and outrebounded 20 - 10 in one half is so far below expectations its virtually unbelievable. I mean, there has to be a serious breakdown in order for that to occur. We could’ve done any and everything better, but realistically we met or exceeded expectations in all facets of the game other than rebounding. Not only did we fail to meet reasonable expectations, we looked totally incompetent on the glass during the 2nd half.
I know exactly what an outlier is, that’s the term you use for Michigan making the final four as a substandard rebounding/defensive team.You have to be kidding me. Talent has a correlation to defense and rebounding?
Andre Drummond, Dwight Howard, Kenneth Faried, DeAndre Jordan, Tyson Chandler literally have no talent whatsoever and yet they are great defenders and rebounders.
We may disagree on some things but you’re generally logical with your posts. Lets just say this wasn’t one of your finer moments in that regard.
You are confusing talent and skill. Talent is instinctual imo and can’t be taught.
So per your definition, talent = athleticism. Guess we have a difference in opinion here. That’s not my take on talent. That being said, even if talent = athleticism, it still doesn’t equate to being a good defender and/or rebounder. GR3 is the prime example.
Not just athleticism but intangibles, size, timing, awareness, etc
If that is how define it, then do you think Donnal, Wilson, Doyle have more “talent” than McGary and GR3? If not, that would seemingly contradict your claim that Coach B is improving the roster as it relates to bigs.