Belated Basketball Mailbag: Two Posts, OSU-Level Defense, Murderer's Row Comment Count

Brian

Playing big?

Brian,

512x[1]I've been watching the debate over who is going to start for Michigan next year with McGary and Robinson moving down to the 4 and 3 respectively. My thought is that doesn't UM need Stauskas or LeVert to start at the 2 because they need the extra ballhandler to assist the point guard?

I don't know much about Irvin's ball skills, but last year Michigan had Stauskas and Hardaway to assist Burke with bringing the ball up the court from time to time, so at a minimum they need at least one other above-average ball handler to assist Walton/Albrecht in their starting 5.  Thoughts on this?

Thanks!

Jeremy

Like everyone else, I did a virtual spit take when McGary and Robinson declared they'd be moving a slot down in the offense. That goes against everything John Beilein's spent his career developing, and "right after a loss in the national title game" seems like a weird time to decide a conventional two-post lineup is where it's at.

First, one of Stauskas and LeVert is going to be on the court almost all the time in any scenario. When they're both on the bench, Michigan's proably in a dual-point lineup. Irvin does have some off the dribble game, but he dribbles looking for the pullup even in high school and will struggle to create shots by himself in year one. Minutes for Horford and Morgan at the five come from the guys who would play the three not named GRIII (ie, LeVert and Robinson), not the SG position.

Let's take a look at hypothetical worlds, one in which Michigan continues much like they have been, another in which McGary is mostly at the 4 and Robinson the three.

Conventional:

PG: Walton (25) / Albrecht (15)
SG: Stauskas (30) / LeVert (10)
SF: Irvin (30) / LeVert (10)
PF: GRIII (30) / Morgan (10)
C: McGary (30) / Morgan&Horford (10)

Tallball:

PG: Walton (25) / Albrecht (15)
SG: Stauskas (30) / LeVert(10)
SF: GRIII: (20) / Irvin (20)
PF: McGary (30) / GRIII (10)
C: Morgan (25) / Horford (15)

You're taking minutes from LeVert and Irvin and handing them to Morgan and Horford. Is that plausible? We are talking about a redshirt senior and a redshirt junior at center versus a freshman and sophomore who was on a redshirt track last year, so… it isn't totally implausible.

To make it work, though, McGary has to be ready for a lot of weight offensively as a high-post forward who can be a triple threat from the free throw line. Otherwise the spacing Beilein's spent his career building breaks down and things get grunty. Also, Robinson has to be a more willing and effective shooter. Michigan isn't going to be able to go with two bigs if the starting three has a usage rate of 13%.

Do I think this is particularly likely? Uh… no. I do think we'll see periods where McGary acts as a high-post fulcrum, and Michigan will try to develop a two-post offensive plan for times when Robinson isn't feeling it, is in foul trouble, or has a bad matchup like this year's Michigan State games. Michigan will try to acquire some flexibility they lacked this year when Robinson's backup was Still Glenn Robinson.

Upshot: Michigan will spend a lot of time this offseason working with those two guys at the positions they said they would work at, and then go with what works. That'll depend on

  1. How much LeVert improves
  2. How good Irvin is immediately
  3. How quickly Morgan can shake his funk

I think the answers to #1 and #2 are "a lot" and "quite good as long as he's not burdened with creating shots too much," so talk of playing big will remain mostly talk.

Defense?

600x432[1]

where is M's Oladipo?

Hey Brian,

I understand Michigan will be losing Burke and Hardaway BUT I feel that this might not be that big of a blow if they improve defensively. See their defensive ceiling is very high and with an entire offseason ahead maybe this team could become one of the better defensive teams in the Big Ten but the question is, how do they do so?

I view Ohio State as an example. They lost almost 43% of their scoring with the losses of Sullinger and Buford but managed to be within one poor half of being in the Final Four. A lot of their success could be attributed to their outstanding defense.

Sincerely,
- Ali Maki

Where is Michigan's defense going to come from? Ohio State didn't just have Aaron Craft, they also had 20 minutes a game from steal fiend Shannon Scott and rebounding from everywhere. Fun fact: every non-point guard to play for OSU this year had a higher DREB% than Nnanna Egwu, and even the PGs were in double digits.

Meanwhile, Michgian's 39th-ranked defense is the second-best of his entire career. (The 2011 outfit finished 34th.) Thad Matta has done better than that every year but one since 2003. Beilein compensates by having great offenses—actually, Matta has a lot of those, too. Anyway. The point is: until we see Michigan take a leap forward into uncharted territory for Beilein it's going to be tough to predict they can scrape together a top-ten defense, which OSU has been for three years running.

I have heard that Walton and Irvin are good defenders—Irvin in particular is dedicated and long—and if LeVert can turn some of his rep into actual defense, they should be improved on the perimeter. They still won't have that impact defender you can put on the other team's top scorer or leave in the post to murder anyone who steps in the paint. Without an Oladipo or Craft or Withey or Russ Smith, it's tough for any defense to be great. Those guys are kind of like high-usage players on offense, taking the heaviest duty and allowing other guys to base their game off of what the opponent probably can't do. I don't see one of those guys on the roster next year. Maybe LeVert, maybe Irvin, but probably not.

This is not to say that I don't expect them to improve defensively. They will be less blitheringly young next year. Players improve most from year one to year two, and Michigan has an awful lot of guys making that transition. They will improve. It's a long way from 39 to 9, though.

Wow.

Consider what Beilein has accomplished, coach a coach. IF we win tonight, he'll have bested Shaka Smart (Final Four, 2011), Bill Self (national champs, 2008), Billy Donovan (national champs, 2006, 2007), Jim Boeheim (national champs, 2003), and Rick Pitino (national champs, 1996). And he'll have done so with the youngest team in the tournament. Wow.

Doug

We didn't win but… yeah, wow.

Murderer's row.

Hey Brian,

It seems like Michigan went through Murderer's Row to get to the Final.  Since the seedings can be pretty political, does Kenpom or some other objective measure tell us how difficult our path was compared to the Finals teams in recent history? 

Yes, Kenpom in fact did pile together a toughest-path ranking, and Michigan made the top ten at #8 of 44 teams to make the Final Four in the past 11 years. This year's Wichita State team was #1. The top ten is mostly 3s and 4s plus outlying small conference schools (along with WSU, George Mason and Butler x2), which makes sense since often a 3 or 4 will have to go through a tough second-round matchup and then take out the 1- and 2-seeds in the region.

In Michigan's case the 2-seed went down only to be replaced by what was then the #1 team in Kenpom, Florida. (UF finished second.)

Press?

090511_r18464_p465[1]

I hope this painting is called "Malcolm Gladwell's childlike naiveté"

I'm curious about Beilein's defensive tactics. Why doesn't M ever run a full-court press? I would have guessed that a young team that rarely fouls would be a good team to press with, but apparently not. Why is that? Then down the road, when these gents have another year of experience, do you think Beilein will feel more comfortable switching up defensive schemes in a game?

Short answer: a press is not free. Short answer #2: …and Michigan was not constructed to run one.

This was the subject of the dumb article Malcolm Gladwell wrote that marked the end of his status as a sports blogosphere fave-rave. Gladwell observed a sociopathic girls' basketball coach (emphasis on girls: 12 year olds, dude) running a full court press and mused about how everyone who doesn't run one must be using their brain wrong. Rick Pitino comes in for praise for actually having the smarts to run a press, first at Providence and then elsewhere. Louisville just won the title, and all it took was… uh… a veteran, hugely talented team specifically recruited to run it.

The press can be effective if you recruit to it. As we've seen with VCU and Louisville, you usually end up with a certain kind of team: cat-quick small guards, a big who can run the floor, an undersized power forward, a deep bench, and one guy who isn't a bricklayer from three. Michigan doesn't look much like this press team except at PF and designated corner gunner.

Most important is the depth: Michigan had none. Teams that press heavily use a lot of energy. They don't run their players out there for almost 90% of available minutes (Burke), or even 85 (Hardaway, Robinson). UL's Smith and Siva were down around 75%; no other Cardinal cracked 65. No one on VCU or Arkansas cracks 70. In Michigan's case, a press would have meant a big chunk of gametime with LeVert or Albrecht out there instead of Burke, Hardaway, et al. And there's no way Robinson can go 35, 38, 40 minutes in a lot of games, so then you're cobbling together 10+ minutes of awkward lineups. Even if you can effectively deploy the press, is it worth those six minutes a game it puts Trey Burke on the bench?

Meanwhile, Michigan was already discombobulated in half-court defense for big chunks of the year. Time given over to a press is time not spent working on half-court rotations that are useful on every possession, or time not spent working on offense. You don't get a press for free, and the consequences of having a crappy one are easy buckets.

Beilein's not a press guy, so Michigan won't run one next year. That's like asking Al Borges to run a spread—if he has to, he'll do it, but it will always be awkward. Hypothetically next year would be a better opportunity since Derrick Walton won't be the player of the year and LeVert and Albrecht will be higher-quality bench options in year two. But it's not happening.

Comments

turd ferguson

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^

I wonder how much of the GRIII and McGary move is about doing what's best for their NBA development, even if it's a little unnatural for Beilein.  GRIII obviously can't play power forward at the next level, and McGary probably makes more sense there than at center.

Even if it doesn't necessarily seem ideal, it's in the best interest of our kids (always important), it might have helped in getting them to come back, and their professional success will only help us recruit down the road. 

brandanomano

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^

I'm no expert, but I think what it's doing is putting our two best  players in a place where they're going to be a mismatch for just about every guy they go up against. GRIII had a size disadvantage against most of the guys he went up against, especially in conference play. Moving him out to the 3 makes sense as long as he can consistently hit shots from behind the arc. McGary also proved that he could hit 15-footers consistently.

This makes total sense to me in a perfect world where, like Brian touched on, Morgan can go back to being an all-defense Big-10 player and be worth more to the team than a guy like Levert or Irvin. People forget how good Morgan was for us before his injury. It'll also be nice to get a Senior leader some big time minutes. We didn't have that last year.

jballen4eva

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^

I think mojo-recoverd Morgan could be a great compliment to McGary. Having both out there would reduce the risk that McGary gets into foul trouble against scoring bigs, without sacrificing anything defensively down low.  Offensively, I think McGary's talented enough that he will be able to "play small" very effectively, if necessary. 

Hey, this is exciting!      

AC1997

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^

Some thoughts:

I think you're far more likely to see GR3 play more at the 3 than you are to see McGary at the 4.  I can see a scenario where Irvin comes in for the Beilein development plan for athletic tall guys who can shoot and plays more of the 4.  In that role he'll be more of a spot up shooter, low usage player, and guy who gets open on cuts to the basket.  They can then have GR3 start creating more of his offense and move around more like THJ now that he's more familiar with the offense.  I think the 4 spot in a Beilein offense is easier to learn early.

But moving McGary to the 4 spot totally changes the way Beilein's offense work and creates some poor match-ups against most of college basketball teams that only have one true big guy on the floor.  I think you'll see it from time to time and more often than this year, but it still seems like an inefficient offense and defense.  Besides, in today's NBA I think McGary can play a fair amount of center anyway. 

What I would like to see Michigan improve on defense more than running a press and while lacking a true defensive stopper is having a zone defense that they can deploy more confidently.  I think being able to switch to a zone for 10-15 minutes per game to confuse an opponent, hide someone with foul trouble, or utilize skill sets different is something that was missing this past year.  I also think it fits better with the roster that lacks a lock-down guy or the parts to run an effective press. 

MGoLogan

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

While Irvin could certainly play the 4 offensively in Beilein's system, there is no way he can defend opposing PF's.  He does have the height to guard the spot, but he is not near as strong or athletic as Robinson was leaving high school.  I also think Zak will be the best wing defender on the team, so that is another reason why having him defend one post spot wouldn't make sense.  My opinion on how the minutes will be split next year:

PG - Walton 25, Spike 15

SG - Irvin 20, Stauskas 10, LeVert 10 

SF - Robinson 20, Irvin 10, Stauskas 10

PF - McGary 25, Robinson 10, Donnal 5

C - Horford 20, Morgan 15, McGary 5

With the newfound depth, I think McGary, Robinson and Irvin will be the only players that average 30 minutes per game.  I truly believe Donnal will work his way into the rotation.  At 6'9", he will be the best shooting big man on the team, with range out to 22'.  He also has a very nice post game, but his defense could be what keeps him off the floor. 

Michigan4Life

April 23rd, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

Irvin has more of a G skills than GRIII.  If Irvin and GRIII are on the court, Irvin will play the 2 and GRIII will play the 3.  If Irvin, Nik and GRIII are on at the same time, Irvin will play the 3, Nik will play the 2, GRIII will slide in to play the 4.  If Nik and Irvin are on the court, Nik will play the 2 and Irvin will play the 3.

The only players I see will see time at the 4 are McGary, GRIII, Donnal, Beifeldt and maybe Morgan.

 

My minutes breakdown IMO:

PG: Walton (25)/Spike(15)

SG: Nik(25)/Irvin(10)/Caris(5)

SF: GRIII(20)/Irvin(10)/Caris(10)

PF: McGary(20)/GRIII(10)/Donnal(10)

C: Morgan(20)/McGary(10)/Horford(10)

Michigan4Life

April 23rd, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

Donnal is a protypical 4 in the B1G for JB. He has the skills to make 3s but is good down low in scoring. Ad making post moves. Has the size to compete with big 4s. JB showed willingness to play freshmen. Caris was supposed to redshirt last season it was too good not to play. Donnal will be the same based on what I've seen and hear.

SeattleWolverine

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^

It's true that most college teams only have 1 big but I am not sure that I view having 2 as creating a poor matchup. Matchups go both ways. If another team is playing only one big then that means that either McGary or Morgan can post up and rebound against a non-big. That's a huge advantage for us on offense though it obviously presents a challenge on D for McGary.

 

A lot of this discussion is general and about total minutes but in reality matchups, foul trouble and injuries are really going to decide this and it will vary by game. If say one of Irvin/Stauskas/LeVert were injured then you have to go big. Or if McGary is in foul trouble then you go small because you can't play 2 of the other bigs since they are not skilled enough. If you are playing the new look Pitino-pressing-Gophers then you go small for ball handling but if you are playing Sparty and don't want to get killed on the glass then you go big. Etc etc.

 

In an ideal world I think it would be great if you could mix in the zone. But I think again we are looking at a lineup with 9 of your 11 guys being Freshmen or Sophomores. Until they put in the time to really be better at man to man and to be stronger and more physical I think your practice time is better spent towards perfecting your base D instead of learning zone.

True Blue Grit

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^

Morgan regains his mojo and a couple of the other guys continue to develop.  GRIII in particular needs to refine his outside shot.  But it got old down the stretch with our undersized lineups getting outrebounded with lots of 2nd and 3rd chance baskets.  If nothing else, Beilein can use a more balanced approach next season, maybe using Tallball 1/2 the time, or even more against real physical teams.

dalbs

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^

I thought the move of GR3 to the 3 and Mitch to the 4 was partly a reaction to roster structure.  Due to the early departures of Trey and Tim, you had five (5) centers (Morgan, McGary, Horford, Biefeldt, and Donnal) out of 11 scholly players, splitting 50 minutes, and realisticaly McGary should get 30 of those 40.  Then you have the 6 players splitting the other 160 minutes.  As Brian showed its obviously possible, but you lose depth and have a lot of guys waiting to get in the same position

Erik_in_Dayton

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

I'm not a big fan of the go-all-out pressing style of VCU.  You'll beat a lot of teams with it, but good teams are going to have more than one ballhandler.  I prefer Louisville's method (at least against Michigan), which seemed to be to harass ballhandlers to some extent while also not losing the back line of their defense.  VCU just gives you the game if you can get out of your backcourt. 

j-turn14

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^

I think Tall Ball looks better if you assume Donnal contributes (which I think he can) and break down the PF/C as...

PF: McGary (20)/ GRIII(10)/ Donnal (10)

C: Morgan (18)/ Horford (12)/McGary (10)

With Bielfeldt getting mins during blowouts and when 2 or more of the above get in foul trouble.

Michael Scarn

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^

I know he didn't really flash a lot of ability at it this year, but with an offseason to work, I think GRIII could become an impact defender.  Maybe not lock-down the other team's best player ala Lebron Oladipo, but still very effective.  He's long, decently quick, and can certainly elevate.  

One of the reasons Trey cited at some point for coming back after his freshman year was that Bacari Alexander really harped on him to improve his defense.  While not a world beater, he certainly made some key defensive plays.  Like most big time prospects, I bet GRIII could get by on sheer talent in high school, and even when he got on campus the focus was likely much more on the system, not his individual game.  I expect him to make a significant jump.  

AC1997

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

I agree with some of the comments that we have 5 true post players that could find more time in a 2-big line-up. 

However, Beilein has always been about finding ways to get the best 5 guys on the floor at the same time.  Hence why GR3 or Novak play the 4 while guys like Bielfeldt or Smotrycz get reduced minutes.  So the question you need to ask is who the best guys on the roster are. 

Off the top of my head, if I had to rank the 11 guys in terms of impact/importance/talent it would be something like this:

  1. McGary
  2. Stauskas
  3. GR3
  4. Walton
  5. Irvin
  6. Morgan
  7. Spike
  8. LeVert
  9. Horford
  10. Donnal
  11. Bielfeldt

In a 2-post lineup you're stealing the most minutes from the 4, 5, 7, 8 guys in favor of the 6, 9, 10, 11 guys.  While I think you'll see more of it, I would tell McGary that he can do all that he needs/wants to do at the 5 position without having a 2-big lineup. 

M-Wolverine

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

Did Beilein say more than that McGary and Robinson would start at the 4 and 3, respectively?  Who you bring in to replace McGary and (other big guy...Morgan, for your rankings) with another big guy.  You could rotate small when McGary is out.  Then all you're really changing is the rankings of your 5 and 6th guy, flipping them around.

AC1997

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^

GR3 was a low-usage player this year, which means we can be excited about his potential but nervous about how he's going to create his own shots.  Stauskas has shown he can 'be more than a shooter' already and will be called on to be the second ball-handler.  I think you're going to see them run more plays for Stauskas to help replace Burke than you're going to see them run plays for GR3. 

I think we HOPE that GR3 is the most dynamic and important player, but Stauskas is the known fit into the plans next year. 

gpsimms not to…

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

It's pretty silly to say Michigan has no bench.  McClimans and Vogrich were bench guys on B10 champion level teams.  Michigan's bigs (Morgan & McGary) have both shown they can run.  Caris and Spike provided depth at guard/wing.

What it is is what Brian said next: Beilein doesn't run press.  That's it.  That's the only reason. Beilein historically never uses his bench, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have one.

SeattleWolverine

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^

I think you will see a lot of tall ball. Partly this is a function of roster construction. With Morgan, Horford, McGary and Bielfeldt you are cramming 4 guys into one position if you stay small and then 7 guys for the other 4 spots. I also have a sneaking suspicion that playing these guys at 3/4 may have been agreed to by the coaches as an inducement to get them to come back for another year. As far as spacing, you can still do a lot of the things that we do with I do think it is essential that McGary hit that 12 foot jumper if he is going to play the 4 but I think he has shown some flashes that he can do that. And pass out of the post. It does put a lot of pressure on him but he has the skills to make it work. So much of what we have been doing the last few years anyway is just ball screen stuff and that can still happen with tall ball.

 

Rebounding is also a big part of this and that did not come up much in this article except the point about OSU having everyone rebound. Well, that is part of how the lineups and the hope for defensive improvement tie together. A higher DREB % will be one of the ways we can improve our D and the bigger lineup should offer that. Basically we are trading Morgan's rebounding for Stauskas'/Irvin's rebounding. We finished 7th in the B1G in OREB and 8th in DREB in conference play and we all saw Behanon abuse GR3. Even if our eFG D is not much better we can be a better defensive team if we limit 2nd chances.

 

Not too worried about GR3's low usage and stepping up into a bigger role. He was very efficient in what he did do and Burke and Hardaway were taking over half of the shots anyway. He was not assertive because he didn't really need to be but I think he still has the game to maintain that efficiency even with higher usage.

laerm

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

I remember that Gladwell article now...at the time, I gave it something more than a circumspect raised eyebrow, but that could be because I think I bailed on him early and so was always skeptical.

Thanks for answering my Q on the matter, Brian. Good explanation. I grok.

Jack

April 23rd, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^

I remember at the time I had recently read and throroughly enjoyed Blink, and as I progressed through the article I kept going, "Oh god, he's not gonna take that information and extrapolate that... shit, yep, there, he did it." So dispiriting at the time. Now it's just funny.

MI Expat NY

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

I think you're being too linear with your thinking on lineups.  For instance, Irvin is not a 3 or nothing next year.  He's listed everywhere as a shooting guard and should be expected to play some 2.  

I look at this way: we have a log-jam in the post with Donnal coming in, and I do think he'll see a decent amount of action, we also have been forced to play too small against certain opponents due to the lack of a true big man with any range.  Moving Robinson down to mostly the 3 and bringing in a shooting big sovles both problems.  Now, I think the move is dependent on McGary developing an outside shot.  He doesn't have to knock down threes, but he has to make the 18 footer regularly, something he needs to develop for the pro game anyway.  If McGary can't develop a jumper, I think the "tall" lineup will be limited to teh 15-20 minutes we can get out of Donnal (I'm high on him and think we can get at least that much) and the 5-10 minutes we think we can survive with two guys on the floor who are not outside threats.  

In the end, I think Stauskus/LeVert cede some of their minutes in an attempt to be a little bigger.

Voltron Blue

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^

...to Brian's two lineup scenarios.  Even in a tallball world where McGary starts at the 4 and GRIII the 3, that doesn't mean that we won't play *some* minutes with them at the 5 and 4 respectively.  So I think the actual miniutes will be somewhere in between those two options.  

MI Expat NY

April 23rd, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^

Fair enough.  I'd seen him most places as a SG/Wing, which I take as interchangeable (and really, in today's college game, there isn't all that much difference between SG and SF), and watching highlights he always struck me as a guard.  Either way, he's going to play bothwing spots next year and won't really play as a Forward unless we have injury issues forcing Beiline to perpetuate what he's done over the last few seasons and play smaller at the 4 than he'd like to.  

EQ RC Blue

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^

On Glenn Robinson III’s future position: “We’ve always envisioned him to be a three man. This year was like, how do we get our best five guys on the floor as much as possible. Just like we did with Novak. That’s the plan. He can do it. There’s no question he can do it.”

  • On what he expects from McGary and Robinson: “What we envision for both of these guys is what they want to develop. It’s more than just a number, playing a three or playing a four or wherever you want to play. You’ve got to work more now. They have to work at it and I have no question that they will.”
    • On what he sees in McGary’s future: “His goal should be to be able to play face-up, as a high post player. But also, when they put smaller guys on him, being able to just go down on the block and put it in. He has gotten much better at that.”
    •  
    • (This is Bacari now) On whether Mitch is better suited for the four or the five: “We like Mitch on the floor… It’s really one of those things where Mitch’s skillset whether he’s at the four or the five in coach Beilein’s system calls for some of the same things. The ability to extend his shooting range, draw fouls and get to the charity stripe and the ability to defend multiple positions. When you ask the four or the five, we need Mitch McGary to enjoy the minutes that he displayed in the NCAA tournament more than anything else.”
    •  
    • So, JB didn't say that GRIII would play only at three - and he certainly didn't say that McGary would only play at the 4 or even start at the 4.  JB is clear, though, that both players will be given opportunities to do things associated with the 3 and 4, respectively, assuming they prove capable.  GRIII will handle the ball more, be the ball handler in pick and rolls, take off once he gets rebounds, etc.  Mitch will shoot more jumpers, handle the ball more, get more post-up opportunities, etc. (Although I think that opposing coaches might choose to put their 5 on McGary and small 4 on Morgan or even Horford if we go big).  I'm not saying they won't play at the 3 and 4, or maybe even start there.  What's clear, though, is that those guys will be given opportunities to do 3 and 4 type stuff no matter the lineup.  Getting the best 5 guys out there, though, isn't going to disappear completely.

    mbee1

    April 23rd, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^

    Why doesn't Michigan press like VCU, drop into a zone like Syracuse, rebound like Michigan St.? And hey, why not post guys up more and at the same time shoot more 3's? Teach Mitch the sky hook and he can be the lefty Lew Alcindor!

    champswest

    April 23rd, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^

    we saw how good this team could be.  Now all we had to do was plug in Walton for Burke and Irving for Hardaway and away we go.  We would also now have Donnal to backup Robinson at the 4.  So, switching to a 2 big offense worries me unless (1) Horford/Morgan can provide some offense at the 5 and (2) McGary can be just as productive (points AND rebounds) at the 4.

    Having said that, we would have a pretty strong roster as:

    1 Walton, Spike

    2 Stauskas, LeVert, Irving

    3 Robinson, Irving, Stauskas, LeVert

    4 McGary, Donnal, Bielfeldt

    5 Horford, Morgan

    You could play this lineup with 10 guys averaging 10 minutes or more.  That would really keep everyone involved as well as rested.  And most guys wouldn't have to learn more than one position.  The good news is they will have from now until November to work on this.

    SeattleWolverine

    April 23rd, 2013 at 8:52 PM ^

    Reggie Evans was a grit/rebounding/defense type power forward for Iowa back in the day who managed to scrape out a surprisingly long NBA career for a guy with limited offensive skills.

     

    Ryan Evans is a FT jump shooting Badger who takes a ton of shots for a guy who is bad at shooting the basketball.

    AtkinsDiet

    April 23rd, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^

    Robinson is so obviously a 3 and not a 4. His getting killed on the boards by the similarly sized but differently skilled Behanan in the second half was probably the biggest factor in Louisville winning that game. When the kid got chances to shoot jumpers and make dribble drives, he often looked good (especially in the tournament). Timmy just soaked up so many of those opportunities last year when we weren't running the high ball screen with Burke.

    For Brian to make it out like this can't work because Beilein has "dedicated his whole career to spacing" is very inconsistent. Wasn't Brian the guy who after the OSU football game said Beilein should be Hoke's model for how to willingly change with what the game gives you? Now he is drawing a comparison to Al Borges. Wow.

    Beilein knows what he is doing and he knows how to adapt. This should be established by now.

     

     

     

    taistreetsmyhero

    April 23rd, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^

    is all that high on Irvin. I mean it's...risky to expect a freshmen to be an offensive power, but this kid's arsenal is all about creating his own shot. Maybe I'm not remembering this correctly, but I feel like freshman THJ created a lot for himself, and I think Irvin will come in a lot more polished on offense than Timmy was.

    The Rake

    April 23rd, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^

    Is how much discussion this team has generated and will continue to do o going forward. JB has a flexible unit with some guys with clear NBA level talent and some others who may eventually get there. Program is on the rise. All feels good.

    Leroy Hoard

    April 23rd, 2013 at 7:03 PM ^

    Beilein/Michigan can run the press when absolutely necessary...pretty sure they used it almost exclusively in the last 5 min. or so in the Kansas game in order to get back into it and it was pretty effective.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

    B-Nut-GoBlue

    April 24th, 2013 at 12:10 AM ^

    "It's a long way from 39 to 9, though."

    Only 5 points, actually.  Shoot, that's like 2 baskets a game.  If we can't eliminate two baskets from the opposing team each game, I mean, what are we watching for...(jaykay..but srsly, TWO baskets)