Mailbag: Worn Out Welcomes, NHL Draft Issues, Basketball Recruiting Ledge-Talking, Wigan(!)
Two words: Jed York.
via ace
Brian,
A little confused by the notion that Harbaugh has "worn out his welcome" everywhere he has been for the past ten years, as seems to be the popular narrative. Are there any examples of Harbaugh actually being no longer appreciated/welcome anywhere but with the 49ers? It seems to me like he climbed the ladder like any successful coach up until the end of his time with the 49ers.
Also let's continue to wait until November to blow the whistle on Urban Meyer's Tinder account.
Thanks,
Mike
I have the feeling that either San Diego or Stanford would have sucked it up and consented to another year. Harbaugh led both to one-loss seasons in his final campaigns with those teams, whereupon he moved on to bigger jobs.
The first we heard of Harbaugh "wearing out his welcome" was a narrative being pushed to the Play-Doh NFL media for a year by Jed York and his assorted executives. Whether that is in any way more true for Harbaugh than it is for, say, Bill Belichick is unknowable. Successful football coaches are often completely nuts. It is almost a job requirement. They are inevitably going to leave offended people in their wake. Harbaugh's done that; he's also had a public bromance with Frank Gore.
Other players have taken to social media to defend him.
We don't know exactly where Harbaugh falls on the high functioning lunatic scale, but we do know what happened in the aftermath of his departure from the 49ers: they hired a barely articulate defensive line coach with no experience as a coordinator, chased off their highly successful defensive coaching staff, and lost a ton of players. Alex Boone is publicly moaning that he was being pushed too hard—an excellent sign for when Jim Tomsula, who has all the authority of a mewling kitten.
Harbaugh, meanwhile, is still being pursued by the Raiders. He grabbed DJ Durkin from heavy competition, retained Greg Mattison as a position coach, yoinked Tim Drevno from USC, hired an in-demand John Baxter, and hired a deposed NFL coordinator as a wide receivers coach.
Hhe does not care about what people think of him. Jed York is removing mentions of Harbaugh from the 49ers museum; Harbaugh barely remembers the name of the short guy with a spoon in his mouth on the West Coast. That's why he shows up on Real Sports for a piece that few other football coaches would consent to: he does not care about what happened to him in the past even a little.
That differentiates him from a deeply insecure 49ers management, and is the main reason the idea is out there. Without it there is no possible way to justify the 49ers sabotaging one of the most successful coaches in the NFL.
Hyman to fly free
Panthers have been notified that prospect Zach Hyman won't be signing w/them. Possible he gets traded before hitting UFA on Aug. 16.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) April 21, 2015 What's that about you think?
-Jeremiah
Hyman had an outstanding senior year and should get a rookie max contract once he hits the open market. Florida likely offered him that, but Florida cannot offer him his pick of interested teams. Hyman can now find the team most likely to play him in the NHL next year and establish himself in the league.
This is a longstanding flaw in the CBA that I complained about way back in the day when it was instituted. It took a good long while to hit home, but when it did it really hit. Winnipeg was pushing and pushing to sign Andrew Copp this offseason largely because they didn't want to end up in the situation the Panthers did with Hyman. Any college senior can walk away from the team that drafted him; therefore NHL teams hate to see their draftees become seniors.
[After the JUMP: basketball recruiting, Wigan apology.]
A bunch of basketball recruiting questions.
1. Why sign Austin Davis now?
I’m not questioning whether he’ll be the next Jordan Morgan, but why sign him to your last available scholarship right now? You have one spot left, you have needs at other positions, you have offers out to other players, and this guy is a lifetime fan who will likely accept at any time. It would seem that Beilein could have strung him a long for a while before locking in that last spot.
For one, he's not really the last available spot. Michigan is still recruiting guys right now, so they have one to give. After next season there is likely to be some sort of attrition. I have a dollar that says Zak Irvin has a Hardaway-ish junior year and goes to the draft, and at some point there is going to be a guy who gets pushed out of the rotation entirely and will probably want to play some basketball elsewhere.
That's three-ish to play with, and given how late basketball recruiting is going these days Michigan will have time to determine how many they in fact have.
As far as getting Davis now, I do agree that it's pretty odd to take two centers in a class when you've got two more on the roster. It is possible Michigan is now looking at Donnal and Wilson more as fours long term—in which case someone at that spot is likely to transfer in search of playing time.
2. Three stars who become prospects are nice…..but are they enough?
The go-to comparison, especially for obscure big men, is Jordan Morgan when demonstrating John Beilein’s ability to turn no-names into solid college players. He has taken us to new heights with under-the-radar players. But let’s not forget that the magical championship run was with five star Mitch McGary as one of the key players while Morgan was on the bench. Can you sustain success with no true stars?
Let us neither forget that after McGary went out for the year in 2013-14, Michigan won the Big Ten by three clear games and was tied at the end of regulation with Kentucky before whichever Harrison it was hit a prayer three. And that this roster has three top fifty recruits… and a who-dat who just turned down a possible slot in the first round of the draft.
I mean, it depends on what you mean by "enough." Is it enough to win a national title? Maybe not. Is it enough for Beilein to be Michigan's most successful basketball coach in a very long time? Evidently.
Our model can't be the Duke or Kentucky model. It can be Wisconsin's.
I always appreciated the way Izzo and Ryan built their programs on the backs of experienced and talented college players without relying on top recruits…..but even they sprinkled in some top players. Is that going to be the case at Michigan?
I mean… Walton, Irvin, and Chatman were all top 50 recruits. That bests this Wisconsin team by two (just Dekker) and this MSU team by two (just Dawson).
The current roster is a bit short on big time talent because too much of it headed to the NBA way before anyone expected that would be possible and Michigan got unlucky that the kids they had been recruiting since eighth grade (Booker, Kennard) blew up into guys Duke and Kentucky were interested in.
I mean, have we forgotten that Beilein and his staff are the guys who IDed Burke, GRIII, Stauskas, LeVert, etc etc etc.?
3. Where are the rewards from the Final Four?
Michigan has been one of the most entertaining second-tier programs (behind the blue bloods) over the last few years with an efficient offense, new facilities, on-court success, and a bunch of NBA draft picks. Yet the benefits on the recruiting trail from that success have been……inconclusive. Beilein pretty much had Irvin and Walton locked up before that run. Chatman was a solid 4-star who rose up the rankings after signing with Michigan but was never in the category of “instant impact”. After that there has been a collection of low-ranked prospects we hope can be molded into solid players – Dawkins, Rahk, Teske, Davis, Donnal, Doyle, Wilson, etc. Some of those moved up the rankings, but none are expected to be instant play makers.
Meanwhile, MSU just signed two 5-star players to their 2015 class despite comparable recent success and significantly fewer NBA draft picks.
Retconning Chatman after his disappointing freshman year overlooks the fact that Michigan had a head to head win over Arizona there. Meanwhile the roster looks like it does in part because Michigan didn't think they were going to have to add as many guys as they did—they have been too successful at developing their players—and it takes some time to develop yourself into a recruiting powerhouse.
It's about what happens on the court, and there Michigan has been just about peerless at taking what they have and making it better. As a fanbase we seem to be fretting that Beilein has made Michigan into a top 20 program instead of a top 5 one. I mean…
I am terribly sorry, Wiganites.
![wigan_a_2693799b[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/Mailbag_97F9/wigan_a_2693799b1.jpg "wigan_a_2693799b[1]")
WIGAN THE DESTROYER AND WIGAN THE HELPFULLY POINTING THE CORRECT WAY TO RUN
Hi Brian,
With regards to the comment under the photograph of Wigan’s soccer team [in yesterday's post]: I think that the caption “The FA Cup: the only time anyone has ever believed in Wigan” is, shall we say, somewhat wide of the mark!
Wigan have a legendary Rugby League team, much as it galls me to type that: I’m a St. Helens boy*, and thus naturally disinclined to say anything positive about that bunch of troglodytic inbreds from across “The Lump”.
I’m a Wolverine as Ann Arbor was the first place I lived in the USA; I ventured over from Europe as a researcher in the UMich med school, and the sport that you endearingly call “football” was the closest thing I could find to rugby league over here. Somewhat predictably, given the local environment I promptly became a Michigan football fan.
J.
* Wigan & St. Helens are separated by about 10 miles in the north of England, and have a long-standing and somewhat vituperative rivalry.
I have been corrected with authority.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
...and I don't complain about it like those in the examples have complained about it. My only issues is sustainability. Are we going to be a program that is good 2 out of 4 years when we have an experienced, developed roster...or can you bridge the gap with high touted young players?
Think about '16-'17 if Spike, LeVert, Irvin and let's say we get Brown and he leaves. I love Dawkins and MAAR and Doyle, but I love them more as 4th, 5th and 6th options. Even as seniors I do.
Just like as a senior I liked having J-Mo as the 3rd or 4th option and not the 1st option. We're not as good if Jordan Morgan is the best player and the go-to player on that team 2 years ago, agreed?
So in '16-'17 when you have Walton, Dawkins, (insert wing), (insert PF), Doyle/Teske...with MAAR, Chatman and the Doyle/Teske loser coming off the bench. Doesn't that sound like a LEGIT lineup if I tell you the two "insert" players are elite Top 50 players?
Wouldn't you prefer that team to the one that has MAAR and Chatman in the lineup with the Doyle/Teske loser and 2 more development under the radar freshman?
Those are the types of situations, I'd like to avoid.
Having Walton and Irvin as freshman was likely a HELL of a lot better than having two developmental guys that were going to grow into solid players as juniors. I mean we almost went back to the Final Four because of it, that wasn't a throw away year while we waited for the young J-Mo's to develop.
I don't want throw away years.
Over the last 4 years, Michigan has shown they can win with freshmen and sophomore guards, but as this past season has shown, the same isn't true for centers(McGary is an exception but he's an elite talent). The big guys need more time to develop, grow into their bodies, and learn to play down low against the rest of the B1G.
So Beilein has made it a point to not repeat what happened this season where he had too few good options at center. I would think more people would be happy about no true freshmen starting centers.
Next year's basketball team has as much talent as the 13-14 squad, and more experience:
PG Fr Walton < Jr Walton
SG Stauskas > Sr LeVert
SF So LeVert < Irvin
PF GRIII (push) Dawkins
C Morgan (push?) Doyle
And then the 15-16 bench is MUCH more talented and dynamic. Robinson, Wagner and Chatman all have the potential to contribute heavily, and even start.
Not saying that next years team will accomplish as much as the13-14 team, but it has enough talent to make a lot of noise.
and I think it remains to be seen whether Dawkins can equal what GRIII did at the 4.
on par with senior Morgan. He might no, but he certainly could. He has more length and more offensive talent and could be an equal defender. Morgan was known for leadership and defense.
Of course expecting anyone to be a conference POY is silly, but Caris will be in the conversation. He wasn't that far off of Nik for much of his sophomore year (until Nik really took off at the season second half). Caris is getting a bit underated right now because of the team's early season struggles last year, IMO. Nik at the same age took a little time to become what he was too (remember his struggles against Duke, while Caris carried the load?)
Dawkins COULD push up to GR3 level, but he'd need to make a leap in defense/rebounding. He's a far better shooter, but he needs to get much better on D especially and clean up the finshes at the rim.
Doyle ain't close to senior Morgan. I just want him to not be a liability. And we don't know if Donnal/Wilson are as reliable as Horford. Center is THE big questionmark of the team. If Wilson/Doyle can become a more versatile version of Morgford we'll be in good shape. If not, they could hold the team back.
As for the bench, you're right that guys 9-12 will be a lot better than Bielfeldt and company, but the extent that it matters is in question. The 2013-14 team had 3 bench guys: Spike, Irvin, and Horford. Can the 15-16 team do better? Tough call, presumably Spike will be a bit better, but Spike is/was Spike. Can Robinson, Chatman, Wagner, or MAAR step up to a level that freshman just-a-shooter Irvin did. I would say so, but they probably won't be significantly superior. Can Wilson or Donnal step up to a Horford role? Hard to say, but probably not.
It almost always comes down to your best 7 or 8 guys. Michigan needs the centers to step up.
One thing is for certain, Wilson/Doyle will never come close to Morgan/Horford in terms of combined name awesomeness.
April 23rd, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^
Quail, I believe you just proved we need to add a question mark or wtf arrow to the up/down vote arrows...
I agree it's asking a lot of Caris to equal Nik's year, but while he's not likely to match his scoring, he's more well-rounded. He's a plus defender and rebounder, while Nik was a complete liability on D and a so-so rebounder - he had a great nose for the ball, but he couldn't block out. He won POY because he's a magical shooter and a scoring machine.
As for Dawkins vs. GRIII, you're right - Dawkins will have to make a leap to reach GRIII's level, but he showed the athleticism and skill to do just that. He probably won't match GRIII's strength, but he might be more consistent.
Regarding Doyle vs. Morgan, I'm not as pessimistic. Yes, Morgan was a great leader, and did all the intangibles; Doyle's not going to match him there, nor is he going to be as strong a defender. However, Doyle's offensive production as a freshman came close to senior Morgan (Morgan 6.4ppg/5rpg/20mpg vs. Doyle 6.1ppg/3.2rpg/18mpg) - it's highly likely Doyle will be a better offensive player (he sure has better hands) and he's 6'10" vs. Morgan's generous 6'8".
Most important, all those player vs. player comparisons don't take into account the vastly superior bench. Senior Spike will be better than soph Spike, and Robinson, Chatman, Wagner and Maar are potentially WAY better than freshman Irvin. It's entirely possible that one or two of those guys could even be starters and/or big-time contributors.
Yeah, it remains to be seen what they'll actually deliver on the court, but with this much depth, there are a whole lot of potential lineups that could be very, very dangerous.
Caris will be better next year than Nik was last year. I think this because of D issues, as you said. With all the offensive firepower on this roster, Caris should be able to focus on D a little more than Nik did. Also, he'll be a senior.
I think Dawkins will eventually be better than GR3, but it's going to take a couple years for him to be the best PF Beilein's ever had.
Doyle might be able to beat Morgan one on one, but Michigan doesn't really need an offensive weapon at the 5 when they have so many at the 1-4 spots. They need exactly what Morgan gave. The one thing missing with Morgan was shotblocking. Doyle isn't going to make waves there, but Wilson might... again, I think Doyle can be better by the time he's a senior but there's a ways to go.
I'd be surprised if any of the guys you mentioned are WAY better than Irvin. Chatman is almost as talented (at least by rankings/offers) but clearly is way off in terms of playing production. Robinson might be able to shoot like him but won't have the athleticism/versatility. Wagner...well, we can hope. MAAR - no. In aggregate, they are more versatile than Irvin, but also have a lot more weaknesses to exploit.
JB will need to push all the right buttons to be better than Irvin's freshman year contribution. I'm not going to doubt him.
I think you're gonna be pleasantly surprised. Frosh Irvin was not versatile, he was a 3-pt specialist. His stat line was 15.4mpg/6.7ppg/1.3rpg/.4apg. He had one job and one job only. He wasn't much of a defender either. Last year he grew as a player despite his shooting slump, and he should be really dynamic this year.
IMO at least one of our bench guys will give us more than frosh Irvin, and cumulatively they'll give us a whole lot more. This is the deepest team JB has had; I'll be shocked if he doesn't use a somewhat longer bench with more bench PT.
Your point about Morgan is well taken, but remember how much more effective Michigan's outside game was when McGary went off and became a viable inside threat. If Doyle can become more consistent, he could make all the other weapons that much more dangerous. Morgan simply couldn't do that.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised necessarily, but I think expect the bench guys roles to remain as specialists. And that's just fine - all you really want is the guy to come in and be really good at one thing (be it defense, outside shooting, rebounding...). I think the best thing would be if the bench was a swiss army knife of sorts. Robinson when you need shooting/spacing, MAAR when you need a lock-down perimeter defender, Chatman when you need athleticism/rebounding at the 5, etc.
Another alternative I've thought about...if Wagner is more ready than many of us think - he could actually start at the 4 and Dawkins could reprise the Irvin freshman role (except with an extra year of experience).
Regardless - I do doubt the bench rotation by late season is much more than 8. That's generally just how better teams function because eventually a hierarchy of ability gets established along with roles.
Good point wrt to McGary... obviously it would be a huge benefit if Doyle is a significant offensive threat. I guess my point was that the defense and rebounding are far more important for a team loaded with other scorers. Especially if each of the other 4 guys is capable of shooting over 40% from 3 (Walton, Irvin, LeVert, Dawkins, plus Spike and Robinson off the bench). Then again a post threat who can kick out to open 3 shooters is huge too. You talked me into it.
The only thing consistent on this board is the dismissal of what GR3 contributed. I like me some Aubrey Dawkins and if he can keep doing what he did in the last 5 weeks of the year I will be tickled pink but he is not near a push to GR3 yet. Only in 3 pt shooting is Dawkins a clear leader. GR3 better defender, better rebounder and played 35 min a nite.
SO Levert was option #2 on that team. Remember we went into the year thinking it was McGary and GR3 show - it ended up being Nik and LeVert. Irvin has yet to reach that level although I am a lot more bullish than most on how he expanded his game in the last 3 weeks of last year (dribble drive actually became a reality ...but he struggled in Jan and much of Feb).
And Doyle is not even close to a wash to SR Morgan, especially the last 15 games of that year. If he is 75% of that SR Morgan we should be thanking the basketball gods.
I do think the bench next year will be superior but really once you get past player 8 it doesnt matter so much - except in the Big 10 tournament when we play so many games in a row, it will be an advantage for rest.
comparing what Dawkins and Doyle did in their freshmen year to what Morgan and Robinson did in their final year. That doesn't allow for any growth this year, which is what I think the original post was referring to.
I want to hear more about Urban's tinder account.
Brian you also cherry picked MSU's roster. You picked the 1 year they didnt have a luxury of All Americans all over it.
The prior year they had 3 HS McDonald's All Americans (Harris, Appling, Dawson) plus a 5 star big man in Payne. And a Mr. Michigan center behind that.
Next year they have 2 HS McDonald All Americans etc. Still with Mr. Michigan there.
I am not sure who the last UM HS McDonald's All American even was.
Izzo has made a great "narrative" about doing it with less - no he does not recruit at UK, Kansas, Duke levels but MSU is very much in the next group with Arizona - and unlike programs in that next group who lsoe players early he keeps almost everyone for 4 years (Gary Harris the 1 exception in a decade).
I would not place Wisconsin recruiting and MSU recruiting anywhere near each other. Dekker is probably the first high level recruit Wisconsin has had in my memory. MSU gets multiple guys like that every 2-3 years.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The "critiquing" or "bitching" about hoops recruiting touches on some pretty similar themes from football recruiting...i.e. "sensible" people saying "look at the track record, what do you want? To be Kentucky (Alabama) or Duke (OSU)? Unrealistic... think Wisconsin"
Meanwhile those "unrealisitic" posters don't want to "think Wisconsin" (or MSU, or others doing more with less...) They see no reason Michigan SHOULDN'T be thought of as highly by prized recruits as Duke at least - maybe not Kentucky, as those seem like different types of kids all together (ask Kaminsky!)
The recurring theme in both sports is the sensible say aim for Wiscy while the others don't feel Michigan should HAVE to strive to be a more with less program in hoops or FB. Celebrate Trey/Nik/Caris (or JMFR/Denard/Gallon), but aim for Winslow, Okafor, Ezekial Elliott, etc...
And the beauty of it all - aside from generating lots of content for us all to devour and chime in on - is BOTH sides are right!! We should keep finding Treys & Niks while shooting for Booker & Bayless... extrapolate that to FB as well, as Harbaugh seems to be doing. He's not shying away from offering anybody in ANY state... but jumping early on Carter Dunaway if he feels he's found a gem before anyone else.
If I could suggest one potentially valid critique of Beilein's recruitment/development so far is that he takes under the radar guys and really makes something out of them, while the "3 Top-50" players on the current roster haven't impressed or improved nearly as much.
I bet someone on this board about 6 games into Walton & Irvin's careers (post Stanford, whoever else was in that tounnament), that we didn't need to worry about them jumping to the NBA anytime soon - they didn't have the game for it. Injuries notwithstanding I'll stand by that projection. Won't be at all surprised to see them both here for thier senior campaigns, while Chatman will be gone to be "closer to home" on the West Coast.
If there's an area where Beilein could really improve (and after his successes it's a slim area) it's better ID'ing which "Top-50" players are really studs and which are mistakes by the rating services... if he could do that anywhere near as well as he IDs star potential in 2* & 3* guys imagine what we could be!!!
many are asking is "Why are there not more 5* recruits begging to get into Michigan. We have had all this success within the program and yet are still getting the same level of talent from before.
Not discouraged by the success of the coaches at all - would not trade them for any others. They treat the players properly, they develop them and do so well within the laws of college basketball. Many just wonder why that does not translate into top 5 recruiting classes.
I'll take the answer off the air.
5 stars are begging to get into?
Bagmen (or lack thereof).
Anyone who uses "troglodytic," "vituperative," and mentions his research at UM Hospital in the same email is just begging to be called an arrogant blowhard.
April 22nd, 2015 at 10:33 PM ^
Anyone who uses "troglodytic", "vituperative", and a reference to medical research and posts the comment in a public forum is begging to be called an arrogant blowhard.
But someone who uses those terms, correctly, in a private e-mail is just a highly-intelligent, creative communicator who has a great vocabulary and probably plays a mean Scrabble game.
I'd be happy to meet him.
Yah, he used all them long words with lotsa cillabulls or whatever ya call them. And who wants to be a "medical resercher" at a hosbital anyhow?? Ha, what a loser moran. Real manly Americans talk short words and stuff.
I was trying to figure out how we could use the terms "troglodyte" and "vituperative" in a description of our rivalries with the Spartans and Buckeyes just to piss them off.
April 23rd, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
they'd be unlikely to be pissed off, since they wouldn't understand the words. Some of them might just think a cat had walked randomly across the keyboard.
April 22nd, 2015 at 11:49 PM ^
I had to watch the actual video a couple times because that look intrigued me so much. Watching it in the context of the video made me laugh out loud for a couple minutes.... Another Brilliant look from Harbaugh
April 23rd, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
This is a longstanding flaw in the CBA that I complained about way back in the day when it was instituted.
Really? I missed that. I would've guessed you'd be okay with a player sacrificing a year-plus of pay for a college degree and autonomy in where he gets to play in the NHL.
Comments