He's become an historically good shooter when on the move, taking advantage of off-ball screens. Off-ball screens weren't that prevalent under JB - Beilein even gave a quote to the effect that he didn't use Duncan optimally here.

I'd put Caris above him.

He literally had to relearn what was a good shot. College Robinson wouldn’t shoot 50% of the shots he takes currently.  Also echoing what others have said, he had to learn how to move. I bet he studied tape of Korver, Reddick, etc. And finally he joined an incredible organization when it comes to player development. 

Duncan Robinson isn't Beilein's best NBA player. That honor belongs to Caris LeVert

He was pretty good at UM but he really developed in Miami and, frankly, showed he was a much better shooter on the move than he did at UM.  Some of that was probably due to play limitations and non-optimal use while at UM and part was Robinson's continued maturation as a player.  Hell, the fact he went from an historically bad defender to an average one while at UM was probably an early sign that he was capable of rebuilding his game as necessary.

Not sure what the point of this was. But I still watched the whole thing.

I miss football...

Quit watching at 64-0.

How in the world was Jabrill caught by that safety?!!

Buddy of mine who met him at Rays game a couple years ago said something extremely similar.

I went to a speech he gave at UofM and he was awesome baby. (But, yeah, his schtick got old.)

I get that his schtick is 30 years old and he sometimes tries to be an insider when he's often not, but I have no problem with DV. That dude was CBB from 1990-2010 and helped promote the game as much as anyone else. He's a good dude by all accounts since the worst thing you can say about him is that he's a ND fan.

I've met Dickie V a few times and he has been nothing but nice. yeah, his shtick is old but that's for TV

Well said. I liked this part of Brian's post:

"This is merely reality: the Big Ten may have made a mistake. They may have done the right thing."

Time will tell.

Setting aside your inflamatory language (mouth brehters, whackadoos), I agree with your general concept that our knowledge about this disease is constantly evolving, and that the decision making and policy response needs to change with it.  

For example, you note that Fauci initially said no masks, and updated his stance based upon improved information.  This was the right thing to do.  Likewise, we now know after half a year of data certain other things such a how to better treat those suffering respiratory distress in a hospital setting without going directly to intubation (which resulted in death over 80% of the time). 

But, if we are going to update our response, we should do so consistently.  We now know that while everyone faces a fatality risk, the fatality risk to kids is near zero.  Likewise, the fatality rate for otherwise healthy young adults is at or lower than that of the common flu, whereas the risk of death to the elderly, the morbidly obese or those with certain conditions is significantly higher than other common viruses.  We should constantly be looking to evolve our response to this disease in such a way that balances protecting those most at risk while causing the least long-term harm to society in general and to those who are less in need of protection. 

Applied to football, yes having college football has some risks.  But cancelling also has a number of negative consequences.  So many businesses depend on college football; not just the universities, but the vendors, bars and restaurants, stores such as MDen, etc.  Without college football, countless people will face financial ruin (which can lead to increased fatality risk from drugs, alcaholism, depression and even suicide).  Moreover, aside from providing mere entertainment to all of us, college football and sports in general (and other similar aspects of society such as theaters, clubs, etc.) provide a forum for family bonding, community building, and distraction for the problems that so many have in their day to day lives.  Removing something like college football, even for a year, threatens financial ruin for many, the further erosion of society and even mental health impacts on some for whom it is their primary diversion.  On the other side of the ledger, the risk of death to otherwise healthy athletes who are being tested frequently is generally considered to be low.  Certainly no higher than the risk of smashing their heads into each other 50-60 times per game (plus practice) for years.  And, by removing football from their lives, we are actually likely increasing their risk of catching and spreading COVID.  A strong coach such as Harbaugh has the ability to keep his players from going to bars, house parties and generally acting irresponsible.  Without that oversight, so many of these guys are going to do what typical college students do - go out and mix generally and freely.  Rather than keeping these players busy with practice, film, etc., and instilling team rules that mitigation mad decision, we are essentially removing these built-in protections.  

This is what I don't get.....

If this new information about the heart inflamation is so dangerous to people who get the disease, then why are all of these ADs allowing the football teams to practice 20 hours per week? Furthermore, why aren't all these university presidents scrambling to 100% shut down their campuses to ensure that their students don't create superspreader events in the dorms, apartments, house parties, restaurants, coffee shops, libraries, and bars around campus?

When viewed with the "big picture" in mind, playing football against another school is a *TINY* fraction of the potential COVID spreading events that are likely to take place once tens of thousands of students come back to these college campus enviornments for a fall semester. Even if the classes themselves are 100% on-line, that doesn't prevent kids from interacting in the dorms, laundry mats, grocery stores, cafeterias, campus study halls & libraries, etc.

So, if this was a major safety concerns for younger people, shouldn't we be seeing major efforts to cancel the thousands of would-be super-spreader events taking place among a campus of tens of thousands of regular students too?

Otherwise, it seems like they're focusing on this small aspect of COVID spread while basically ignorning the sheer volume of interactions that in aggregate seem to represent a MUCH larger threat to the health and welfare of students.

General question.  Where did the whole 'mouth breather' comment become such a bad thing.  I mean, I breathe through my mouth (and my nose too).  In fact, if I didn't breathe through my mouth, I would likely die.  So I guess I'm a mouth breather?

It's kinda like saying "those anus excrementors!"

He was "in" the draft when they called him, so he wasn't deemed a college student at that point and NBA teams contact these guys all the time. A lot of prospects need a guarantee that at least one team will take them in the first round, so these calls are crucial. 

If they've entered the draft process, teams can contact them until they officially remove themselves from the draft process.

Also, if it takes a call from the NBA to get you to realize that they want you and are very interested, then what are your college coach and the people around you who are supposed to be helping you further your career doing? Nothing at all?

All conferences are 100% revenue focused and the Big Ten is chief amongst them. They added a pair of garbage programs in a purely revenue based move.

agree

i like winston, too.  seems like a good kid. 

I was a railroad engineer and you only need 1 off to be fucked....