More of a treadmill than a rollercoaster.
i refuse to even consider this a possibility
More of a treadmill than a rollercoaster.
In my opinion, he (Harris) has the most potential and talent on the team.
Has someone told you otherwise?
DeShawn Sims has been playing more consistently of late and one could definitely argue he is the better player. I'm glad your singular point is taken out of context though, as I was saying that to build up to some points about Manny.
that Sims is the better player. Not unless they intentionally want to be wrong.
I don't know about "intentionally wrong." Sims is more polished than Harris is, and Sims has a very good skill set from mid range and close in to the basket. Remember, he outplayed Cole Aldrich, an All-American at Kansas. Besides, Sims is putting up his comparable numbers (to Manny Harris) out of position. At 6'8" he is too short to play the 5, yet he still excels at the position even winning Big Ten Player of the Week near the start of conference play (the week of PSU and OSU). For the record, I still think Harris is a better player, if more inconsistent, but I don't think you're giving enough credit to Deshawn.
I had a few drinks when I was posting last night. I certainly could have been more considerate in my response.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said. Sims is forced into playing post when he's built like a 3, but he performs exceptionally well. I didn't intend to downplay Sims accomplishments, if that's the way it seemed. I just don't think there is any argument against Harris being the better overall player.
While they both are among the league leaders in almost every statistical category and have comparable scoring numbers, Harris is in the leaders for rebounding, steals, assists, and assist to turnover percentage. The guy does it all.
I really wasn't trying to get into a debate with anyone. I just got a chuckle out of the OP saying that he was of the opinion that Harris was the most talented player on the team. The statistics seem to agree. Even after you make a case for Sims, you still acknowledge that you feel Harris is more talented. Is there anyone out there that disagrees?
Harris may be the better player, but he has problems with shot selection and laziness sometimes. Still, he has a great ability to create a shot for him and others, and he is a great finisher who can get to the line. Sims can create his own shot, but not much else. Harris is a game-changer who can win a game for UM if he plays up to his potential for 40 minutes. Howeva, I do think that Sims is more valuable than Harris if only because of our depth up front.
I don't think anyone can disagree that Harris is the better all-around player, and he might be the second best in the conference. He's not as good as Turner, Turner may be the best in the country.
Great post. Good explanation of the suddenly competent defense. While watching the Northwestern-Wisconsin game the other night, the analysts made a point about Beilein's postgame compliments of their man at the top of the 1-3-1, Nash. He was very good at double-teaming and clogging the lanes and I found it interesting that Beilein made a point to compliment him. We've been missing that top man and it has basically taken our 1-3-1 out of the game defensively. Northwestern ran it well and it hurt us big time. Hopefully Morris or someone else can morph into the role that Nash plays for the Wildcats. It would really help our defense.
Good point. C.J. Lee ran the top of the 1-3-1 last year at times and Stu Douglass isn't getting the job done this year. When my team played zone defense in high school (2-3) we had to move more than in a man to man defense. On TV it doesn't look like it takes as much effort, but if you get caught standing around in a zone the offense can bury you in a hurry. Boxing out is always more challenging when playing a zone as well.
I thought it was painful to watch Michigan against Northwestern's 1-3-1, although the Wildcats have more length than the Wolverines and that always helps a zone defense. You would think the Wolverines would execute better having seen it in practice though.
Northwestern also has more experience in the 1-3-1, the loss of Merritt and Lee really hurt our experience in a complicated zone.
This is also where not having Udoh hurts us. It's a pity that he left really, because he would have been excellent in the middle of the zone. It isn't really too productive to wonder what could have been, but I think Udoh (who was on a couple midseason AA teams) would have developed into the much sought after third scorer and shore up our defense and front-line depth. Oh well.
I couldn't disagree more. The 1-3-1 is one of the simpler zones to run, compared to a 3-2, box +1, triangle +2. The only zone defense that is more simple in principles is the 2-3 zone. The problem with the 1-3-1 is that whoever is on top has to be patient. When we played the 1-3-1 in high school, we always would use our small forward. He was patient and would wait in the middle of the court and make the ball handler choose a side to attack. This is the key to setting this zone up. Once the ball handler chooses a side, the defender on top must force them to keep dribbling towards the wing. Thats where you create the trap. That defender on top almost has to be on the back hip of the ball handler and ride him in to the trap. Michigan way to often tries to trap high and lacks patience. That is more of a problem than the lack of height at the top. Its all about timing. Even last year we didn't run the 1-3-1 as effectively as NW ran it last weekend. The key though is that Nash is extremely patient and waits for the defender to come to him instead of attacking the defender. It's counterintuitive as my coach use to yell all the time.
I should have stated that I have no experience in organized basketball and just know what I've seen on TV and written online. Apologies.
I agree that Northwestern ran the 1-3-1 more effectively than Michigan has for the most part, but the 1-3-1 is, IMO, more difficult to execute consistently than the 3-2 or 2-3. I've played against those zones and within those zones. The 3-2 and 2-3 are less risky but the 1-3-1 has a higher reward and creates more mismatches down low. I agree that you have to try to force the ball handler into the trap, but there is also the 1-3-1 base defense as well as the 1-3-1 matchup zone, both of which are different from the trap.
at 3-2 Big Ten instead of 4-1. The easy part of the schedule is over, but we're only "shooting par/even" on a home/away basis. With our OOC resume, we have to do better than even. (One last OOC upset "chance" tomorrow.)
Before I looked at the remaining schedule, I was expecting to see a home slate that would be almost impossible to "hold serve". Fortunately, Purdue is missing from the home slate.
At the very least, we need to win 2-3 more away games and then lose one less at home to get to 10-8 to have some chance of making a meaningful impression in the B10 tourney. Uphill, but not unrealistic.
Home B10 Games
1/26 No. 8 Michigan State
2/6 No. 16 Wisconsin
2/20 Penn State
Away B10 Games
1/20 at No. 16 Wisconsin
1/23 at No. 6 Purdue
2/2 at Northwestern
2/11 at Minnesota
2/16 at Iowa
2/27 at Ohio State
3/6 at No. 8 Michigan State
since our first five big ten games were against the league's poorer teams [which would include ohio state w/o turner], can it be said that the defense has really improved---or is it more likely that the opponents' lower shooting % will not continue because of the higher-talent teams upcoming [uconn, wiscy, purdue, msu]?
I think their defense improved against comparable opponents and their huge win today kind of reinforces that. Hopefully they can keep rolling and not revert back to their previous woes defensively.
I like this, you should do this more often. I'd like to see what you have to say about his recruiting
Beat UConn today! Signature win!