Beilein Sorcery or Desperate Heave

Submitted by RealJabrill on

With the surprising departures of 3 starters from the NC team bolting, jumping, and fleeing to the NBA and 1 HUGE cog from the last two years squad throwing the deuces to the program, we ended up scooping up a huge class.  Next years team is going to be super interesting to follow and analyze with so much uncertainty.  We went from having a stud team to a total rebuild just like that.  I trust the coaching staff to do their damnest to mold a masterpiece.  And I trust the players to bust their humps to play their best ball the entire way. 

But does any on else feel like we're betting the farm on the development of severely underrated players vs. banking the schollies for some higher caliber talent for the future.  We might squeeze ourselves out of recuits for the next cycle if things dont all fall into place.  On the one hand, we'll have players with 1 year in the program.  On the other, we could have first rate talent coming in to bring the wood to michigan hoops.  

We wont have guaranteed scholarships left if we offer Huff (or whomever).  We'll be recruiting and make offers contingent on Levert, Beifeldt, and Maybe Irving and Walton making the super leap.

I know its all conjecture and BS but I get into the psyche of it.  FUCK ! I love michigan ball.

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^

Who are these 2015 guys? I don't think we lead for anyone.

And what happens when we bank only to come in second to bluebloods for most of those prospect? 

 

Then again, we take another late signee when Huff could have filled that spot. 

Magnus

April 29th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^

I don't see the negativity around recruiting Huff, other than the fact that he wouldn't be able to play next season. (I don't think that's a concern, but I can at least acknowledge why some people see it that way.)

Cole Huff is 6'8" and can play the four in Beilein's system. We need bigs, and this would free up guys like Doyle and Donnal to play the five almost exclusively. If you don't get reinforcements at PF, you've got to play Irvin there or you've perhaps got to spread out Doyle, Donnal, and Bielfeldt, maybe beyond their capabilities.

And we should all realize that there's going to be some movement. Even with obvious playing time, guys like Smotrycz and Horford have moved on in recent years. There's a very good chance that someone on the roster other than LeVert will depart before the 2015-2016 season. If the team stays completely intact until that point, I will be very surprised.

Raoul

April 29th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

Cole Huff is far from a sure thing the way many people have portrayed him, putting (in my opinion) way too much stock into a single quote from his former AAU coach. Sam Webb said on today's recruiting roundup that while Michigan is certainly interested in him, having him in for a visit/offering him is still up in the air. This does contradict what that AAU coach said about Michigan being in Huff's final four and implying that Huff would visit Michigan. But it's been a few days since he tweeted that, and there's been no word of a Michigan visit.

Long story short, it could well be that the Michigan coaches will decide to bank that scholarship. With some sort of attrition likely (it occurs almost every year), they would then have two or more open scholarships to work with for the 2015 class.

gbdub

April 29th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

1) Bank one scholly for who? MAAR and Dawkins may not be world beating talent, but I'd wager that either one will be better, or at least as good, after a year of Beilein development than a fringe top 100 guy as a frosh. And "fringe top 100 guy" is probably an optimistic best case scenario for the third or fourth scholly that we'd be "banking" this year (I believe we only got 2 top 100 2014 guys).
2) MAAR and Dawkins are exactly the sort of guys who go to a mid major and end up anchoring a scary tourney team their senior year. I don't mind having a couple of those guys around for 4 years - JMo proved how valuable senior leadership can be.
3) if this year proved anything, it's that unexpected departures should be expected, and that Michigan is not at the point in recruiting where they can expect to bring in 5 one and dones every year. Might as well load up with quality depth while we can.

Bb011

April 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^

Honestly, I was hoping we took one of the last two and banked the other.With that said,I have a feeling that beilein truly sees something in these two guys to be more than just bench depth and will be very good players or else he would have just taken one as well. Combine this with my trust in beilein and this leads me to decide sorcery and not desperation.

Magnus

April 29th, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^

At the very least, Dawkins looks like a high-flying dunker who can get out on the fast break, finish at the rim, etc. Has Michigan had a guy with that skill set who has not succeeded at some level? I'll grant that Brent Petway wasn't a great player, but he still shot a high percentage and grabbed some rebounds. Petway, GRIII, Hardaway Jr., and Dawkins all seem similarly athletic to me. Even if Dawkins doesn't turn into a shooter, I think he'll be a good role player who can be dangerous in transition or off the ball.

Arlo Pear

April 29th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^

I'm not a fan of banking scholarships if you identify players that help you now. Especially in basketball recruiting where you can recruit a Devin Booker or Luke Kennard for years to have Kentucky and Duke to swoop in and take them in a few months. That doesn't mean give up trying but you don't want to be left empty handed like MSU was when they missed on Jabari Parker.

BlueKoj

April 29th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

Why is it warped? UM has consistently landed top-100 (top-30 even) players the past few years and should continue (and improve) that trend with guards and wings especially.

Having asked that, I have no problem with the offers and signings and not banking 2-3 schollies.

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^

Show me where UM has landed 3 top 100 guards?  Show me who we lead for in 2015 to bank? Show me why a PG would come here with 2 other guys at that position? Explaing to me why we should take multiple wings when we only, likely lose LeVert and 2016 has better wings? 

BlueKoj

April 29th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^

Burke is a terrible example to pick. He wasn't unanimous top-100, but was composite 104 and some ranked him inside top-100. That is splitting hairs on the NPOY and NBA ROY contender. If your point is JB shouldn't sign a guy he thinks is Burke-like or that other top-100 guards don't think of Trey as a good reason to join UM, then there isn't much to say.

EDIT: Didnt' say they were in the same class. My point is that UM landing 3 top-100 guys in a class is far from warped. Of course the mix of positions will be impacted by open spots and needs, but its far from warped.

BlueKoj

April 29th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^

I read 2/3 top-100 guards...at any rate, if the spots were open because these moves weren't made, I still don't think it's "warped" that UM could fill 2/3 spots with top-100 guys. Its certainly no guarantee, but people thinking that banked schollies have a decent chance to end up as top-100 guys under JB is reasonble to me.

It's also just fine with me when they end up not being top-100 guys. As I said, I don't dislike these moves either. 

Space Coyote

April 29th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^

But 2 is not out of the reason by any means.

As for Brunson, you don't have to play all those guys at PG. Walton, Spike, or Brunson can slide over and pick up minutes at the 2. And Walton and Spike would both be upper-classman, Brunson isn't likely a 1 and done type, having to wait a year to get signficant minutes at PG isn't necessarily a significant factor.

As for taking multiple wings, you're correct, Michigan no longer needs to because they picked up MAAR and Dawkins. If they hadn't though, they would have a need for wings; that's the debate. In a system that uses 2 wings and a quasi-wing at the 4, only returning Chatman and Irvin would have a need for at least 2 more wings.

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^

Here are the facts

1. Brunson has stated early playing time is key

2. Rick Brunson is an East Coast legend and buds w/ KU assistant Jerrance Howard

3. UM last visit w/ Brunson was in February. Groce, Izzo, Jay Wright, Self/Howard have visited AT LEAST 5 times since then. Kevin Ollie has thrown his hat in, too. 

4. Groce, Izzo, Self/Howard, Jay Wright watched Brunson MULTIPLE times at EYBL this weekend. UM did not watch ONCE. 

5. After EYBL, MSU has offered PG Jarvis Johnson and Illinois has offerred Justin Robinson along with an insider saying they are in 5th place. 

6. Like Kennard and Booker, Brunson has had a UM offer for a long time now.

7. East coast schools: Villanova and UCONN. Teams w/ no starting PG or a Sr in 2015 : VILL, UCONN,KU,ILL and MSU depends on Nairn's development. UM will havea  Jr Walton.  

Sounds like a guy we should bank for.

BigBlue02

April 29th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

If we know anything, it's that the scholarship situation right now, in April 2014, will be the exact scholarship situation as in April 2015. This is fact...just like there is no way Darrius Morris will be good enough next year to go, just like there is no way Burke will be good enough to go next year, just like there is no way Stauskas will be good enough to go next year, just like there is no way Horford will transfer, just like there is no way Brundidge will transfer, just like there is no way Beilfeldt doesn't get a 5th year, just like there is no way both Peedi and Manny Fresh go pro at the same time, just like it is impossible for Levert to go next year, just like it is impossible for Walton or Irvin to go next year, just like there is no way we lose all 3 fringe 1st rounders who are all sophomores, just like there is no way McGary would turn down a year suspension to go pro, just like there is no way Hatch gets a medical, whether it be from Beilein's request or his own...did I miss any? I even threw in some of them that could happen next year, just for funsies. How many times can you play this broken record about Beilein taking both Dawkins and MAAR? How many times can you bitch about not banking a scholarship for Brunson when year after year we see attrition that we didn't expect?

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^

Except none of my post said anything about "about Beilein taking both Dawkins and MAAR", smart guy. If you read what I typed, you'd know I advocated NOT banking scholarships, Einstein. And Brunson decides at the end of summer so next springs attrition is meaningless, genius. 

Space Coyote

April 29th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^

But where the big is ranked is really beside the point. Michigan will still need a big in next year's class regardless of the two recent commits. On the other hand, say 2 guards/wings (making a three man class) that are in the top 100 isn't really that unrealistic, particularly that we should start paying dividends for the National Championship game and the recent success of players at those positions. Brunson, Coleman, Grandstaff, McQuaid, and a couple others in the top 100 that Michigan hasn't offered isn't out of the realm of possibility, not by a long shot really.

I'm not really against any of the pick ups or the potential pick up of Huff, I just don't think it's as closed as people are making it out to be. I think there is legit reason to debate other ways of approaching it and still give the staff the benefit of the doubt.

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^

Explain to me why TWO perimeter guys would come here when we only loose LeVert? 

Wouldn't it make sense to go after Thornton Jr, Battle, Murray, etc in a STRONGER 2016 class when we actually have senior graduation than to force people out of spots or force Huff away because "we might get someone in 2015?"

 

Erik_in_Dayton

April 29th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^

...it's not hard to imagine two wings picking Michigan when the depth chart at the two and three might have been MAAR or Dawkins, Irvin, and Chatman/Wilson (both likely to see time at the four).  There would have been a decent amount of playing time to be found there. 

Space Coyote

April 29th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^

But no one is debating that. No one is claiming we take now take two perimeter players with the addition of MAAR and Dawkins. The debate is whether you bank one of the offers that went to MAAR and Dawkins for next year (as was previously thought to be the case after MAAR initially committed).

As said below, because the debate is what I stated above, none of this really changes anything about 2016 recruiting. 

Space Coyote

April 29th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^

No one is saying to take MAAR, Dawkins, and two perimeter guys in two classes. The debate is whether they should have take one of MAAR and Dawkins and then two perimeter guys next year. That would leave Michigan with Walton, Spike, Irvin, Chatman, MAAR/Dawkins, to fill 3.5 positions. It seems everyone agrees that Michigan would like 4 perimeter guys in this class and next class, the debate is if 3 should come in 2014 and 1 in 2015, or 2 in 2014 and 2 in 2015.

So the number of scholarships given out after 2015 is the same either way, the amount of available scholarships for 2016 doesn't change. Beilein isn't going to bank scholarships for 2 years because of a stronger 2016 class. That has no bearing on this debate.

So this isn't really about forcing anyone out. If the staff believe Huff fills a need at the 4 to be more capable at the 5, that's fine. But then do you give out two late offers to wings (one of which could very likely redshirt) in this class instead of likely being able to get 2 better perimeter guys in the next class? You're making it sound like Michigan picking up 2 top 100 perimeter players in the 2015 class is completely unrealistic, but I don't really see your justification for that. That's been fairly standard or close to standard for Michigan the last few years, and should become more so with the recent success and success at those positions.

I'm open to the debate, and don't really understand why you're appearing so upset about it. I don't personally really disagree with either approach, and I can see validity in either approach.

reanimator

April 29th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^

I was going off the assumption that people want 2/3 guards in 2015 after taking MAAR and Dawkins so a misunderstanding. 

If the staff wants guys, there will be ways to open slots, though it isn't needed imo. A much stronger 2016 is the next year we will need MULTIPLE big-time guards and luckily we sit well with plenty of them. 

I'm okay with getting 1 guard in 2015, even if we could have had 2 or 3, because Irvin, Walton, Spike, Chatman is enough. I don't see a gap between McQuaid and Dawkins. It also allows us to have the chance at more talented guys in 2016 that we would have had little chance at with a big 2015 class. 

As for Huff, it would sting to turn him away to have an "open slot", miss out, only to take another "sleeper" next year and watch Huff average 14 ppg at Iowa imo 

BlueKoj

April 29th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^

A class of 3 top-100 guys isn't necessarily an expectation, but it isn't a "warped" idea either. UM is landing top-100 talent and developing it, and winning with it. JB and co are also using their top-300 talent well.

Still, I'm a believer in the sorcery and am excited to watch JB work with top-30 guys, top-100 guys and top-300 guys. They've made it work with all types. These specific moves may not work out, or may not be the unquestionably perfect moves for the program, but I'm fine with the moves. 

The departures have created a less than optimal situation, and JB and co are dealing with it.

gbdub

April 29th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^

Even if we end up with those guys wanting to come here, the scenario where we actually have to turn any away is one where we keep LeVert, Irvin, and Walton, Bielfeldt turns into a major contributor, and Hatch can actually play. I'm not worried about 2015.

Raoul

April 29th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^

Here's the reason why banking scholarships rarely makes sense: in the end, it isn't necessary. Beilein just finished his seventh season as Michigan's head coach. Can someone point me to a time when he's run out of scholarships?

Over the last five years (including the season just completed), there's been only one year when the Michigan roster didn't experience any postseason attrition. And during four of the five years, at least three scholarship players have departed. Here's the rundown (which includes only players on scholarship):

2009-10

  • Ben Cronin (medical)
  • Manny Harris (NBA)
  • Laval Lucas-Perry (dismissed from team)
  • Anthony Wright (5th-year handshake)

2010-11

none

2011-12

  • Carlton Brundidge (transfer)
  • Colton Christian (transfer)
  • Evan Smotrycz (transfer)

2012-13

  • Trey Burke (NBA)
  • Tim Hardaway Jr. (NBA)
  • Blake McLimans (5th-year handshake)

2013-14

  • Jon Horford (transfer for 5th year)
  • Mitch McGary (NBA)
  • Glenn Robinson III (NBA)
  • Nik Stauskas (NBA)

As has been discussed endlessly, there are certainly candidates for attrition on the next year's roster—and there are more than were apparent on the 2010-11 roster. I think it's much more likely that Michigan experiences attrition on the level of most of the seasons above than repeat the anomalous no-attrition year of 2010-11. Plus, as I posted above, it's beginning to look like Cole Huff is quite far from a sure thing and that Beilein & Co. might end up banking that last scholly.

It seems to me this is a case of being able to have one's cake and eat it too. It's very likely Beilein—having added a couple of solid role players (Abdur-Rahkman and Dawkins) who have the potential to develop into much more—will still be able to pursue and sign some higher-rated players in the 2015 class.

alum96

April 29th, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^

Yes and there is always a probability someone from this team is going to transfer in a few years for playing time -could be one of the 2 everyone is debating today (MAAR/Dawkins)  Just reality.  We have a 11 deep roster right now for potential playing time and unless Irvin joins Caris in the NBA it will be potentially 12-13 (!) guys in 2015-2016 since we have 5 freshman this year and will be adding 1-2 freshman next year (plus Huff if he comes).

No one wants to think it but someone is going to get edged out for playing time and I could see that someone transferring at the end of 2015-2016. 

These things all work out one way or the other.

Jobu

April 29th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

It still seems like people are pissed if any of our recruits are below 5* star level. Beilein will never cheat like a UNC, Duke , Kansas, or Kentucky. Michigan will never be at that recruiting level yet we hold our own against those schools.

gwkrlghl

April 29th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

because none of them ever pan out. I wish we could retroactively take away the scholarships of Zack Novak, Jordan Morgan, Trey Burke, THJ, Evan Smotrcyz, GRIII, and Caris Levert because we all know that they were 3* players when they committed and never amounted to anything at Michigan.

gwkrlghl

April 29th, 2014 at 6:58 PM ^

Nothing I said was incorrect, however your assertion that GRIII and Smotz weren't 3*s is incorrect. GRIII and Smotz were both 3*s when they committed (which is what I wrote). They didn't get their bump till well after they were on board. Burke was a 3* the whole way. 

bronxblue

April 29th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

It's both, in my opinion.  He's gotten lucky on some long shots - as noted, UM could have ended up with lots of players other than Trey Burke had recruiting gone differently.  But at the same time, he has a system and he recruits to it.  All good coaches do that, and unless your system is "assemble an NBA team" every year, the ratings may not always match up with the talent.