Couple More Tidbits from Sam Webb on Hoops Recruiting
Sam Webb offered a couple of interesting insights into the basketball recruiting situation on today's recruiting roundup (podcast). Contrary to the notion of Muhammad Ali Abdur-Rahkman and Aubrey Dawkins being an "either-or" scenario, he believes the two players would fill different roles at Michigan, and so taking both of them would make sense.
Abdur-Rahkman: He can immediately serve as an effective backup to Caris LeVert, and longer term—although his ceiling isn't as high as Levert's—he looks like a four-year contributor who may eventually be a starter. He's just a "decent" shooter, but John Beilein has said he can take an average shooter and turn him into a good one. Abdur-Rahkman also has an effective midrange game and can get to the rim. His quickness isn't exceptional, but in Michigan's ball-screen-heavy offense, he'll be able to get open for shots and drives. Abdur-Rahkman also needs to get stronger but has Camp Sanderson in his future to take care of that.
Dawkins: Although reports have him at 6-4 or 6-5, Sam says it sounds like he's actually closer to 6-6+. Dawkins, who possesses more athleticism than Adbur-Rahkman, is more in the mold of Glenn Robinson III and would play the 3 and even some at the 4 at Michigan. He's not as athletic as Robinson but could fill the void in the transition game that exists with Robinson's departure. Following his visit and the Michigan offer, Sam says Dawkins is "extremely high" on the Wolverines. He still plans to visit Dayton this week (and I think it's worth keeping in mind that Dayton has been recruiting him much longer).
I'll be honest - I don't see a ton of differences in the athleticism between GRIII and Aubrey Dawkins. I don't think Dawkins is as skilled as a ball handler, but as far as strength/leaping ability, they can both fill the same role.
Rahkman looks like more of a big point guard to me. I wouldn't put it past Beilein to teach the kid how to shoot, so I'm not terribly worried there. I just see him as a bigger Walton - a guy who can facilitate but probably not be a dynamic scorer.
GRIII rarely used ballhandling to score or facilitate so I'm not too worried about that. In fact, that's one major factor that'd make me hesitant to take him if I were an NBA GM. Seems like a 3 in the NBA needs to be able to create off the dribble and GRIII had a really tough time doing that in college.
Glenn rarely got opportunities like Nik or Caris to go one on one and generate his own shot..he was the 3rd option and sometimes the 4th and still put up respectable numbers...I would take him ahead of Nik
There were plenty of times where he tried to create off the bounce, he just wasn't very good at it.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
Glenn wasn't very good at creating his own shot. By the end of the season, in the same way you'd expect a Stauskas shot to be good, you'd expect Glenn dribbing to go poorly. When things went well it always fell like a pleasant surprise. That's the reason he didn't have many opportunities. If he'd been better at it, Beilein would have called more plays that gave him an opportunity.
And there's no way a competent GM takes GRIII over Nik. With Stauskas, you're getting a great shooter. Someone you can plug in off the bench and know immediately what you're getting. With Glenn...I'm not sure what you're getting as he doesn't do anything at an elite level. He can't create, can't rebound, doesn't have the motor/hustle to play defense, so what will he add to a team? Sure, he's super athletic, but almost everyone is in the NBA.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
Ahead of Nik? Stauskas is a scorer from anywhere on the floor. Robinson isn't nearly the shooter and actually had less success than Stauskas at driving and scoring in traffic. I don't buy the opportunity argument at all - he was fed the ball quite a bit and frequently throughout his career would kick the ball out when he had his man isolated down low one on one. It wasn't unusual for him to get the ball ten feet from the basket and dribble it back out to the perimeter - I never figured that out. He got a little more aggressive late this season and it paid off, but much of that was simply a matter of blowing past people. He never really developed much in the way of dribble moves, not much of a crossover, nothing really as far as behind the back stuff or spin moves, that kind of thing.
Now you'd maybe still pick him ahead of Nik if he was a lock-down defender or a great rebounder, but he's neither of those things. In fact, the argument could be made that he's actually somewhat disappointing as a defender and rebounder given his athletic abilities.
I think it's tempting to judge on raw athleticism and assume that GRIII's ceiling is higher than Stauskas' based on that. But some guys just bleed basketball, they feel the game in a way others don't. Potential to me always has to take that into account, and Nik is a baller in a way that doesn't come as naturally to Robinson.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
He would have been a higher option if he was either on par offensively with the above mentioned players or could handle the ball and attack the basket. The argument that he didn't show off his ability to generate his own shot because of coaching is absurd. If he could do it, the coaches would have let him do it.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
It's not that I think GRIII was a real creator, but he could hit the pull-up jumper or drive if he wanted. He is/was a capable ball handler for being a forward.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
Kawhi Leonard? Gerald Green? Trevor Ariza? Really just depends on the team.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
Leonard isn't a terrible comp, though GR3 hasn't shown the rebounding or defensive acumen there, but offensively there's some similarities. I don't think he gets to that level, but I think that's essentially his upside.
Green was a much better shooter coming into the league, on a whole different level as an athlete, and you never had to ask him twice to shoot (outside of that year in Indy).
Ariza...maybe. I think he could have a similar level of impact in the league, though Ariza was more of a lanky long defender whereas the hope with GR3 is that he'll be able to body up guys like LeBron.
worse than GRIII. that's kind of disturbing for a guard-type. GRIII's ball handling was probably his biggest weakness.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
He's not really a guard type, though. Dawkins is a forward. MAAR is the guard, whereas Dawkins is a 3 or a 4.
To clarify, I think Sam was pointing out that Robinson has exceptional athleticism—he specifically mentioned his 42- or 43-inch vertical. He wasn't saying there's a huge gap there, just that Dawkins isn't quite the athlete Robinson is.
Darius and MAAR are more "come off a screen with a head of steam and drive to the hoop/kick to the corner.
I would like to see us in on some BIG MEN who can box out and rebound these 6'6 players trying to play the 4 won't work...might as well put Caris down at the 4, if we are just looking for offense
You mean like every player in this class not named Austin Hatch up til a week ago? (Chatman 6'8, Wilson 6'8, Doyle 6'10)
The height thing is so overblown right now - there will be a deficit for a year due to circumstances if Mitch goes. After that you are going to have one of the taller front courts, especially if guys like Dawkins and Chatman slide down to 3 - in the country. Now are either Donnal or Doyle "above the rim" guys? No, not really. But Beilein indicated after this tourney run he probably needs to recruit a guy like that - I am sure the UK game frustrated him because as he said at half - they just were doing things above the rim we simply cannot. But just from pure height - the team is getting longer big time now.
I'm kind of confused as to what exactly you are saying. Michigan has used a 6'6" (or smaller) 4 man for the last 6 years but next year looks like they will have 3 different options that are all above 6'8" (Chatman, Wilson and Donnal). Also, neither MAAR nor Dawkins projects to the PF spot so I'm not completely sure what you mean here.
most definitely do work---as a NCAA runner-up and Elite 8 finish the past two years has proved. We are proof that size at the 4 may be over-rated. There will always be a trade-off.
Beilein will always opt for a skilled 4 who can shoot over a big body who can block out. It stretches the floor so that we can shoot 3s and create driving lanes. And I appreciate that it is often frustrating to see big men back us down (less of an issue) and give up offensive rebounds. I trust Beilein is always looking for that 4 who can both stretch the floor and defend the post. But he will never play two bigs in a "traditional" set.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
If we went big against UK = Rande using quickness. I personally think Donnal is a 5. His offensive and defensive skillsets fit there better.
what the basis is for Webb thinking Dawkins is 6'6? Not that I'm saying he's wrong, just curious why he thinks the listed height is actually too short, which usually isn't the case. Wouldn't mind getting both, but if I were to put money on it, I'd have Dawkins going to Dayton.
Sounds like Dayton has been recruiting Dawkins for a while and worked really hard for him, so I think it's sensible that he's taking the last visit to Dayton. In fact, if he ends up at Michigan, I think it speaks well of the kid that he's being deliberate given their dedication to him on the recruiting trail.
At the end of the day, kids obviously should go where they want. Just doesn't sit right, though, when you see a lower-level team diligently pursuing an under-the-radar kid for a long time then a higher-level team discovers him and the kid drops the lower-level team from his list in a hot second.
like MAAR did?
Like when Duke or KU take kids Belien and the staff have known since 8th grade?
"I'm curious what the basis is for Webb thinking Dawkins is 6'6?"
Going to go out on a limb here but I assume Brandon has invested in a tape measure for the basketball team and/or one of those scales that also includes a height meaurement and the coaches gave it a whirl this weekend. Then someone whispered to Sam the results
I posted this in a previous thread, but for anyone who missed it, there's a good article on Abdur-Rahkman from a local Lehigh Valley paper. It has some interesting info on how he came to Michigan's attention (through an old friend of John Beilein), plus there's this insight from the future Wolverine's high school coach:
"I just think the way Beilein coaches and the way Michigan plays will be right for Muhammad," Csensits said. "Muhammad is a throwback in that he's just a guard. He's not really a point guard and he's not really a two guard; he's just a guard. And if you watch Michigan play, they run a lot of two guard type stuff with guys with very similar skill sets to Muhammad.
"So when he started taking a look at Muhammad, I think [Beilein] saw someone who would be a good fit for how they play."
Also worth noting is that Csensits says that Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Pitt had all expressed strong interest in Abdur-Rahkman late.
What's good about these guys is they are likely four year players. Even if they're a notch below GRIII, Levert, Walton in terms of pure ability, as seniors they could be major contributors to a very good team.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
Read more carefully. It wasn't an "assumption". I said it was likely. Neither of these guys has the recruiting profile of any you cited except perhaps Levert, and he's here at least 3 years. Also try to focus more on constructive discussion and less on the negging.
Man, don't be so sensitive. How am I "negging"? My comment was intended to be a positive observation of recent player development - coming from my realization this year that I can no longer assume any player will be around for the long haul. And yes, obviously Nik and Trey to some extent had much better recruiting profiles than MAAR, but Timmy had one other big offer (Minnesota) and Caris only had Dayton and Ohio. My main point is that we're taking second tier or lower tier recruits (i.e., not top 50 players that typically are the only ones with a realistic shot of making it to the NBA) and sending them to the League early. What Beilein has done is amazing, so I no longer feel comfortable assuming any player will be around for 4 years.
P.S. - when you say something is "likely", that is your opinion, which is based off assumptions you are making, in this case about MAAR's ability and prospects for early NBA entry. Don't try to play semantics when you can't even properly match up has/have with your nouns.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
6'6'' combos w/ 7-1 wingspans and garnering All B1G selections at 19 don't stay 4 years.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
I've seen that is on nbadraft.net. And imo whoever it is that runs that site does that kind of stuff to generate clicks. Had Kyle Anderson going 4th in a mock a few weeks back. I just don't see any way LeVert fits in the same group as Mudiay, Towns, Okafor, Alexander, Stanley Johnson, etc. Would be great news for us if he does, because it would probably take one hell of a season to bump him that high.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
Half of those HS will drop like a rock. DX has Caris at 20 and rising. Dante Exum and MCW are 2 reasons I expect him to place high. NBAdraftmet actually does well with draft placement and early identification of unherald players, but their scouting/writing is atrocious.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
Agreed. I think it's very likely he leaves (but not a given), though I don't see him anywhere near the top-5. Like most years, the top-5 will be all (or almost all) one and dones, and the rest of the top-10 will likely be guys who could have gone this year but didn't (the Harrisons, Dakari Johnson, maybe McGary).
Kyle Anderson may not go 4th but he'll probably be a lottery pick. Also I think the projection of Caris as a top 5 pick is based on the assumption he'll make a jump similar to Nik.
be a lottery pick, but for him to go 4th, that would mean one of Wiggins, Parker, Embiid or Exum didn't get picked in the top four.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
That may be the case, but ultimately none of those guys were expected to be here less than 4 years. Anyone claiming they felt that way when they committed is either the oracle, or is just lying. I didn't have the info beforehand, but looking back at the offers, Timmy only had one (minnesota) and Trey/Nik had more power conference offers but only a few and defintiely not the big players. Typically, players who will have a shot to go pro early are top-50 recruits with at least a couple big time offers.
In any case, MAAR seems like a win-win. Either he blows up and leaves early leaving a trail of wins in his wake, or he's solid and is around 4 years providing needed depth/experience. I suppose total bust is an option as well, but I prefer to be positive.
something like "4 year contributer off the bench". He said it in a good way, but what I took from that - my own perception - was to lower expectations, in terms of Beilein late identification wizardry. Reading too much into it, to me it sounded like the coaches know they're adding depth with this addition. Just like my opinion though man.
Also on football, the TE Clark who'd been committed to NC really liked his visit, also really liked OSU. Webb says he'll decide later this summer and seems like it may be M-OSU battle now. Grant Newsome the OT from NJ really enjoyed visit as well, said he will visit again and decide earlier in the Fall (I think that's what was said). Hasn't cut down his list yet, but M will be on it.
Exactly. Would you have liked to see say a junior Stu Douglass and Zach Novak on last year's team as depth players rather than front line starters? It would have been a nice luxury. That is essentially what your goals are for MAAR (Stu + 1 inch) and Novak (Dawkins + 2 inches apparently).
Look the high end guys in today's NCAA are gone in 1-2 years now. Your turnover is ridiculous - we just lost a boat load of kids in 2 years and face the same prospect next year. If that is the water UM is playing in and the program is not UK Duke Kansas (which face it , it is not) in terms of being in on every guy in the top 20 of the rankings.... you need to some 4 year guys to provide stability and glue and these are the type of kids tha provide it. And you supplement it with one top 15 guy here, one top 50 guy there, one top 100 guy there. Until the day comes that nearly every dude in the top 25 says UM is no different than Kansas or Duke that's the reality.
And NEAR term *if* you believe Caris is going to the NBA in 12 months (95% chance right now) and Irvin is (20-50% chance) you have to plan for them go both be gone and recruit accordingly. So you can decide (a) do I want to wait until the next recruiting cycle and find a super frosh to replace both, and cram them into the system / starting lineup with no experience - which is the case at the 2 at minimum or (b) do I get guys into the system now with less upside who can at minimum be stop gap starters next year - again at the 2 at minimum and then let those super frosh come in and challenge them instead of just handing them the keys. And we are going to be in the same position every year you have to assume - so if Chatman leaves after 2 years you have a junior Dawkins to hold down the fort while some super frosh from 2016 comes in and challenges the SF position.
This assumes we do get those super frosh - because right now this class in theory would have been full with guys like Booker and Blackmon if things had "gone right". Beilein very specifically said something about bird in hand at the presser for Glen and Nik in determining what to do with the "active" recruiting board. If he likes these kids he probably thinks he can do something with them with 1 whole year under this coaching staff (versus a super frosh who won't show up for 12 months) and have an advantage versus sitting here for 8 months and relying on super frosh who may only be around a year anyhow.
I stand by the way I summarized it, and your quote is not what Sam said. I made a point of including Sam's point of Abdur-Rahkman not having as high a ceiling as LeVert, so, yes, people shouldn't be expecting the former to blow up into a lottery pick during his Michigan career. And Sam definitely said that he thinks Abdur-Rahkman could eventually develop into a starter in the latter part of his Michigan career, with his immediate role being to serve as a backup to LeVert.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
did he say anything about transfers? or lack thereof?
April 21st, 2014 at 10:11 AM ^
No, he discussed only the two visitors. See my note below, however.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
Just to close the book on one much-discussed transfer possibility:
Schools recruiting USC transfer Byron Wesley per his AAU coach: Cincy, Baylor, Indiana, Providence Gonzaga, Michigan State, Pitt, OK State.
— Jeff Eisenberg (@JeffEisenberg) April 21, 2014
Interesting to see MSU in that list.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
MSU has a major need at the 2 unlike us; he would be a good fit for what they lack next year for a one and done. Alvin Elvis is their starting 2 right now I would assume unless they take Valentine out of the 3, put Kaminski in and slide Valentine down to the 2. Izzo has done transfers in the past - Brandon Wood off top of head a few years ago.
And they lose Trice and Dawson after next year and with their high profile misses on the recruiting trail and underwhelming development I bet Izzo goes the transfer route again 12 months from now. They will finally be nearly as young as we have been for a few years in 2015-2016.