A few notes on Mitch McGary
There has been some question about McGary's height. He's been consistently listed at 6'10", but a newspaper article recently listed him at 6'8". UMHoops reports that he measured 6'9" w/out shoes at the Nike Hoops Summit.
McGary weighed 263 at the Hoops Summit, which UMHoops says is too much. Sam Webb said that he was a bit overweight this morning as well.
I've watched a lot of his film now, and I can offer the following non-expert thoughts:
1. He's an excellent ballhandler for a man his size. He's also a willing passer;
2. He's a good enough athlete but not at all elite;
3. He plays with a very high, Novak-like motor. This wasn't on display at the Hoop Summit, apparently, but he reportedly seemed to be banged up (see link above);
4. His shooting is inconsistent at best. He can make threes, but he throws up ugly line drives fairly often as well (including on free throws);
5. I don't think he's going to be a big-time shot blocker in college. He gets a good amount of blocks in his highlights against shorter guys (I'm talking short-for-high-school guys), but you don't see the sort of timing and extension that you'd see from, say, Gorgui Dieng;
6. I can see him being particularly successful on the pick-and-roll, b/c he'll be able to receive the ball a dribble or two away from the rim and still convert, which is something Jordan Morgan struggles with;
7. McGary is raw and a little wild at times with the basketball. His choice to be coached by John Beilein was particularly wise, IMO, b/c Beilein will work more on his shooting skills than other coaches. Bacari Alexander will also presumably be a great help to him. McGary won't be the best player on the team next year, but he'll be a very nice (if unrefined) piece to the puzzle.
Good work dude, seriously its posts like this that make this board the best.
Can we move him to wide receiver?
bubble screens?
be very, very painful.
BOOM! BIRTH'D!!
Agreed! If I could upvote you I would, but alas I lack sufficient points. I need to post more.
Thanks for posting this. People should definitely follow the link. Dylan does a great job following recruiting and providing updates.
Also of note is that Glenn Robinson III finished 4th in Indiana's Mr. Basketball. Now people might think that 4th is kind of low, but for a kid that doesn't play in Indianapolis and isn't a Zeller, this is a very impressive finish.
UMHoops is a great site. I highly recommend for all MBB fans.
Not that fourth isn't great but I wonder if being a U of M commit lost him some votes. Congrats Glenn III.
4th isn't a bad finish at all, but going to school out of state certainly didn't help. I'm not saying that is why he finished 4th, but if he were going to Purdue I doubt he finishes that low. As I have stated on here before, in his game against Gary Harris (who won Mr. Basketball), he was the best player on the floor, and I shared this opinion with several other people, most of whom were not Michigan fans.
where is gary harris going to college again?
He averaged something like 22 pts, maybe 9 boards per game in HS. Not mind blowing (although some of his dunks were.) He is clearly one of the best next level prospects in IN but even Gary Harris is rated ahead of him in that regard, although many might project GRIII ahead of him with anticipated growth. There were many worthy candidates for this award, but for GRIII to win it would have been a minor travesty.
No disrespect, but I could not disagree with you more. If you compare the teams of the top 4 in the Mr. Basketball balloting, Lake Central by far had the least talented team. The fact that Robinson lead his team to a conference and sectional championship in amazing. The way high school basketball works in Indiana is if you want to have a shot at winning Mr. Basketball, you either go to college instate or go to a high school in Indianapolis.
Granted I know nothing about the politics of IN HS basketball, but I am under the impression that the playoff draw is a crapshoot. So I dont really know who Lake Central beat to get there. But I do know that his stats were somewhat modest and he does have a teammate who is a high major interest player. The big dude #45. So while you may be more or less correct about having to go to IU/ Purdue/ Butler(??) and an Indy HS, do you really think GRIII was most deserving of the award?? I ask as an honest question with admittedly some skepticism.
Yeah, some people have said they think this might be the most talented class out of Indiana ever. I think I read in the Indianapolis Star that there were 18 kids in the Rivals150 from Indiana. For a state as small as Indiana, that is insane.
Indiana might be small, but basketball is ridiculously important there. I didn't understand until I visited family that lives in Bloomington/Indy. Every house on the block has a basketball hoop.
to be a Kevin Love type player if he develops his shooting. He is a rebounding beast, and now a days taking a charge is just as effective as blocking shots.
is always better than blocking a shot, but it's harder.
Love put up 36 points and 17 rebounds a game in high school. He had 13 points and 8 rebounds in the Hoops Summit game. McGary hasn't shown he deserves that kind of comparison at all.
but his game is predicated on great rebounding positioning and soft shooting not great athleticism. MM has that potential. Also have you seen Brewster Academy play this year? The whole squad thinks it's going to the NBA and they all try to show it on every play. MM was not in a position to put up big numbers
has an extremely high skill set and was given elite-coaching. His dad was a former NBA player that cut no corners when it came to developing his son's game. Love is a great player because of his skills, awareness, and knowledge of the game. Nothing preculdes McGary from developing those same elements...but he also hasn't displayed them at nearly the same level.
I realize McGary may not be in an optimal situation, but if you're THAT good (i.e. legit top 20 player nationally) there's no excuse for getting ignored by your teammates.
We're talking about basketball my man. League of the most selfish athletes in sports. If you made NBA players play football, they would all try to be wide recievers...that's their mentality. Give me the DANG BALL!!!
That was the type of team MM played on at Brewster. When you have a squad that has SIX players going to top D1 schools in 2012 and probably 6 more in 2013,it's hard to get numbers, especially as a big man that needs to ball passed to him. All I'm saying is, it's easy to get ignored in basketball, especially when you have 8-9 players on your squad that feels they are better than you or at least deserves the same attention.
and never hand it off or throw it unless they had to.
He'll be fine once he gets here and starts on the training regimen (in regards to his weight). Also, the coaches will fine tune his shooting skills. I'm just hoping he can hit FT's, because he'll be going to the line a lot I'm guessing. But his passing and ball handling skills are two things I'm excited about. That will make Michigan a much better team. And I'm not worried at all about his rebounding.
Anyone else think he could develop into a Tyler Hansbrough type of player?
IMO he's Hansbrough all the way... because of the effort and intensity. I'd say Jared Sullinger, but he doesn't have the shot right now and his game isn't as refined. Then again, I think Jared gets disinterested too much, and that's something Hansbrough never did.
If he can be either one, we could be a legit Final Four team when you put Robinson on the floor who is like your consistent all around player. Burke who can be a top 3 PG next year. Morgan who is your work horse and Hardaway who will become the x-factor and the difference between being dominant or a repeat of this past team.
If Hardaway can find his jumper, that lineup is REALLY good because they compliment each other so well. The bigs don't need too many touches, they'll naturally get theirs. The wings can score, and the PG can command the offense. It fits the offense perfectly.
If Hardway struggles, we have Vogrich and Stauskas coming off the bench that can provide us with some offense.
Sullinger seems to get lost at times (as you mentioned), and it really was delterious to his effort for stretches of various games. Hansbrough effort never seemed to fade, and I'd say in the latter half of his college career he may have had an equivalent skill level to Sullinger's, if not more so. Hansbrough's game revolved around his moderate to high altheticism (not elite), extreme hustle, and intelligent, creative play. From what I've seen, I think McGary can eventually emulate that.
I think McGary has better vertical than Sullinger. It really seemed like that guy was glued to the floor at times.
but tyler's #s in high school were a lot better. and he had some absolutely huge games.
Clearly, he's struggled lately relative to expectations. Maybe the excess weight is holding him back a bit. Maybe that's related to an injury (cause or effect?)
Regardless, McGary seems to be 'overrated' in terms of what we should expect immediately from such a highly ranked kid. I'd argue this could end up being a good thing for Michigan basketball. The less likey he's a one-and-done, the more likely he makes a bigger contribution.
Mitch should benefit from competition with Morgan, Horford, and Bielfeldt.
I don't think there's much doubt that Glenn Robinson has become Michigan's best recruit in this class and that he'll have the biggest impact next year. I'm starting to think that McGary will be a three year player as he sits and develops behind Morgan and Horford, and eventually I think he'll be a 15 and 12 kind of player who really just gets those hustle points and rebounds that fans love.
Robinson's the highest ranked according to some, but Stauskas has the clearest path to playing time and, given his 3 point shooting, best fits the pre-conceived needs of the team. And if Burke leaves, they'll need him to handle the ball.
Robinson is somewhat blocked by Hardaway at the 3 spot, so his path to playing time is a little less clear.
I agree with you on McGary being a hustle player, but he should get at least 15 mpg right away, even in that capacity, given his size and ability. McGary may not be an instant impact stud, but he still has a very high ceiling.
It's way early to say who the 'best recruit' in this class is.
or at least get major minutes at the 4 spot (possibly behind Bielfeldt) except when they go small with Robinson at the 4.
He likely won't be a star next year, but could play a major role.
IMO this is where Smotz will be missed. Not neccesarily because of a talent or experience difference. But because there are going to be times where McGary needs to be on the bench learning, times where need to take him out for teaching points. It would be nice to have Smotz in there to provide a different look and keep us going offensively.
With that said, we do get Horford back and I wouldn't rule our Horford and Morgan playing together at times. Similar to Morgan and McLimas this past year.
Morgan (Horford)
McGary (McLimas)
Robinson (Stauskas)
Hardaway (Vogrich)
Burke (Albrecht)
Not a bad 10-man rotation at all. Obviously we just need the key piece to it.
usually don't work. Typically one of the top 3 bigs can rotate between PF/C (like Smot did last year), one of the wings can rotate between SG/SF, and so on.
Personally, I doubt McLimans or Albrecht (assuming Burke returns) play significant rules. It's safe to assume that Morgan, Horford, Hardaway, and Burke (assuming no NBA) will all be in the rotation, and the three highly regarded freshman too, but the roles of others, like Bielfeldt, are TBD. I'd expect Horford and Morgan to play together regularly. If McLimans can get his shot going and improve his D significantly he could elbow in though. Smot's skills will be missed but it does clear up a bit of a log-jam in the front-court.
most teams don't go 10 deep w/o severe drop in talent. i remember a kentucky team several years ago that won the NC that went 10 deep. i think it was tubby's team, iirc. their bench would routinely beat the starters in scrimmages during practice.
Tubby seems to be one of the few coaches who does this. Personally, I think it gets in the way of team chemisty/flow, but he obviously knows more than I do. I just don't like how it works for the Gophers. Most coaches seem to settle into an 8-9 man rotation. There are teams with plenty of talent on the bench (OSU for example) who still stick to a narrow rotation.
OSU didn't have plenty of talent on the bench...
I actually think they've only had 5 rostered players the last couple years.
More as I meant 10 guys we felt comfortable playing in particular roles.
Sorry to make you write the long post, but yea, I don't think we'd go into every game trying to play 10 guys. I just see those being your main starters and 2nd team guys.
I figure we'll go Morgan, McGary and Horford as the bigs. Robinson, Hardaway, Stauskas and Vorgrich on the wing. Burke at PG.
watching very closely. Having said that, how about Ace snagging an interview with Coach Beilein and get his insights on the strengths of the 4 new guys and where he sees them most likely playing.
will not see any meaningful minutes the rest of his career unless horford wears a boot all year and at least one other big man gets seriously injured. i don't see that happening.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Bielfeldt move ahead of McLimans at the 4. Also, Stauskas and GRIII could easily see more time at the 2 than Hardaway.
1. I think McGary is much better suited at the 5. I would rarely expect him to play the 4 in Michigan's system.
2. I honestly think McGary is probably a bit overrated at this point. I'm not questioning his effort, but I just don't see the athlete to make him elite. To me, he is a better version of Jordan Morgan. In this I mean that I expect him to be good at running the court and rebounding, like Morgan, and be a bit better at shooting and finishing contested shots. In my opinion, he may deserve his rating based on the system he is going into, a system which he seems to fit very well at the 5, but probably doesn't deserve that ranking based on his overall talent. He still needs work on his post moves, as stated by the OP, his shot is not consistent, and he isn't an elite athelete.
I think he will be a good player for Michigan, but not great, at least no right away. In my opinion he will probably split minutes pretty evenly his first year with Morgan, and will still be less talented (though perhaps not less important) than Burke, Hardaway, & GRIII at least. His value is higher for Michigan because of the position he plays and the what he brings to that position for Michigan, not necessarily because of his talent.