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.
I don't think he's a very good rebounder actually. He's great at running the floor, cutting of screens, and knowing his role. Beyond that, he's a pretty low-skill guy. McGary should be able to do much more eventually, even if he starts off as a hustle guy off the bench.
I'd expect him to be immediately better than Morgan in shot-blocking and rebounding - more like Horford, but a better offensive player and finisher.
but UNC, Duke, and Florida don't mind taking guys who will take a little time to develop.
A guy like Ryan Kelly (top 20 national recruit) barely played his freshman year (1.2 ppg) and now, as a junior, scored 12 ppg. Not at all unusual for Duke big man.
there are no 5* projects.
review IMO....for a prospect top ten ranked in the entire country your review appears to me to be negative and pessimistic...maybe thats your overall nature which could slant things
And, to be honest, I'm happy to deflate any opinions that may be left out there that McGary is even close to the second coming of Chris Webber. I also left out the most obvious part of McGary's game, his rebounding, because it's obvious...None of this is to say that he can't be a really good player. I think he can be, but I don't want to see people saying that McGary is a bust this coming year when he has a game in which he has seven points and five rebounds.
For a player not in the top 10 (now more of a consensus top 30 player) with great motor, high IQ, rebounding skills and a good pick and roll player...seems like a positive assessment to me. It's obvious he's not playing at the level he was over the summer (which is reflected in his drop in the ratings) it seems your review is spot on and matched by the "experts", that there's raw materials there to work with but he is not a complete player yet (i.e., his shooting needs to improve).
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't specify what year you see McGary as a 14-10 player, but that is an insane output for a college player. There were 21 players in the entire country who averaged a double-double and most of those were from smaller conferences. The players on the list from a big conference reads like a who's-who of All Americans:
- Thomas Robinson (18-12)
- Draymond Green (16-11)
- John Henson (14-10)
- Anthony Davis (14-10)
At this point I don't see McGary playing anything but center as a freshmen and I see him splitting time pretty evenly with Morgan. He may become a starter given his size, hustle, and athleticism or he may come off the bench given Morgan's experience. I think he'll be a solid player as a freshman and has a chance to be really good as he gets older. But my dreams of the next Chris Webber a no longer there considering his inconsistent season, being a big out of shape, his lack of a jump shot, etc.
I think the PF spot will be Robinson's next year even though they're saying him at the 2/3 wing spots. I think it probably comes down to who from GR3, Horford, and Bielfeldt can man the PF spot the best and get the most minutes there. Maybe they just split it up across all of them and play the hot hand or match-ups. But I don't think you'll see Morgan-McGary much on the court at the same time......but what do I know?
Though Beilein has proven he likes to go small, a big reason for that is the offensive mismatches it creates. With Smot at C and Novak at PF, they could spread the floor and pull interior defenders out to the perimeter. Robinson won't be able to do this, because he's not a threat from 3.
You could argue he'll drive around the bigger players, but supposedly dribbling isn't his strong suit - and with Burke around he won't do a ton of that anyway.
Defensively, he's 6'4 or 6'5 - similar to Novak, but a)Michigan had no real alternative to Zack b) Zack was unusually tough/gritty c) Zack was a senior and d) lack of interior height was one of Michigan's biggest weaknesses over the last few years.
So, you have the coaches saying 'work on the 2 spot and your ball-handling', you have convention saying he's a 2/3, and you have a deep front-court...so, why is Robinson headed to 4?
I don't think it's impossible in the long-run, but it's hard to see why Beilein will do this next year. Have to trust what the coaches are saying to him more than anything else, IMO.
As for who WILL play the 4 - I think Horford, McGary, Bielfeldt and Morgan will form a solid rotation (with help from McLimans on occassion) and that you won't see much difference in roles between the 4 and 5 like you have in years past. Beilein will adapt his offense to his personnel...and defensively, that's far closer to optimal than going with a 6'4 PF and 6'8 C who doesn't block or rebound well (Morgan).
I see McGary and Horford as difference-makers defensively. Weak-side help shot-blockers. Whatever this team loses from having a floor-spacing shooter at 4 can be made up for on the defensive end.
The roster will have much more size, obviously, but it's also less of a Beilein roster, so to speak.
Good analysis. Thanks for the insight.
I live in Tennessee and would go watch John Jenkins play at Station Camp High School before he went to Vanderbilt. He was the nation's scoring leader his senior year I believe. He was also by far and away the best player on his team. It was like having a top player play with your JV's starting other 4...they were that suspect. He had to put up monster numbers for them to win (and many games he would outscore the other team himself). I think they made it to what the MHSAA would consider "regionals" in basketball...once they got up against some better competition. He's still a good player for Vanderbilt but the numbers he had were out of neccessity. Some other kid could average 15 points and 10 boards a game but play in the highest division in the state on a well-rounded team and be the better recruit.
Being originally from Saginaw and have seen Saginaw High and Arthur Hill play I would have taken either one of those schools to win by at least 30 against Station Camp (that's with Jenkins scoring less than 30 as well).
Always tough to judge talent especially when there's so much and so many different levels of competition in high school, numbers don't always tell you everything. Now if dude averaged 30 and 15 in "Class A" (Michigan reference) for an Indiana school with all the talent they had in-state this year that could be something. He may have done that as well but numbers can just be pretty things to look at every now and again.