Tater

May 27th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^

This doesn't "shock" me in the least.  All of last year's starters are back and almost everyone improves from year to year in Beilien's system.  Wagner should be greatly improved.  Maybe Wilson can finally break out.  If X and one of the new bigs can contribute quality minutes, this team should be in the top 25.

 

 

 

 

DavidP814

May 27th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^

I can see it.  Maryland, Indiana, and Purdue all lose major pieces, while Michigan lost nothing from last year's team except for playing-time transfers and gained a potentially contributing combo guard.  A jump from any of Zak Irvin, Mo Wagner, MAAR, or a larger-than-expected contribution from Xavier Simpson and this team makes the jump from an NCAA bubble team to a Top 25 team.

Donning my maize-colored glasses, I can even talk myself into a Sweet 16 seed season if the newly hired "defensive coordinator" Billy Donlon has the impact we are hoping for.

BigBlue02

May 27th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

Everyone is a year older and as of a whole 2 years ago, Beilein was good at developing players, so I would assume they are also going to be a year better. Add in 4 freshmen and a sophomore big man that played much better as the season went on and you're right, exact same team.

Man we have a bunch of whiny pussies in our fanbase

BigBlue02

May 27th, 2016 at 2:35 PM ^

So having Caris would have given us what, 1 or 2 extra wins? So we go from 10 B10 wins to possibly 12 and we are probably pretty close to 3rd or so? Oh the horror!

MichiganMan14

May 27th, 2016 at 2:55 PM ^

Being ranked should be a given. Beilein has much work to do to restore us to where we were with Stauskas. It's beginning to look more and more like he hit the lottery with a few NBA talents than set the world on fire coaching. That's just an honest observation.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 3:19 PM ^

Making a national title game once and the elite 8 twice in 4 years.

I am not satisfied with having my best players hurt in consecutive seasons.

I am not satisified with 4 or 5 man recruiting classes that don't land in the top 30 or even 40. 

The '14 class was awful and the '14-15 team was a major disappointment.  Beilein's body of work at Michigan is excellent.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^

After your best players leave. No one thought Michigan was going to be as good as they were when Trey and Tim left either.  Or when Darius left. Or when Manny left.  This is how it goes.

Not really disagreeing with your point, just trying to inject some persepective.

The '16 class plus Poole could be excellent.  Throw in Wagner and maybe a 5th year from Robinson and you have a ball-team.

The fan negativity around the program is whack.

In reply to by somewittyname

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 3:42 PM ^

Worth remembering he was supposed to come in as GR3's backup and playing beside McGary and Horford, with Bielfeldt and Donnal around for frontcourt depth.

Anybody who expected Chatman to be an impact player right away was foolish - and yeah I said so at the time. Young, raw, coming from a tiny HS in Oregon. It was always going to take time.

So, it'd be more like projecting Davis -- who is also very likely to take a few years before he can be a positive impact given where he was coming from in HS.

Walton and Irvin were good right away.  Poole, Simpson, and Watson probably will be too.  Beilein knows his stuff with guards and wings.

TrueBlue2003

May 29th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^

Seems like the comparison of Wagner to Chatman coming in is spot on.  Wagner couldn't regularly contribute as a freshman due to that youth, but it's reasonable to expect it in year two, as it was reasonable to expect Chatman to play somewhat like a 4 to 5ish star recruit by year 2.  Alas.....

Stringer Bell

May 27th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^

The fact is that there are no sure things in the 2016 class.  Simpson looks like a very good prospect but after that you have 3 projects that will require development.  And we don't even know what the 2017 class will look like.  2 years from now we'll have 3 upper classmen, 1 of whom hasn't contributed anything.  So that's a very young team.  And again, you're relying on projects to develop properly.  It's a risky proposition, and as we saw with the 2014 class it can fail miserably.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^

Michigan has relied on 'projects to develop properly' every year.  That's what MSU is doing. That's college basketball.

It's amazing how quickly people forget recent history. Everyone thought we were doomed when Darius left early.  When Trey tested draft waters the next year we had to recruit Spike in a panic move.  When Trey left it was "who will run the show now".

The 2017 class is critical, because '16 and '17 have to make up for the weakness of '14 and '15.

I think you're taking recruiting rankings too literally.

The '16 class may not be star-studded beyond Simpson, but they project to fit the program very well.  Watson's profile has a lot of similarities to Hardaway's. I'm not sure why people are sleeping on him. Every wing Beilein has brought in, even lower ranked guys like Levert, Dawkins, and Rahkman have provided major contributions as freshman.

 

EVERY season has uncertainty.  That's how this works.  Nobody is set for the 2017 season, not even Kentucky or Duke.

 

Stringer Bell

May 27th, 2016 at 4:07 PM ^

Every season has uncertainty but there are more sure things.  It's a proven fact that 4 and 5 star players are more likely to pan out than 3 star projects.  Beilein has a good track record of unearthing and developing diamonds in the rought, but even he doesn't hit on those every time, as we saw with the 2014 class.  There is a proven correlation between recruiting rankings and future success.  But the fact remains that the 2016 class is a pivotal one.  We missed badly on the 2014 class and the 2015 class is only 1 player.  So the fact that we have so many projects and essentially no sure things makes the future very uncertain, moreso than the top programs like Duke and Kentucky have.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^

That seniors are more likely to be better than they were as juniors and juniors than sophomores and so on...

I'm not saying Michigan doesn't need NBA caliber talent, but experience can make up for talent and vice versa.

Anyway, we will have 3 guys who are top 40 recruits on this team.  That's more than we had when Michigan made the NCAA final.

Stringer Bell

May 27th, 2016 at 5:41 PM ^

The uncertainty I'm referring to is beyond this next season.  I think we have a good idea what next season's team is.  Likely a tournament team, possibly a Sweet 16 team depending on how things shake out.  Unlikely to go much farther, unlikely to win the Big Ten.  After that though, we don't know what we have, with the youth that we will have after losing 3 members of the 2014 class this offseason and Zak and Derrick (and potentially Donnal) next season.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 6:45 PM ^

Nobody feels certain about their team in 2017.  Even MSU, landing arguably their best class ever, could have a bunch of NBA departures and struggle to fill out their roster. Kentucky has no clue who will be there because of their 1 and done model.  That's just the way it is.

Michigan is in good shape in 2017 if you project their young players reasonably.  The biggest question may be if Wagner returns for Year 3.

 

TrueBlue2003

May 29th, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^

They know they'll have about 4-5 of the top 20 recruits every year.  Look at the recuiting rankings for 2017, that's who will be there.  They reload.  With certainty. The uncertainty is just whether they'll have a really off year and not make the tourney like 2013 or go to the nat'l champtionship which happens half the time.  

Comparing their uncertainly to ours is ridiculous because they're certain to recruit well as long as Calipari is there.  We are clearly not, so our uncertainty is around hoping 3 stars become NBA players - something for which it appeared like Beilien had an eye / development skill that made it less uncertain than the field, but now it appears more like our chances aren't that different than other teams that recruit on our level.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^

Agree that the '16 class is pivotal/critical, just as the '15 class is critical for MSU, even if it's lower ranked. 

Not sure I agree that things are any more or less uncertain for us than for Kentucky.  Kentucky embraces their uncertainty and has had great success with it.  They have the luxury of great talent. 

Michigan has the luxury of (usually) getting very good talent too.  The '14 class was miserable (and I said so at the time, while everyone said Trust Beilein) but that class is an exceptional outlier. So...Trust Beilein.  It's not going to be all 2 and 3 stars forever.  The crazy attrition we've been dealing with is not sustainable.

Stringer Bell

May 27th, 2016 at 5:52 PM ^

I hope the 2014 class is an outlier.  But it was possibly the start of a trend.  2015 class was only 1 guy, and the 2016 class is looking a lot like the 2014 class, with one fairly highly rated guy (top 60) and the rest outside the top 100 that would be classified as projects.  So we really need them to develop.  Kentucky and Duke get guys that are NBA ready out of college, so whlie their teams may be young they are mostly known quantities in terms of what they can contribute at the collegiate level. We don't have that.

Lanknows

May 27th, 2016 at 6:55 PM ^

Michigan failed to land all it's top targets (and 2nd and 3rd options too) in the '14 class with the possible exception of Chatman. The '16 class was all guys that were identified and targeted fairly early.  The '16 class is much higher rated too.

Simpson is better regarded that Chatman, plays a positon Beilein has a better track record at recruiting, and is quite clearly more ready to play than Chatman. Chatman was raw and boom/bust type of recruit.  Simpson's pretty close to sure thing to be a quality starting-caliber PG, at worst. Again, you're looking at rankings in a very simplistic manner. Simpson's not an NBA prospect due to size - but he's far more likely to be a quality college player.

After that - "guys outside the top 100" is an extremely crude way to describe it.  Tim Hardaway was outside the top 100 but that doesn't make him Matt Vogrich or Dan Dakich.

Watson is far higher ranked than either Rhakman or Dawkins.

I guess you can argue Teske and Davis are similar to Doyle in profile, but one of them is a 7 footer and the other one was identified early on and seems to be significantly bigger.  Two shots at a true-center are better than 1.

The 5th guy, assuming there is a 5th guy, will probably be similar to Rhakman or Dawkins - so I guess you have a 1/5th of a point there.

The '16 class will be better.  This is all but a sure thing.

Stringer Bell

May 27th, 2016 at 7:22 PM ^

Is Watson a part of this class if we keep Battle, or land Langford?  Probably not.  Even Simpson was behind Winston on the pecking order.  So to say that these guys were all identified and targeted early isn't really true.  They were guys we went after when we missed or were trending away from higher priority targets.  Teske and Davis were seemingly top targets, but then you're talking about our staff's weakest position.  So yeah, it seems similar to the 2014 class to me.

rainingmaize

May 27th, 2016 at 7:17 PM ^

Izzo coached teams are always good because they are able to recruit top talent, and keep them for all four years AND HAVE THEM STAY HEALTHY THEIR SENIOR YEAR. Guys like Green, Valentine, Payne, are/were the lifeblood of that program. If Michigan was able to do the same, this year's team would have had Stauskas, Robinson, on top of Levert.