Mailbag: Coaching Turnover, A Ton Of Beilein Feelingsball
[Patrick Barron]
Brian,
Long-time reader, second time emailer. I sent you a fake inspirational poster featuring Tate Forcier when those were still things. You used it. Good times.
I have the following mailbag questions:
1. With the departure of Durkin, Baxter, Jackson, et. al, do you see the revolving door continuing for assistant coaches? I don't have a problem with it because HARBAUGH and it means they are poach worthy. What about Drevno? He seems unlikely to leave anytime soon. I guess my question is: how much of the offense is Harbaugh, and how much is Drevno/Fisch? Would there be a big change if one of the latter left? Butt's comments about not having to learn a new offense this year were nice to hear just for continuity's sake.
This offseason's turnover was a bit extreme. Maryland hiring Durkin after one year as a defensive coordinator actually in charge of his defense—at Florida he was under Will Muschamp—was unexpected. I figured we'd get a 3-5 year run from him before he was established enough to make the jump. Losing Baxter and Jackson is actually more of a worry for me. Baxter went back to California, which is understandable if you're sawft because you've spent your time in that climate. Jackson may have decided he's more of an NFL guy.
Harbaugh seemed to make a conscious decision to reduce staff turnover with his picks for replacements. College DC lifer Don Brown is past the point where he'd be a head coach candidate; Chris Partridge and Brian Smith are young guys moving up who will probably stick around a while before any potential bump to quasi-co-psuedo associate head coach and run defense coordinator. Michigan's defensive assistants should be set for a few years, with a Mattison retirement the next likely swap.
On the other side of the ball it's murkier. It's Harbaugh's offense, of that there is no doubt. Coordinators on the same side of the ball as a heavily involved guru head coach often take a significant amount of seasoning before they are targeted for a move up the ladder. (See: Pat Narduzzi.) Drevno had not been a full OC prior to the Michigan move and has been with Harbaugh for a long time; he doesn't seem like a threat to depart for a few years yet, and when and if he does it'll be because Michigan's offense is shredding opponents.
Meanwhile Fisch is set to negotiate an extension that should bump his salary up significantly after a buyout year when Michigan was more or less paying the Jaguars. He seemed to get on with the staff and clearly had OC-type input in the passing game…
"good shit, Jedd" pic.twitter.com/6LKlSnY7Qp
— Ace Anbender (@AceAnbender) October 6, 2015
…so I wouldn't expect him to leave for anything short of a full OC spot. That may very well happen—before he was cursed to work in the mines of Jacksonville he had a pretty good run at Miami—but I think he'll be around for a while yet.
The guy to watch for a departure is Tyrone Wheatley, who has ambitions to be a head coach. He has a powerful motivation to stick around for four more years; after that I would not be surprised to see him look for an OC spot no matter where it is.
2. What about Chesson for the #1 jersey? Has that been officially retired? If so, I don't remember hearing much about it. I can't remember a better candidate in recent years than him.
#1 is not retired and shouldn't be. Devin Funchess just wore it, remember? The fact that this guy didn't remember that and I wrote most of this response before remembering that an NFL player wore #1 two years ago is… Brady Hoke, man.
Anyway: no retiring more numbers please. #21 getting retired is kind of a bummer, man, and I can't imagine #1 or #2 goes by the wayside for practical (running out of numbers) and recruiting (here's Charles Woodson's number) reasons. But I don't expect Chesson to take it. He is in a pretty famous WR number (86) already and he doesn't seem like the type of guy to care much either way.
Beilein status, part 1
Hey Brian. I see you trying to walk the line of criticizing U-M basketball while not calling for Beilein's head. Here's the issue to me...
it's easy to compare Beilein to what came before and say look at his improvement. But the "fire Beilein" says "Well, that's not good enough." The better comparison isn't to what came before but to what would come after. What are the odds of replacing Beilein with someone who runs a clean program, fits culturally with the university, and achieves more success on the court? I put it at about 10%. That's not a chance worth taking for someone who may be marginally better. But the only thing that would satisfy these guys is if we were dominating the Big Ten. So then you need to consider the odds of getting the coach who runs a clean program, fits in culturally and consistently out-performs Izzo, Crean, et al. I put those odds under 1%.
So it's a shame that Beilein isn't a slightly better coach than he is, but Michigan's biggest obstacle is that our rivals' programs are just consistently too good.
-Anon
I mean, yeah. I think we're all pretty disappointed where the program is right now but that's largely an artifact of Beilein's insane level of success over the three years from 2012-14, which went
- Big Ten Title
- National Championship Game
- Outright Big Ten Title & Elite Eight
Frankly I didn't expect that level of performance from Beilein when he was hired. I just wanted to make the tournament most of the time and Pittsnogle some higher seeds. Take that expectation and remove the team's star for consecutive years and this is what you get.
That said, the trend here, especially on defense, is alarming. It's not really about the level of the program, it's about the direction of the arrow. If Beilein's projected performance going forward is the average of his Michigan career minus his first year (which I think we can issue a mulligan for given the state of the roster) then yes, it will be very difficult for Michigan to match or exceed that. If it's the last two years, even considering Levert's injury, then the pool of candidates who can expect to match or do better expands considerably.
I don't think that's clear yet. I do think we're going to see an offseason shakeup and hopefully a defensive specialist brought in. I am still resigned to the fact that Beilein's peak is likely to have already passed and that we'll probably be gunning for a Sweet 16 or two before he retires, not a title.
[After THE JUMP: more Beilein feelingsball, PWO pickin', can the Big Ten replicate the Harbaugh model?]
Beilein status, part two
I have something to run by you. I think it's widely accepted that Tommy Amaker is a stand up guy and quite frankly was what this University needed to wash the program clean. But after some time it became evident that while he was perfect for that job he was not going to be the coach that could reach the next tier. Do you think we have reached that with Beilein?
He was what we needed to take the next step up to what you might call relevance and above average. But have we reached his ceiling, much like we reached Amaker's ceiling? They are both great men but sometimes a person can reach their potential. I believe the only way to reach the next level which, let's call it "Consistently a Championship Contender" we need to totally revamp our recruiting. We are simply never going to win with the recruits Beilein targets and lands. I know he was burned by a couple 5 stars, but so was everyone else that did not land those players and somehow top teams still manage to bring in other elite talent.
I guess my ultimate question is, Has John Beilein and his system reached it's pinnacle?
Probably. I don't think we're going to see another Beilein team at Michigan that has five NBA draft picks, four of them first-rounders, in one starting lineup. That was a confluence of scouting and development that was and remains unprecedented in the one-and-done era, and it seems like that was a one-time thing. Not because Beilein is worse than we thought but because that kind of syzygy is a rare thing, like the Pistons' latest NBA title. It happened and that team was great despite not having a superstar; it's not likely to happen again.
Michigan's recruiting isn't all that bad. Xavier Simpson is a top 50 point guard who was all but set to torment us at Wisconsin; Jon Teske is a true seven-footer who could still develop as college bigs tend to do. The big hole in Michigan's recruiting is the fact that they've got a top 30 player in Kam Chatman who is just now starting to find a role off the bench. It is not championship level recruiting unless the stars align perfectly, which they did. Now they're not.
Beilein status part 3
I'm sure this has been said, but I haven't seen it, so I'll say it:
Beilein hung three banners in three years from 2012 through 2014, and he came within a couple of plays of hanging two more during that period. In the 30 years before Beilein landed here, we hung either two or four banners, depending on your perspective (two conference championship banners and either two or zero Final Four banners). This year is very frustrating, and it has to be Beilein's worst coaching job since 2009-2010, but there's a limit to how much you complain about the guy who accomplishes that.
The bigger concern is that the team looks like a bunch of followers in search of a leader, and it's hard to see anyone like Morris, Novak, Burke or Stauskas on next year's team either.
I am more or less in the same spot as this gentleman. Beilein has obviously done enough to warrant further patience but I'm skeptical this group of players gets a ton better next year. MAAR is a bright spot but I wonder how much upside remains there since he's a bit older than sophomores usually are; meanwhile it's hard to see the post situation resolving itself in a positive manner unless Mo Wagner takes a huge leap.
I mean, they should get better with experience. That was the theory going into this year, especially on defense, and that did not come to pass. Hard to not interpret that as a flaw in the coaching. Maybe a staff shakeup fixes that; maybe we spin our wheels a bit longer. Only thing to do is wait and see.
Money and how to spend it
Brian et al,
I wrote a few years ago asking if you believed that the cash that the BTN would provide B1G schools would ultimately lead to parity with the SEC and other elite Power 5 schools. At the time you said "eh, not so much", suggesting that B1G schools were willing to upgrade facilities but not their coaching. Purdue and Illinois have proven this to be very true.
But now with news of Harbaugh's frequent flier status and plans to hold spring practice in Florida over spring break it's time to pose the same question a little differently. Are Harbaugh and Michigan finally maximizing their utility of resources in a way that comes with having the stadium we have, and the (dare I say it) brand recognition we have? If so, can other B1G schools do the same?
The B1G has long been resource-rich but feared acting like it, and I don't mean in a "bagmen" sense at all. Harbaugh may be signaling to the nation that Michigan is a premier institution with unparalleled resources on the academic and athletic fronts, and is willing to use them in unconventional ways. In fact he might be leading a redefinition of college football, away from the pseudo-NFL model the SEC employs to something as much cash behind it but far less sleaze. Seriously. And I think a handful of B1G schools (definitely not all) could do the same thing.
Any thoughts on this?
pete-rock
Let's just stipulate that OSU is excluded from this conversation since they've done well and every five years or so we're "surprised" by the fact that one of their star players has been driving a car with dealer plates for a year.
As for maximizing Michigan's resources, I literally cannot imagine what else Harbaugh could be doing to increase Michigan's recruiting profile and on-field fortunes. Harbaugh probably can't either, because then he would be doing the thing he thought up and Greg Sankey would be trying to gin up some reason to think of the children.
It has cost money. But Michigan has money. Michigan has scooped up support staff left and right; pretty soon their press box will look like Alabama's. They took a trip to Florida with the whole team. They flit about the country to satellite camps. All of that costs dollars; all of it is an attempt to convert those dollars into wins. Unfortunately the exchange rate there is much worse than "five star recruit here is some money", but I think it's clear that Michigan is pushing every angle they can find without falling afoul of NCAA rules.
With limited exceptions I do not think the Harbaugh model can extend to other Big Ten schools. With the possible exception of Penn State, none of them have the national cachet to make forays into California or Florida or the deep South, go head to head with local schools, and come out on top.
MSU has been the most successful Big Ten school outside of the Big Three for a while now and their latest class features zero(!) recruits from outside the Big Ten footprint. Their 2015 class was a lot more geographically diverse but featured just one composite four-star outside of the footprint. MSU can get local four stars these days but going and getting a Dylan McCaffrey or a David Long is a rare event indeed for them. More satellite camps and more pub isn't likely to do much other than unearth another sleeper or two.
And that's a team that has been in BCS bowls repeatedly. Purdue may as well not bother. Only a few schools have the ability to resist the fate of their location in recruiting no matter the (indirect) cash outlay.
Pick a PWO
Harbaugh is up to 12 pwo's. Which one has the best shot of seeing the field?
That's easy: Camaron Cheeseman. He's a long snapper, and apparently a very good one.
This is probably not a satisfying answer because he is a special teamer we hope to never hear from again unless he's catching a pass in the Sugar Bowl. Let's add a "on something other than special teams" stipulation. In that case, I've got Simeon Smith, the TE/WR out of Kalamazoo. You cannot teach 6'7" and Harbaugh loves tight ends. Smith might have had a higher profile if he didn't play on a team that was 1-9 both years he was an upperclassman; he's got the academics; if he fills out he could be the kind of field-stretching flex TE that Harbaugh built his empire on.
A useful thing
Hi there,
I made a classifieds facebook group for the community. LSAClassof2000 thought it'd be a good idea to make it as a sticky or something permanent and readily accessible for anyone who would want to join. The hope is this can keep the boards clear of the selling posts that happen during the regular football season.
The URL is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MGoClassifieds/ it's a place for members to buy/sell/trade Michigan merchandise.
Thanks,
James
Hey, so, use this.
is not really that simple. We nearly gagged away a tournament spot with really consistently poor play and atrocious defense. The defensive issues have gone from a moderate concern to a flat out emergency over the past two years. As great as the Indiana game was, it did not solve those issues. In fact, although it looked like we were more in than not at the start of the Purdue game, the team really kind of regressed to a lot of bad habits and spotty effort in a really big game. I guess what concerns me is that, even though this team should be completely rejuvinated and play with a lot of effort and emotion like the Indiana game, would anybody really be surprised if we got the Purdue game instead? I think Beilein has a lot to show in this tournament. A really flat, effortless performance tonight would not bode well.
This team lost at OSU and Wisconsin (not exactly shitty teams or the friendliest of environments) and to a bunch of teams ranked #32 or better in the RPI. We played a very tough schedule in an abnormally loaded B1G this year (just look at all the great seniors I mentioned in my previous post).
You're using words like "gagging" and "atrocious" because watching your favorite team lose hurts your feelings. I get it. But the fact remains that the team did about as well as anyone had a right to expect considering the guys we lost to injury and the guys who departed early (Stauskas, McGary, Robinson) when everyone else's star players from the same class seem to have stayed four years..
cannot find a bigger Beilein supporter on here than me and my posting history will back that up, so don't come at me like I am in the anti-Beilein crowd. However, you are entirely too dismissive of legitimate issues. First, this was not an "abnormally loaded" BIG, and second, I use words like "gagging" and atrocious because we had four games against Top 50 opponents in the month before the BIg tournament and could not win to secure a spot, and because our defense was close to last statistically in the entire nation. I want this team to make a deep run in this tournament and will be living and dying with every play tonight, but if you are advancing the position that John Beilein has no adjustments to make because we made this game I think the first person in line to disagree with you would be John Beilein.
had 4 different teams ranked in the top 10 at some point rather late in the season. that seems like a rather loaded top heavy league to me.
was a very good conference, but it is always a very good conference. I don't think there was anything particularly unique about this year that made it better than it has been the last 5 years.
I don't know if I'd say the Big Ten was loaded this year. Rutgers and Minnesota are probably two of the worst power 5 teams in a while. Illinois, PSU, Nebraska and NU weren't anything great. OSU was down this year. Wisky was in a rebuild year.
Excluding MSU and UM, the other four teams were pretty good (Iowa, IU, Purdue and Maryland) but I don't think they are anything great.
There's only one explanation I can think of (for all the Beilein-whingeing): unreasonable expectations that can be blamed (mostly) on Caris LeVert and Spike Albrecht.
Michigan's 2014 and 2015 recruiting classes were failures. Not because of starz but because (almost) all the guys Beilein wanted told him NO and then he was left to scour through the crumbs. Because of Spike and Caris, Michigan fans talked themselves into those crumbs being really good and right away. Dawkins and (at times) MAAR looked really dang good for freshman crumbs, but this year has been a bit of a reality check.
The other piece of unreasonable expectations was Morgan/Horford, who came in with less accolades than Doyle/Donnal/Wilson. The difference is those guys were given years to mature, while the new guys were thrown into the fire and expected to play for a conference contender right away.
Objectively speaking, Beilein taking a team like this - whose core is a highly rated junior class (Walton-Irvin-Donnal) but devoid of any seniors, and complemented only by 1 D3 transfer and 2 pretty disappointing recruiting classes - to the tournament is unquestionably a notable success.
The fire Beilein talk is totally nuts. Expectations need to be checked, not for long-term success, but in consideration of short-term circumstances. We had 2 bad recruiting years but those were sandwiched between the very good 2013 and 2016 classes.
Michigan basketball is in very good hands and in good shape for consistent top 25 status.
Isn't it on him though that the 2014 and 2015 classes have been such big misses? Not just the fact that he missed on a lot of his top targets, but that he's also gotten some highly rated players that haven't developed properly.
the jury is still out on a few guys. Chatman has recently looked like a wing jumper making machine and Rawkman has been flat out impressive. It could be that they simply haven't developed as fast as we wanted them to. As to the 2015 class, we can't call it a miss before they have even got to campus. Simpson is a much higher rated point guard than Trey Burke was and Watson looks pretty versatile.
Our 2015 class is Wagner (and Robinson technically). I actually like Wagner a lot but the fact that we have gotten minimal contributions from that class, and only 1 guy from the 5 man 2014 class has become a consistent contributor, is a big reason why we were 1 of the last 4 in the tourney this year.
could not be helped due to unexpected attrition. JB recruited chatman and wilson in that class; a borderline 5-star and 4-star. he then had to grab people late due to the defectors. unfortuneately, chatman and wilson haven't worked out yet. so i guess that could be JB's fault.
2015 to me was the first disappointing class where JB missed on a few players. so it seems absolutely silly to me to fire a great coach due to one bad class, unexpected attrition and catastrophic injuries the past two years.
2014 had a lot of recruiting misses. Booker, Blackmon, Edwards, Bluiett just off the top of my head. Missing out on those guys really hurt. That more than anything is why he was stuck taking flyers on guys like Dawkins and MAAR.
I also think the 2013 class has been disappointing. Irvin was a borderline 5 star and Walton was one of the top high school PGs in the country; neither have developed into anything much more than quality role players when they were expected to be the next group of stars to carry this team. Donnal was a top 100 player who just this year went from complete non-factor to serviceable big man (by our admittedly low standards). So that's 3 straight disappointing classes if you ask me, marred by recruiting misses and a decline in player development.
Walton and Irvin have met (not surpassed) basic expectations given their rankings. It was Donnal who disappointed, but even he is now coming around.
There's a whole lot of busts and no-names in every top 100 recruiting class. None of our 3 count if you consider that Donnal may be headed for being a 3-year starter.
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Basketball/RecruitRankings?Institution…
Walton and Irvin are no longer 'role players'. They're the leaders on a team that made the NCAA tournament.
but they have not played up to their top 50 rankings to this point.
I'm not calling Irvin and Walton busts. They're good players, but fact is they're leaders on a team that snuck into the NCAA play-in game with 11 double digit losses on the season. On a good team, they're role players. On this team (and next year's team), they're stars, and they haven't shown that capability yet. Both were top 50 guys and among the highest rated high school players at their positions. And while they have improved in some areas, I also think they've declined in other areas (shooting for Irvin, penetrating/attacking the rim for Walton) and ultimately haven't lived up to the expectations that come with being as highly rated as they were. Just my opinion, but I do think we've had 3 straight disappointing recruiting classes since that great class of 2012. Hopefully 2016 changes that, and they'll have to change that fast if we're to have the kind of season we all want next year.
Of the 5 guys before and after Irvin in the rankings - how many are leaders on elite teams? how many are total busts or fringe rotation players.
The reality is that most top 50 guys aren't going to pan out to be NBA 1st rounders. You talk about guys ranked 40-50 and you are talking about mostly guys you hope can be 4-year players. Walton and Irvin have met reasonable exectations.
It's the team that has not. But consider ho our leaders now (Irvin/Walton) are playing with against who our leaders two years ago (Stauskas/LeVert) were playing with. Put guys equivalent to Morgan, Horford, McGary, Robinson, freshman Irvin, freshman Walton, and Albrecht on this year's team and we are a top 25 team.
Irvin's shooting decline can be blamed on injury, defensive attention, and a lack of support. Let's put it this way - Stauskas wasn't asked to defend Caleb Swanigen, Robert Carter, or Deyonta Davis.
Walton's lack of evolution and development from his freshman year is disappointing. But a) he was really dang good for a complementary freshman and b) he was hurt all of last year.
Both Irvin and Walton are wildly underrated IMO and the victims of unreasonable expectations. I don't think people are fully appreciating how atypical the Burke and Stauskas situations were. I don't think people are fully appreciating how bad AND inexperienced their supporting cast is. They don't play in a vacum.
I think you're kinda making my point for me. Beilein's ability to get the most out of his players is what's supposed to separate him from his contemporaries. Just because similarly rated players went to other schools and didn't pan out doesn't excuse Irvin and Walton not living up to their potential. You can point to the injuries and there may be some validity there. Star players are supposed to deal with increased defensive attention, that's why they're star players. As far as the supporting cast goes, well again, that just points to the downturn in recruiting and development. If Chatman lives up to his 5 star billing, then he takes some of the load off Irvin and Walton. If Donnal plays like a top 100 player, that takes some of the burden off. If we landed Booker, Blackmon, Bluiett, Edwards, and so on and so forth.
As I said, I like them both. I do think they (Irvin especially) get a lot of undeserved flack, are underappreciated players, and are victims of circumstance. But the expectation is for Beilein to get the most out of his players as he's done many times in the past, and for top 50 players that typically means star college players by their junior seasons. Irvin and Walton haven't yet become that so I think they've been disappointments, albeit less so compared to many other players on the team.
You're arguing Beilein HAS to get his players to overperform their rank at the same time you are arguing players have underperformed their rank. Neither is correct IMO. Or are you saying that because they are Beilein recruits we hold them to a higher standard (than any other program?)
Beilein got top 10 results in consecutive years and those coincide with the two top 15 classes he landed. Not a coincidence. He either has to recruit like that or get players to overperform. He doesn't have to do both. If he does both, then you get a national title contender (as happened when Burke and Morgan overacheiving coincided with great talent).
Irvin and Walton "not living up to potential" is debatable but the reality is that few players max out the way Burke/Stauskas did. Even THJ and GR3 and McGary did not play up to their potential while here. That's less disappointing than it is reality. A very small percentage of guys, even top 50 guys, will be conference player of the year or NBA lottery picks.
Star players typically have time to adjust to more defensive attention. Burke and Stauskas had starting roles for a year before they broke out. It still took Stauskas about 1/3 of year to get used to being the top dog and, again, he had a bunch of NBA players and college vets around him. Neither Burke nor Stausas were any more impactful as freshman than Irvin, but their sophomore year cirumstances were dramatically different, so it's not fair to judge them on the same basis. Irvin does not have the help they had, even as a junior. He's being asked to do so much (on top of his injury) that it's not really fair to expect him to maintain the elite efficiency he exhibited as a freshman. It's enough that he's become a well-rounded 2-way player for now.
So yes - Beilein deserves blame for not bringing Walton and Irvin the help they could/should get. Some of that is cruel fate (injury/attrition) and some of it is bad recruiting. I don't think much of the blame is on Irvin and Walton. Expecting every guy to produce like Burke/Stuaskas is unreasonable. Expecting it when they don't have an excellent supporting cast is totally nuts.
Not every star has to be a POTY. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a couple of top 50 recruits to become all conference performers by the time they're upperclassmen (Irvin was only an honorable mention, dunno if Walton made it). I think we should expect a good coach to get those players there, and when they don't it's a disappointment. THJ was a 3 star who became a 1st rounder. McGary was the MVP of the region in the tournament and a preseason All American for what proved to be his final season that he never really played in. GR3 was IMO a disappointment given his potential and his production. Spike and Caris maximized their talents here. So Beilein had a great track record in that department prior to the 2013 class, since then he seemingly hasn't reclaimed that magic, as Walton and Irvin haven't taken that big step that I think we were all expecting them to. Both recruiting and player development need to improve from where they are currently. He's taken a lot of projects over the past 2 years, even highly rated ones, and they haven't panned out for the most part, hence the team is in the position it's in.
that compeltely overlooks all the top targets that the staff missed out on. Same thing happened in the 2013 and 2015 classes. And I am not simply going by recruiting rankings to identify the top targets. The staff prioritized a number of players with early offers and we missed on almost all of them before settling on lesser talents.
But they were big misses as far back as two years ago. Not adjusting expectations to new information is stupid.
Michigan could have papered over the disappointing classes if they were just role players who had time to develp behind McGary, Horford, Robinson and the rest of the theoretically returning players from the Elite 8 team. But those guys left (which is somewhat on Beilein too, if we're being honest) and they were not replaced by the (again) disappointing 2015 class.
Beilein has not done a good job off the court the last 2 years but on the court, things have still been good relative to what could/should be expected under the off-court circumstances.
-Doyle is probably the biggest disappointment, but he has the sleep apnea thing as a possible explanation
-Walton hasn't taken as big of a step forward as we hoped offensivley. Maybe that's on Beilein, maybe not. Maybe the injury slowed him down a lot.
-Chatman was ALWAYS going to be raw and yes some people did say so at the time. He came from a tiny low level program in Oregon. He should have red-shirted. He is improving. It's slow but it's not necessarily a Beilein problem.
-Dawkins has holes in his game. He had them last year too. The big difference with him is that Robinson is around to push him to the bench. Remember we're talking about a mid-major caliber talent, not a 5-star recruit. He's still way above what should have been expected given his startz.
Contrast that with
-Irvin who has developed in many many ways from just a shooter, despite the injury issues
-MAAR - who has dramatically improved as a passer and shooter this year
-Donnal - epic leap from unplayable to an asset against guys who don't physically overwhelm him
-Robinson pretty successfuly transitioning from D3
-Bielfeldt going from unplayable to starter minutes last year (and now 6th man of the year this year)
I agree with you on Irvin, but I think you're far too easy on Walton. You can't have one of your best players post a 0-7, 0-3, and 4-10 shooting, to take our most recent games. His eFG% is down considerably from his first year. His greatest improvments, according to advanced stats, are on the defensive end, which is good, but he's still not a real difference maker on that end. He has been very disappointing for a first year point guard.
Donnal's "epic" leap is swallowed by it's own qualification: he's often physically overwhelmed. Bielfeldt is never going to be good evidence for JB's coaching-- he had his best year under a different coach afte JB didn't want him on the team.
He hasn't developed as much as one would hope. Some of that is poor teammates, some of it is injury, but the poor shooting is trending toward inexcusable.
I consider Bielfeldt to be a pretty big success for Beilein. I mean, it was a mistake to recruit him, but he turned a slow-footed 6'6 center into a legit player over the 4 years he had him.
Donnal is hurt by what is hurting the entire team and everyone on it - Michigan doesn't have a legitimate center. In an ideal world Donnal is splitting his time between the 4 and 5 as a backup with 2 more years to go beyond this one to breakout. It's still a credit to Beilein's development that he went from utterly unplayable against anyone with a pulse to serviceable Big Ten center in one year.
The defensive regression in the face of those(admittedly good) optics is what gives me pause.
I'm willing to see what happens in the off-season, but I really think there needs to be some sort of substantive step taken to fixing the defense in order to continue to have faith. I like Beilein and think in the main he is exactly what the program needs, but the defense cannot continue to be this hapless.
the lack of D improvement is the only disappointing thing to me this year. i think it could be mitigated by much more aggressive play near the rim by our centers. with all the fouls we have to give at that position, it frustrates me to see guards go in for layups as our bigs bascially let them do it.
but when you stick Donnal and Robinson into the starting lineup you are sacrificing defense for offense.
Whose defense are we sacrificing there? There aren't a whole lot of good defenders on this team.
with "well, a bunch of everybody else's great players are leaving so we should hopefully have a better record". Not "we have some great players coming", or "this player really looks he could take the leap to game changer next year". Forgive those of us who prefer more.
"recruiting class that addresses the size issue the current roster has" - this team does not have size issues. they dont lack size. but they do lack talented size. the current roster has 4 guys at 6'9" or taller, plus chatman and some long wing types in 6'5" - 6'6" dawkins, levert, irvin, etc. they have plenty of size (and in my opinion theyll likely have too much size and too few ball handlers over the next few classes if no one transfers), they obviously just lack production. future pros are rare but even more finesse squads like m should be able to recruit and employ 1-2 pitbulls (even undersized guys) to stuff the stat sheet.
they have some athletic, versatile wings but their bigs play below the rim. their bigs arent beasts on the boards, dont alter shots, cant get key buckets on the block, etc. i understand beilein wants legit triple threat players on his O (particularly on the perimeter) and spacing is huge but guys gotta be able to ball and hold their own on both ends. and the coaches must stress balling on both ends (when recruiting and teaching).
the issue is the absence of D and rebounding in the teams dna / culture. programs grounded in D, rebounding, grinding it out, etc always have a leg to stand on (should the O fail). i think of programs like uconn, msu, cuse, uva, nova, xavier, etc when i think of tough, fundamental teams focused on D and grinding out wins - might not be powerhouses or stacked with pros but theyve been mostly consistent and they always have an identity.
hopefully beileins new class of 5-6 guys brings that attitude (and production) on both ends. the team with more points obviously wins but the name of the game is getting stops
I don't care how many guys you want to list at "6'9 or taller" -- ALL of them are undersized for center and get pushed around (save Doyle), NONE of them have the length to make up for it.
Doyle is the only person on this team with legit center size.
Wilson/Donnal/Wagner are 4-sized guys playing the 5.
Chatman is a 3-sized guy playing the 4.
Most of this is by design, but lets not pretend that Michigan isn't small. They are. They don't have enough at center and the '16 class should address that.
he will finally have a roster of experienced players (yay a couple seniors) with a good pipeline behind them. yet, many want to let JB go. unbelievable to me. if JB adds just one elite player to a group of experienced players, you are looking at a team that can compete for the BIG title and make a deep tourny run.
maybe simpson, watson or poole could be such players.
bo ryan and gene keady made long careers with this strategy. JB is doing the same and I am good with that.
"He will finally have a roster of experienced players (yay a couple seniors) with a good pipeline behind them. If JB adds just one elite player to a group of experienced players, you are looking at a team that can compete for the BIG title and make a deep tourny run."
both seniors to injury 1/3 of the way through the season brah.
And then what happened? They both got hurt. So us being in this situation again doesn't mean it was wrong before. Bad luck happened and circumstances changed. Let's try again this year and hope for better injury luck for the first time in three years.
Sure...but I don't know if those experienced players are good players. And there is no leadership out there, so you hope a young guy will step up there.
Beilein's two best team at Michigan were also his least experienced. Michigan was the youngest team in the NCAA tournament in 2013. The issue is not experience it's that there's no talent on this team. I count one NBA player on the roster and he's been injured the last few years.
Beilein recruits like he's at a mid major. That's fine when you develop those kids into NBA players but when you don't you look like this year and last years team.
I can't for the life of me understand Beilein's recruiting strategy re big men, re waiting to offer kids until they visit after theri soph years, and re the refusal to do what's necessary within the rules to get some of these 5 star players. Chris Balas talk about Beilein not approaching the "grey area" like it's a good thing. Meanwhile Harbaugh is looking for every loophole in the rule book to gain an advantage.
Time to change or time to step aside.
Can you tell me one mid-major that rolls out a starting lineup with:
- a mid to high 4 star PG (Walton)
- a near 5 star PF (Irvin)
- a low 4 star C (Donnal)
...and brings off the bench:
- a near 5 star PF (Chatman)
- a 4 star C (Wagner, if rated)
...and that's not even counting the first round draft pick that sat out most of the year injured.
Yes, he's missed on plenty of Plan A's, but guess what...Hardaway was a Plan C (behind Prather and Ziegler), Burke was a Plan B (behind Pangos), McGary was a Plan B (behind Costello, though certainly there were considerations other than talent for that order).
Point is, his current guys haven't developed the same way as their predecessors, but the problem isn't "recruiting like a mid-major".
of the issue is that neither Irvin or Chatman were 4 star power forwards. They were 4 star wings who are asked to play out of position. One major question a lot of people have is whether this formula is sustainable without somebody freakishly able to do it like GR3.
Well, we won a conference championship with Novak there.
And then got bounced in the first round by a MAC team.
We should be past the point of playing a 6'5" guy at power forward. It's year 9 about to be year 10.
...a MAC team that won another game (granted, against a low seed), but then took 1 seed Carolina to OT.
So, yes, a disappointing result in that one game sample (vs. season long), but also possible they simply ran into a buzzsaw that year.
Context is your friend.
Is this supposed to make it OK or something? Good god you're probably one of those people who thinks everyone should get a participation trophy in sports.
John Beilein has made 1 final 4 in his 34 years as being a head coach. CONTEXT is 2013 was a coaching anomoly just as having 5 NBA players on the roster was an anomoly and what we are seeing this year is more in line with how he usually does.
He failed to capitalize on 2013 and 2014 and now we are back to where we were before those runs instead of building off them. Beilein had everything to sell to recruits but couldn't do it.
CONTEXT is that if you are expecting Beilein to make Final Fours while coaching Canisius and Richmond, then you're out to lunch.
You can call those two years anomalies, but if you take away the best two years of every single coach Michigan has ever had, then we've accomplished not a lot as a basketball program.
And then to turn around and use that success that Beilein achieved to say our subsequent performance was unacceptable to you seems quite hypocritical.
Yes, I am disappointed we didn't capitalize on those runs. But you don't fire the guy for it. He made those runs in the first place.
Your agruement is selective and makes absolutely zero sense. Guys like MAAR, Wilson, Dawkins, Doyle, etc were all guys with mid major offer sheets. If you're arguing they're not then I don't know what to tell you. Donnal isn't a center and never was. I have no idea why Beilein recruited him to play there.
The only flip side of this argument is he's not developing the kids on the roster HE RECRUITED. Chatman has nowhere near lived up to his hype, Walton and Irvin are what they are, solid players but nothing more, and Wagner can't even get off the bench.
Caris and Spike were great finds with again, mid major offer sheets. Everyone is happy when they pan out, but when they don't it looks ugly. Sam Webb said it best. Michigan needs more 5 star recruits. Period. "near 5 stars" don't count, as much as yo want them to to help your arguement.
EVERY program not named Duke, Kansas, or Kentucky has a small handful of players with mid-major offers.
Wilson and Doyle were 4-stars (thanks for reminding me, I left them off my list by mistake).
Walton was third team all B1G and Irvin was Honorable Mention. Sounds like a real benchwarmers to me.
Look, there are some issues, no question. But you are way off the pessimistic end of the spectrum.
Doyle was not a 4 star. Not even close. Try again buddy.
And again, if you're arguing these kids are highly ranked enough then you are also saying the player development has been atrocious. Which is it because it's one or the other right now.
http://www.umhoops.com/recruits/ricky-doyle/
In Doyle's case, perhaps there are extenuating circumstances for his lack of development this year (his sophomore year, mind you)?
As for others, you can make that argument, but then you'd have to admit that player development was elite over the prior cycle with players like Burke, Hardaway, LeVert, Albrecht.
So which is it? Because it's one or the other right now, the post I responded to said we were recruiting like a MAC school. Which is clearly untrue.
I think you don't pay much attention to schools other than Michigan and have lost the forest for the trees.
If you're going to call Chatman and Irvin "near 5 stars" then I'm going to call MAAR and Dawkins near two stars and Wilson and Donnal near 3 stars and Robinson near negative stars.
If that floats your boat, go ahead. It doesn't make what I called them incorrect unlike some of your assertions. And you still have yet to rebut with any arguments of substance.
Comments