Michigan 78, Illinois 68 POSTGAME

#226      

blmillini

Bloomington, IL
Given the situation, I'll admit that MM isn't exactly stepping up. This team desperately needs some tenacity down low and there's zero tenacity to his game. Seems like he's constantly on cruise control, and shows no hunger, hustle or even a shred of aggression in the paint.

At the same time, I gotta cut the kid some slack. Even though he hasn't impressed in the "next man up" department, he was never supposed to. He is who is. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as I honestly believe the skill set that he DOES bring to the court is under-appreciated. He's super efficient offensively and has a really sweet touch. The MM we have now would be a very serviceable backup w/ spot minutes. I realize that's not the case, but his intended role on this team would otherwise be served really well...it's a similar idea with Tate.

You don't recruit players to be career backups in D1 basketball. At some point they are expected to develop and contribute. That should happen by Junior year. If we can get Thorne back next year, Mav should be encouraged to find a better fit.
 
#227      
Kills me to see players like KN and MH give so much, and know they haven't tasted the dance in their careers.
 
#228      
You don't recruit players to be career backups in D1 basketball. At some point they are expected to develop and contribute. That should happen by Junior year. If we can get Thorne back next year, Mav should be encouraged to find a better fit.


Sure, but at the end of the day, someone has to be that backup...and that's clearly Mav. He has developed and contributed plenty. I'm not saying he's worthy of starter minutes and doesn't have clear areas of improvement but the mav we have now would be a welcomed fit for his defined role on this team.

Call me too hypothetical, but I'd take a 6'10" Morgan shooting efficiently as he is for 10 minutes a game, all downfalls considered. People rip on the kid as if he's useless. Smh
 
#229      
I'm all for recruiting underated players that go through walls.

There is a great fallacy in the notion that you can consistently build a winning program by "recruiting underrated players that go through walls" or be able to consistently identify diamonds in the rough. The problem is exactly that, while it is very easy to identify those diamonds in the rough AFTER their college career or even during some part of their career, it is not a good bet that you will be able to identify them a priori.

Same is true for Groce. Either he will start filling the gaps at key positions (PG or C) by successfully recruiting top-100 players (even at the level of our more talented wing players, e.g., Nunn, Hill, JCL - all top-100), something that he has not been able to successfully do for 4 years now, or he will fail. There is not doubt about that. Groce needs the same talent at positions of need, his biggest fault has been positional balance in recruiting, much more than his overall recruiting performance or coaching deficiencies.
 
#230      
There is a great fallacy in the notion that you can consistently build a winning program by "recruiting underrated players that go through walls" or be able to consistently identify diamonds in the rough. The problem is exactly that, while it is very easy to identify those diamonds in the rough AFTER their college career or even during some part of their career, it is not a good bet that you will be able to identify them a priori.

Same is true for Groce. Either he will start filling the gaps at key positions (PG or C) by successfully recruiting top-100 players (even at the level of our more talented wing players, e.g., Nunn, Hill, JCL - all top-100), something that he has not been able to successfully do for 4 years now, or he will fail. There is not doubt about that. Groce needs the same talent at positions of need, his biggest fault has been positional balance in recruiting, much more than his overall recruiting performance or coaching deficiencies.
Agreed. I also think you can be successful with 100 to 150 players who are "on the rise" and with a "chip on their shoulders". I think Van Fleet fell in that category and I believe that TL is probably in there. Interestingly I think over half of our 2017 targets are not in top 100 either.
 
#231      
I was at the game Wed. For all the talk about Groce isn't at fault because he lacks talent due to injuries, I must disagree. The last time I saw that many easy inside points was at a Harlem Globetrotters game when Meadowlark Lemon handed a glass of water to a Washington General. Time after time, Michigan beat us off the dribble and passed to a wide open Wolverine. Most of the guys were so wide open that there weren't that many under basket fouls because there was ZERO contention. NO DEFENSE whatsoever. I am not a basketball expert or former coach, but after seeing the same play 20 times, maybe something could've been done??? I swear there had to be close to 36 easy, easy inside points.

Even though it would mean poor 3-point defense (which we're already playing anyway), it seems reasonable to think the staff should switch to primarily a 2-3 zone the rest of the season just to shore up the interior D a bit.
 
#232      
There is a great fallacy in the notion that you can consistently build a winning program by "recruiting underrated players that go through walls" or be able to consistently identify diamonds in the rough. The problem is exactly that, while it is very easy to identify those diamonds in the rough AFTER their college career or even during some part of their career, it is not a good bet that you will be able to identify them a priori.

Same is true for Groce. Either he will start filling the gaps at key positions (PG or C) by successfully recruiting top-100 players (even at the level of our more talented wing players, e.g., Nunn, Hill, JCL - all top-100), something that he has not been able to successfully do for 4 years now, or he will fail. There is not doubt about that. Groce needs the same talent at positions of need, his biggest fault has been positional balance in recruiting, much more than his overall recruiting performance or coaching deficiencies.

We don't have to have a top-100 point guard. That's not a stipulation that should show whether or not Groce is or isn't recruiting properly. I want a PG who fits the system and can run it well. Yes, I know top 100 players are more successful and all that. But Lucas isn't exactly chopped liver and he's better than anyone we have right now relative to where these guys were in high school. It might be a low bar or whatever but the point remains that Licas is seen as a late bloomer who's rising and he's extremely young for his age.
 
#233      

blmillini

Bloomington, IL
There is a great fallacy in the notion that you can consistently build a winning program by "recruiting underrated players that go through walls" or be able to consistently identify diamonds in the rough. The problem is exactly that, while it is very easy to identify those diamonds in the rough AFTER their college career or even during some part of their career, it is not a good bet that you will be able to identify them a priori.

Same is true for Groce. Either he will start filling the gaps at key positions (PG or C) by successfully recruiting top-100 players (even at the level of our more talented wing players, e.g., Nunn, Hill, JCL - all top-100), something that he has not been able to successfully do for 4 years now, or he will fail. There is not doubt about that. Groce needs the same talent at positions of need, his biggest fault has been positional balance in recruiting, much more than his overall recruiting performance or coaching deficiencies.

You certainly can! You also have to recruit players that fit a system too but there are plenty of examples of teams that have exclusively recruited guys that fit their system and having guys that play hard fits Weber's system.
 
#239      

Govoner Vaugn Fan

New Orleans
We don't have to have a top-100 point guard. That's not a stipulation that should show whether or not Groce is or isn't recruiting properly. I want a PG who fits the system and can run it well. Yes, I know top 100 players are more successful and all that. But Lucas isn't exactly chopped liver and he's better than anyone we have right now relative to where these guys were in high school. It might be a low bar or whatever but the point remains that Licas is seen as a late bloomer who's rising and he's extremely young for his age.


He's also very tall for his height....
 
#243      

icengineer

Southern Illinois
Ya'll crack me up, :D I learned a new word today, Puerile. Now I have to figure out a way to get this into a conversation soon. :eek: I LOVE this board!