As I watched the tape of the scrimmage and read some of JB's comments at media day yesterday, I thought to myself, I've seen this movie before. Way, way back when I was in school (if you ask my kids, somewhere between the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk and Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone), I covered the '74-'75 team for The Michigan Daily. That team was coming off losing its best player (Campy (NOT Cazzie, Campy) Russell), the guy who had go to ability at game's end. The best remaining talent was a center who could shoot from the outside (C.J. Kupec). The point guard was a pint sized (5'9", maybe) defensive ballhawk who could really handle and pass, but was an erratic shooter (Joe Johnson). The small forward was a superior athlete and defensive standout with a less developed offensive game.(Wayman Britt). The off guard was a tough guy with offensive skills and defensive intensity who had some great games and some lesser ones (Steve Grote). There was a freshman combo guard who was way below the radar from a recruiting standpoint, but who could play (Dave Baxter) and an in-state freshman combo forward with a nice shooting touch (the late Joel Thompson). Does all this sound familiar when thinking about this year's team? There were differences, sure (as just one example, Duncan Robinson and the late Johnny Robinson, the starters at "power" forward were as unalike as is possible from two starters at the same position), but in general, to me, that team and this one have a similar make-up and character.
That team turned out to be a very good one (second in the Big Ten, out in the tournament in overtime to the eventual national champion (UCLA), after missing an open top of the key jumper at the end of regulation to win). However, it took awhile to jell--halfway through the Big Ten season, we were 5-5, before finishing the conference schedule on a 7-1 run. Guys who were secondary or tertiary options became the main guys. Players who didn't have the ball in their hands in late game situations, or when a score was needed to stop a run, suddenly did. That was a team with four returning starters, albeit zero returning experienced depth. It still took until early February to figure things out.
I'm concerned about our early season schedule, though that is tempered somewhat by the fact that many of our major November/December opponents will also be inexperienced. If we survive though, I think that this year's team, like that one, will be very good come year's end.
Any of the board's other "experienced" posters have the same reaction?
That team turned out to be a very good one (second in the Big Ten, out in the tournament in overtime to the eventual national champion (UCLA), after missing an open top of the key jumper at the end of regulation to win). However, it took awhile to jell--halfway through the Big Ten season, we were 5-5, before finishing the conference schedule on a 7-1 run. Guys who were secondary or tertiary options became the main guys. Players who didn't have the ball in their hands in late game situations, or when a score was needed to stop a run, suddenly did. That was a team with four returning starters, albeit zero returning experienced depth. It still took until early February to figure things out.
I'm concerned about our early season schedule, though that is tempered somewhat by the fact that many of our major November/December opponents will also be inexperienced. If we survive though, I think that this year's team, like that one, will be very good come year's end.
Any of the board's other "experienced" posters have the same reaction?
