Initial thoughts on Michigan Beatdown of Iowa

Fryowa

Administrator
I think Garza and Wieskamp are both very long shots for the NBA. Both are great college players, but I don't see either of their games working out at the next level.

The problem is, the proverbial "clock" in the NBA ticks loud and fast in terms of how much time they give you to demonstrate your upside before they'd rather start over with a 19 yr old one and done kid. You can find exceptions to this (and I'd wager it's *slightly* more forgiving for big men than guards), but if you're coming into the league with 3+ yrs of college ball under your belt, there is a lot of pressure to be a turnkey performer. A 22-23 yr old "project" with a likely ceiling of being an off the bench role guy? NBA GMs have the luxury of just going out and grabbing the next 19 year old who might be making All Star games by age 22-23.

Obviously, I'm generalizing - you can find special circumstances that run counter to what I'm saying, but there's no doubt the prevailing winds blow as I've just described. This is why even fringe/long shot guys like Wieskamp feel that pressure to go ASAP.

One of my favorite Nuggets is Monte Morris (don't shoot me, pls), he's a great example. 4 year college player, stepped into the league and played from day 1 like a seasoned vet. It's stopped now because he's a known performer but in that first season it was an endless stream of "wow, he was a 4 year college guy but he's this good?!?" commentary. At his age, it was do-or-die for Monte. Monte, in addition to having a savant-level hoops IQ (ast/tov ratio is always off the charts), can shoot it, drive it situationally, and defend...and that gets him 15-20 min/night off the bench.

I think Wieskamp would need something like a summer league performance where he shows himself to be absolutely unconscious from 3 AND get lucky to be matched up with someone favorable on the defensive end to give teams at least a glimmer of "maybe" that he can at least be passable on the defensive end.

Garza's a trickier eval I think just because he's such a throwback. As an NBA GM, I think I'm more likely to take a flyer on Luka just because, relative to Joe, I'm really not sure what's going to happen when I put him out there in summer league but I'd kinda like to find out (for future reference, if nothing else). I see a lot of comps between Garza and Jokic. On a level, I can see why people go there - you're trying to make a case for a big guy who lacks the athleticism to be a rim protector. Conventional wisdom says, in the modern NBA, if they're going to play a traditional big guy, teams demand that big guy be a rim protector. Garza can't do that, but what about Jokic, right? Well, I've seen every game of Jokic's career. Like many NBA players, he's a freak of nature. He can bang in the post with super soft hands to keep the ball alive in those sloppy close-in situations. Hey, that's Garza! Both guys can also step out and shoot it. I have a very strong suspicion that, if Jokic had played college ball, he could have done damage at the 40%+ level from 3, but I can't prove that so let's just leave that alone. Things are looking good so far. Garza is a good enough (and willing enough) passer to extricate himself from low percentage looks. That's great and an unheralded part of our success as an offense this year. Yeah, well, Jokic thinks he's the second coming of Magic Friggin' Johnson. I'm 100% certain, if the Nuggets didn't count on Jokic to do ~25 pts/night, he could do something in the neighborhood of 12-15 apg. Oh, and Jokic is like a 80%+ FT guy, so you don't need to even think about situationally subbing. Oh, and due to his super high basketball IQ and ability to see what guys are going to do before they even know what they're going to do, he makes all kinds of plays (especially steals) on the defensive end that, given his general lack of athleticism, would surprise you.

To make a case for Luka, I would need to see, at summer league, a lot of NBA caliber talent looking like they don't know what to do against a guy with traditional big man skills (which is what we've seen over and over again in the college game). My fear would be, at the NBA level, the overall athleticism is such that Garza's finesse + brute strength combo are not enough...but I'd be willing to find out for sure. If he proves he can score in the post at this level, then I'm willing to take a slightly closer look to see what kind of 3P% shooter he is and what his ceiling is a defender with the right coaching.
Garza will more than likely get drafted, bounce around the G-league for a bit, and head to Europe for an Aaron White-esque career and make a bunch of money playing the sport he loves. And as the Jefferson’s Theme so eloquently put it, “There ain’t nothin’ wrong with that...”

Weezy might get a few months Euro time, but I don’t see it lasting long. People don’t realize how good that league is now and how big their players are.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
My fear would be, at the NBA level, the overall athleticism is such that Garza's finesse + brute strength combo are not enough...but I'd be willing to find out for sure.
This can’t be overstated. Garza is smaller and slower than most NBA post players. The way he struggles to finish layups a lot of times against college players isn’t going to help his case.

In today’s NBA you have to be turn-key ready to rock when you get there or it ain’t happening. It’s the land of one and dones and huge European kids. There’s really not a place for guys who were four year college players other than a few exceptional talents and Luka isn’t that.

And there’s nothing wrong or insulting about that. Luka is a great Hawkeye (in my mind the best) and he’s given the Hawks his career to this point. We’ve won a ton of ballgames because he plays here and it doesn’t matter if he plays pro ball or not.
 

Ian Pike Hammer

Well-Known Member
I think Garza and Wieskamp are both very long shots for the NBA. Both are great college players, but I don't see either of their games working out at the next level.

The problem is, the proverbial "clock" in the NBA ticks loud and fast in terms of how much time they give you to demonstrate your upside before they'd rather start over with a 19 yr old one and done kid. You can find exceptions to this (and I'd wager it's *slightly* more forgiving for big men than guards), but if you're coming into the league with 3+ yrs of college ball under your belt, there is a lot of pressure to be a turnkey performer. A 22-23 yr old "project" with a likely ceiling of being an off the bench role guy? NBA GMs have the luxury of just going out and grabbing the next 19 year old who might be making All Star games by age 22-23.

Obviously, I'm generalizing - you can find special circumstances that run counter to what I'm saying, but there's no doubt the prevailing winds blow as I've just described. This is why even fringe/long shot guys like Wieskamp feel that pressure to go ASAP.

One of my favorite Nuggets is Monte Morris (don't shoot me, pls), he's a great example. 4 year college player, stepped into the league and played from day 1 like a seasoned vet. It's stopped now because he's a known performer but in that first season it was an endless stream of "wow, he was a 4 year college guy but he's this good?!?" commentary. At his age, it was do-or-die for Monte. Monte, in addition to having a savant-level hoops IQ (ast/tov ratio is always off the charts), can shoot it, drive it situationally, and defend...and that gets him 15-20 min/night off the bench.

I think Wieskamp would need something like a summer league performance where he shows himself to be absolutely unconscious from 3 AND get lucky to be matched up with someone favorable on the defensive end to give teams at least a glimmer of "maybe" that he can at least be passable on the defensive end.

Garza's a trickier eval I think just because he's such a throwback. As an NBA GM, I think I'm more likely to take a flyer on Luka just because, relative to Joe, I'm really not sure what's going to happen when I put him out there in summer league but I'd kinda like to find out (for future reference, if nothing else). I see a lot of comps between Garza and Jokic. On a level, I can see why people go there - you're trying to make a case for a big guy who lacks the athleticism to be a rim protector. Conventional wisdom says, in the modern NBA, if they're going to play a traditional big guy, teams demand that big guy be a rim protector. Garza can't do that, but what about Jokic, right? Well, I've seen every game of Jokic's career. Like many NBA players, he's a freak of nature. He can bang in the post with super soft hands to keep the ball alive in those sloppy close-in situations. Hey, that's Garza! Both guys can also step out and shoot it. I have a very strong suspicion that, if Jokic had played college ball, he could have done damage at the 40%+ level from 3, but I can't prove that so let's just leave that alone. Things are looking good so far. Garza is a good enough (and willing enough) passer to extricate himself from low percentage looks. That's great and an unheralded part of our success as an offense this year. Yeah, well, Jokic thinks he's the second coming of Magic Friggin' Johnson. I'm 100% certain, if the Nuggets didn't count on Jokic to do ~25 pts/night, he could do something in the neighborhood of 12-15 apg. Oh, and Jokic is like a 80%+ FT guy, so you don't need to even think about situationally subbing. Oh, and due to his super high basketball IQ and ability to see what guys are going to do before they even know what they're going to do, he makes all kinds of plays (especially steals) on the defensive end that, given his general lack of athleticism, would surprise you.

To make a case for Luka, I would need to see, at summer league, a lot of NBA caliber talent looking like they don't know what to do against a guy with traditional big man skills (which is what we've seen over and over again in the college game). My fear would be, at the NBA level, the overall athleticism is such that Garza's finesse + brute strength combo are not enough...but I'd be willing to find out for sure. If he proves he can score in the post at this level, then I'm willing to take a slightly closer look to see what kind of 3P% shooter he is and what his ceiling is a defender with the right coaching.
One thing is certain, ain't nobody gonna double-team him in the Association. Hell, they barely play defense at all.
 

ihawk425

Active Member
A comment regarding the refs last night and every college game. Can not depend on the refs being "finesse type refs" every night especially in the Big to save Garza. Not to mention allot of the contact he initiates with his clever hook move. To many big bodies and to little space to avoid all the contact.
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
I think Garza and Wieskamp are both very long shots for the NBA. Both are great college players, but I don't see either of their games working out at the next level.

The problem is, the proverbial "clock" in the NBA ticks loud and fast in terms of how much time they give you to demonstrate your upside before they'd rather start over with a 19 yr old one and done kid. You can find exceptions to this (and I'd wager it's *slightly* more forgiving for big men than guards), but if you're coming into the league with 3+ yrs of college ball under your belt, there is a lot of pressure to be a turnkey performer. A 22-23 yr old "project" with a likely ceiling of being an off the bench role guy? NBA GMs have the luxury of just going out and grabbing the next 19 year old who might be making All Star games by age 22-23.

Obviously, I'm generalizing - you can find special circumstances that run counter to what I'm saying, but there's no doubt the prevailing winds blow as I've just described. This is why even fringe/long shot guys like Wieskamp feel that pressure to go ASAP.

One of my favorite Nuggets is Monte Morris (don't shoot me, pls), he's a great example. 4 year college player, stepped into the league and played from day 1 like a seasoned vet. It's stopped now because he's a known performer but in that first season it was an endless stream of "wow, he was a 4 year college guy but he's this good?!?" commentary. At his age, it was do-or-die for Monte. Monte, in addition to having a savant-level hoops IQ (ast/tov ratio is always off the charts), can shoot it, drive it situationally, and defend...and that gets him 15-20 min/night off the bench.

I think Wieskamp would need something like a summer league performance where he shows himself to be absolutely unconscious from 3 AND get lucky to be matched up with someone favorable on the defensive end to give teams at least a glimmer of "maybe" that he can at least be passable on the defensive end.

Garza's a trickier eval I think just because he's such a throwback. As an NBA GM, I think I'm more likely to take a flyer on Luka just because, relative to Joe, I'm really not sure what's going to happen when I put him out there in summer league but I'd kinda like to find out (for future reference, if nothing else). I see a lot of comps between Garza and Jokic. On a level, I can see why people go there - you're trying to make a case for a big guy who lacks the athleticism to be a rim protector. Conventional wisdom says, in the modern NBA, if they're going to play a traditional big guy, teams demand that big guy be a rim protector. Garza can't do that, but what about Jokic, right? Well, I've seen every game of Jokic's career. Like many NBA players, he's a freak of nature. He can bang in the post with super soft hands to keep the ball alive in those sloppy close-in situations. Hey, that's Garza! Both guys can also step out and shoot it. I have a very strong suspicion that, if Jokic had played college ball, he could have done damage at the 40%+ level from 3, but I can't prove that so let's just leave that alone. Things are looking good so far. Garza is a good enough (and willing enough) passer to extricate himself from low percentage looks. That's great and an unheralded part of our success as an offense this year. Yeah, well, Jokic thinks he's the second coming of Magic Friggin' Johnson. I'm 100% certain, if the Nuggets didn't count on Jokic to do ~25 pts/night, he could do something in the neighborhood of 12-15 apg. Oh, and Jokic is like a 80%+ FT guy, so you don't need to even think about situationally subbing. Oh, and due to his super high basketball IQ and ability to see what guys are going to do before they even know what they're going to do, he makes all kinds of plays (especially steals) on the defensive end that, given his general lack of athleticism, would surprise you.

To make a case for Luka, I would need to see, at summer league, a lot of NBA caliber talent looking like they don't know what to do against a guy with traditional big man skills (which is what we've seen over and over again in the college game). My fear would be, at the NBA level, the overall athleticism is such that Garza's finesse + brute strength combo are not enough...but I'd be willing to find out for sure. If he proves he can score in the post at this level, then I'm willing to take a slightly closer look to see what kind of 3P% shooter he is and what his ceiling is a defender with the right coaching.
For JW to make the NBA with his game he'd need to be at a Kyle Korverish level of shooting 3s He'd have to be so darn good and automatic at those that he'd be worth having on the end of the bench. I'm not so sure his game translates to the NBA I just don't..

Garza will have a tough time too. But as you said he's got a better chance. He'll have to shoot well from the outside to justify it. And be willing to not play big mins and pass well. Defensively he'll struggle big time. If he has to guard anyone face up outside the post he'll just give up open jumpers or get dribbled around. But that's the NBA nowadays. He's not the only one with that same issue...
 

Grady

Well-Known Member
Initial thought from last night's game? Garza lost a lot of money. 7'1" centers built like a brick wall are dime-a-dozen in the NBA. This was a chance for Luka to show his stuff vs an NBA-type center (even tho vs a Fr.), and it didn't work out. Bummer, for a guy who deserves better. In retrospect, probably needed to run more set screens for Luka on the perimeter -- if he goes 4/7 from 3, that would've helped both the team in the short term and him in the long-run. On the other hand, he had a lot of close looks at the basket.
 

HuckFinn

Well-Known Member
I think he had a lot of trouble with his size.....but Garza has shown he can do it against big teams (see North Carolina). It also seemed like Garza was playing with cement shoes.
Yeah. Something was off. But I would still argue that Michigan was allowed to mug Luka regularly. We have seen teams do that in the second half of the season. They are following Izzo’s theory that the officials will back off their calls if you just keep fouling. Kind of like holding in football.
 

HaydenHawk56

Well-Known Member
Yeah. Something was off. But I would still argue that Michigan was allowed to mug Luka regularly. We have seen teams do that in the second half of the season. They are following Izzo’s theory that the officials will back off their calls if you just keep fouling. Kind of like holding in football.
I would agree with the mugging. Unfortunately, it usually messes with our game....and I think does not help with the whole mental toughness thing that plagues us as well. Garza could have used more Nunge in this game....dang shame there.....and also seems to plague our best teams with injuries.
 

ihawk425

Active Member
Agree 100% with the observation cost Garza some bucks and possibly place of residence Dallas vs Milan although Milan not bad. I am starting to observe a trend here on this thread "when in doubt blame the refs" even Franny Boy used that one in the presser. Really two 6 11 guys weighing each over 250 pounds and we are talking about a little close dancing in the lane. Anybody got some Bill Laimbeer game films?
 

HuckFinn

Well-Known Member
"When in doubt blame the refs" can very well be a legit claim. The officiating in BT basketball allows a game so physical that it hardly resembles basketball. It does not mean that officials favor one team over the other. It is just purely bad for the game.
 

seepig

Well-Known Member
To me it seems obvious as to what the Hawks are missing. We need a few slashers who can get to rim and reek havoc. If Fran can't see that he should take a pay cut. That's what makes Michigan so dangerous. Wagner and Livers has that ability and they can also shoot the 3. They will be national champs if the Rona doesn't take them out. Take it to the bank.
100% agree if we are honest about Hawkeye teams under Fran I wonder what his record is in crucial games ie. NCAA tournament games first round games included (ok I'm giving Fran some slack here because it's a 1 and done but we know he's 0 fer in round 2), conference games that matter as far as winning when you need to. Like last night a win against Michigan and you can make a push for the 2 seed in the conference tourney a loss and you're looking like a maybe 4-5 seed team. Finally, I'll even give him some credit for winning ACC/Big Ten challenge games IF playing a ranked ACC team.
 

ihawk425

Active Member
Back to the Big Ten refs and how they call games. My coaches growing up (my book is for sale in the lobby for only 19.99) told me football is a hitting sport, basketball is a contact sport and marriage is a legal sport (drum roll please). Nike made a shit load of money on shirts with the slogan "and one" translated someone went to the hoop and got contacted/hacked/hit whatever the term we should use. My favorite is they made three the old fashion way.
 

Motigerhawk

Well-Known Member
The B1G has ALWAYS been a rough and tumble league. A finesse team will always struggle in that environment. Always.
We got abused. Treated like the hated step child. How do we respond is the question. Are we a tope tier team? Or are we really overrrated?
 

Luftgekuehlt67

Well-Known Member
The B1G has ALWAYS been a rough and tumble league. A finesse team will always struggle in that environment. Always.
We got abused. Treated like the hated step child. How do we respond is the question. Are we a tope tier team? Or are we really overrrated?
I have to respectfully disagree. In recent memory the Big Ten has been rough and tumble, yes. But, I just watched a game between Iowa and IU from '83 and there wasn't anything rough and/or tumble about it. The refs could be heard clearly shouting "watch the hands!" throughout the game and the players either kept their hands to themselves or got whistled.

Something between now and then has badly come off the rails. It's ugly and it turns a beautiful name into a wrestling match.

Maybe when Izzo retires it'll change, who knows.
 

Motigerhawk

Well-Known Member
I have to respectfully disagree. In recent memory the Big Ten has been rough and tumble, yes. But, I just watched a game between Iowa and IU from '83 and there wasn't anything rough and/or tumble about it. The refs could be heard clearly shouting "watch the hands!" throughout the game and the players either kept their hands to themselves or got whistled.

Something between now and then has badly come off the rails. It's ugly and it turns a beautiful name into a wrestling match.

Maybe when Izzo retires it'll change, who knows.

Iowa and Illinois have always been finesse teams. Maybe that crew knew that and called it accordingly. Do not think that officiating crews are not biased towards the type of game teams play..
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
We are not a top tier team weve lost to every top ten team weve played. We will be hard pressed to get to the sweet sixteen but im still hoping. With the loss of nunge the future even looks fairly dark now with no help on the way inside.

How the hawks have faired this year and in the upcoming tourneys will depend on the matchups. If we get to play a few teams that do not have stud, slashing quick tough defensive guards we might win a couple of games.

Teams with quick guards totally stymie our shooters and then on the other end of the floor they just blow by our defense.

We are not athletic enough.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
I love Weezy as a Hawkeye. He’s a true lifetime Hawk since he was born and he will be one of the best players at his position when all is said and done.

But anyone who thinks this kid would play pro ball after his junior year do not understand basketball beyond the NCAA. At all. He wouldn’t even play Euro league right now and there are dorks on here who have suggested he’s NBA material.

Hell, Garza is even highly questionable in terms of the NBA. Wieskamp???

I agree with this also. Garza can maybe be an 8 minute a game off the bench center in the nba and some of those guys last a long time. But his lack of vertical game makes you wonder about rebounding in the pros.


JW just isnt strong enough yet, quick enough in combination with his handles and struggles getting open with tough man to man on him.
 

seepig

Well-Known Member
Wagner is really, really good. Future pro, for sure.

I'm crushed for Nunge. That did not look good at all. What a turd sandwich that young man has been served over the last few months.

Connor I think can be back quickly. He is very tough and that didn't give the appearance of being a really bad twist.

Gonna have to find some guard play next season. Toussaint, Ulis, and Perkins have all shown flashes, but none of the 3 have grabbed the bull by the horns either, that's for sure. Still time, but my concern level is rising on that front.

Keegan is going to end up being a great Hawk. Played well again tonight.

CJ was Mr Reliable yet again tonight. He will be invaluable next year as a steadying influence.

Tough, tough loss. Big stage, quality opponent, depressingly large loss margin, AND multiple injuries. Ouch. I want a do-over, but I bet not as badly as the players do.

OSU be tough but I don't think they are quite at the UM level and, luckily, the scoreboard resets to 0-0 at the beginning of every new game. We've got a chance.
This is what Fran has delivered in oh so many crucial games. At some point you have to play D for an entire game.....like against really quality opponents. We have spurts and flashes but that's about it.
 

seepig

Well-Known Member
We are not a top tier team weve lost to every top ten team weve played. We will be hard pressed to get to the sweet sixteen but im still hoping. With the loss of nunge the future even looks fairly dark now with no help on the way inside.
Speaking of NO help on the inside. K. Murray was playing Dickinson man to man...what a joke. There's no way in hell he can compete inside with Dickinson. Will the Ogendele kid really be a Big Ten player or is this just one of Fran's "I gotta find someone..."
 

Latest posts

Top