Bench
Micah Potter: B
12.5 points, 5.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists. (1.089 PPP) 50.4 FG% | 84 FT% | 38.6 3P%
Micah Potter is a player I wish had been with the program from the get-go. A supremely talented offensive player, with one of the prettiest jumpers I’ve seen from a big man. He was a point guard’s dream in the pick and roll/pick and pop. Not to mention the footwork down on the block and the soft touch. Potter was incredibly efficient on that end of the floor. What held him back from being an all-conference big man was his defensive consistency. Gard was often in a tough situation having to balance playing time between his two big’s that both offered something different. When he had his shot falling, there were few people that could score in bunches the way Potter was capable of.
The defensive end proved to be Potter’s Achilles heel. This is why I wish Micah had been in the program from day one. It’s a tough system with strict principles that he never quite mastered. Teams knew Potter struggled to defend ball screens and often capitalized. By season’s end, he was performing marginally better, but for a team that is a defense-first, that wasn’t good enough. Defense alone was what kept Potter from playing 30 minutes a night.
Micah Potter was one of the most valuable players on the roster. What he offered on offense was something this team sorely needed. His contributions to the program in such a short time didn’t go unnoticed. The ceiling of this team would have been significantly lower without his presence
Jonathan Davis: B
7.0 points, 4.1 rebounds, 1.1 assists. (0.842 PPP) 44.1 FG% | 72.7 FT% | 38.9 3P%
I was on record well before Davis stepped on campus stating he would be the program’s next star. After year one, he did absolutely nothing to change my mind. I think it speaks volumes that as a true freshman Davis played 24 minutes a game in an eight-man rotation that featured six seniors. As the year wore on, Davis found himself closing games more often than not.
On offense, it was rather unusual to see Davis take an errant shot. In fact, I wish Davis would have taken it upon himself to get to the basket more. The freshman was in my opinion, the team’s best playmaker. What he brought to the team was a skill-set unlike anyone else on the roster. Davis’s ability to get to the rim and finish was a welcomed sight on a team devoid of players who could create for themselves.
I liked what I saw from Davis in transition, flashing a natural euro step with a knack for getting to the bucket. Davis has a knockdown mid-range game, something I’d like to see him focus on hunting more next year. Per Synergy Sports, Davis averaged (0.933 PPP) on iso’s, ranking in the 75th percentile in the country. Jonathan Davis showed the ability to score from all three levels and has all of the tools to be a complete offensive player.
On defense, Coach Gard made it clear he felt as though he was one of his five best defenders. Davis was a strong on-ball defender who was prone to a mistake or two from time to time due to his aggressive style of play. It was clear that Davis was one of the best athletes on the team, but where he made that abundantly clear was on the glass. I feel comfortable saying Davis is one of, if not the best rebounding guard this program has had in recent memory. Not to mention, Davis led the team in steals despite being fifth on the team in minutes played.
Encouraging freshman season from Davis on a senior-laden roster. The future is insanely bright for Davis. Becoming an all-conference performer is just around the corner.
Trevor Anderson – B
3.1 points, 1.4 rebounds, 1.2 assists. (1.072 PPP) 53.2 FG% | 66.7 FT% | 54.2 3P%
Trevor Anderson was essentially everything you could want in a backup point guard playing only 14 minutes a game. He provided energy and tried to make plays for others. While athletically limited in comparison to other Big Ten guards, he did whatever he could to give the team what they were missing each night.
Offensively, Anderson took what was given to him. He may have only taken 24 attempts from three but you can’t argue with the results (54.2%). He was efficient from the field and took care of the basketball (2.8 assist-to-turnover ratio).
Anderson wasn’t able to defend some of the conference’s more athletic guards when they go downhill, but he played within the system and worked to get over ball screens. He did everything that was asked of him, and this was the best basketball of his Badger career.