MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on January 27, 2011, 10:09:01 AM
-
In the last few weeks ...
* Posters have been kicked off this board
* Other posters have been given a 2 week "time out"
* Cracked Sidewalks is attacking this team
* Grown men are bashing 19 year old kids
* Posters are ripping fans of the team.
* Buzz's popularity is at an all-time low.
In short, it sure looks like MU nation is melting down!
It all started with the Louisville choke. Yes it was bad but is it worth all this (and more?)
Yes we gave away half-time leads at ND and Uconn. But in case you did not notice, they are ranked and we are not. Beating them is hard.
On the other side, we do not have a bad loss and have not been blown out. I shutter to think what would happen here if we have a stretch like Tennessee, Georgetown earlier this year or Syracuse is going through now. If we did, this board might have to close.
So why are we melting down around here? You agree that we are melting down?
To get things rolling, here are my thoughts ....
College fans are more passionate that pro fans because their identity is tied up with the school. Our identity is not so much tied up with the city we live in. That said, Green Bay might be the exception when it comes to pro sports.
We chose MU and it is now a reflection of us. It is a small catholic school with no football program, so we believe the "net worth" of our institution and our choice to attend/support MU is on the court 33 times a year.
We also want to graduate 100% of the players which, I believe, is more important for us than at a state school. Thankfully this is not a problem. If Mbawke was still here and was arrested last week, and Buzz was still debating starting him like Tubby is, we would have a riot. Up in Minneapolis, they want him to start and they could care less about any arrest.
Finally, we all believed this team would be better than the national expert believe because of the number of top 100 guys on the bench. I think we all thought MU would be a "surprise team" on the upside this year.
I understand that this season has been a disappointment. But with no bad losses and leads in the second half, it is not too late and we are very close to breaking through. This is not the season Diener broke his foot and no one could get the ball up-court.
We need to calm down or all meet in a gravel parking lot and have it out!
Agree or disagree?
-
Agree, though I believe this board simply needed to be more "civilized" for a long time. Too much name calling and silliness.
-
I guess it really depends upon your definition of "melting down." If "melting down" means "acting like a typical fan-base" then yes, "MU Nation" is melting down.
-
Disagree. We are not representative of MU nation.
-
Old fashioned soc's vs the greasers? How do we pick teams? Ha ha. I agree, this is a tuff stretch and I have written at least 7 posts that I did not hit send on. We have to be patient, I am still convinced these guys will make the tourney. In Jae I trust.
-
This will lighten the mood! ;D
(http://www.funnypicturefunnyphoto.com/funny-picture-photo-sign-women-skyguy-pic.jpg)
-
Disagree. We are not representative of MU nation.
I think we are part of MU Nation. I think that the important thing to remember is that "MU Nation" (a term I despise, by the way), like any other nation (or "Nation") is comprised of many unique individuals who will respond to things in their own ways. Some are way too invested and lose their minds. Some brush it off. It's a continuum. Those of us who bother to read and post on a message board like this are far, far closer to one end of the continuum than the average fan, but we are part of the "Nation."
And even among those of us that post here, there is continuum from "completely nuts" to "moderately nuts." I'd like to think that I'm on the "moderate" end of that continuum, but some days I'm not so sure. Either way, though, I'm still nuts.
-
"* Grown men are bashing 19 year old kids"
I am younger than some players, does that give me the right to bash?
-
"* Grown men are bashing 19 year old kids"
I am younger than some players, does that give me the right to bash?
No it's just less sad.
-
Disagree. We are not representative of MU nation.
+1
Typically while attending any sporting even you're going to hear a small handful of "bleacher coaches" questioning just about anything and everything that they can. Many of these cases are just someone trying to show how much he knows about basketball...even though he's generally pretty ignorant, not to mention completely irrational (my favorite example of this was some know-it-all yelling: "Call 5 seconds in the lane on them too, ref!" but I digress). These people are loud and have a tendency to overreact, both positively and negatively, to the performance of the team on the floor i.e. if DJO commits a TO, he should sent back to Juco - if he hits a tough 3, he's a lottery pick. While these people tend to be the loudest, that doesn't mean that their sentiments are shared by the fanbase as a whole. IMO, message boards are made up of a lot of this type of fan.
-
It all comes down to realistic expectations.
MU was picked to finish lower in the BE than ever before....There was a reason for that. We had many players with little or no D1 experience. We do not recruit freshman who have great impact in their first year (one and dones, mainly). I hope that we get there (minus the one and dones). Ted Thompson took a beating for doing things correctly, and I guess Buzz will too. Let's face it, outside of the Three Amigos and Lazar, Buzz did not have much to work with.
I did not expect MU to do as poorly as the experts, but I was thinking bubble NCAA, mid pack BE. I expect much more next year, but this was always a build up year.
Chill people.
-
Don't know about "melting down by MU nation", but I do know that our favorite team has had some melt downs recently. Louisville, ND, UConn.
The posters on this board are passionate and want the team to win. "Bashing 19 year old kids"? Not sure what you mean by that. If people see a student athlete not playing well and critique it, is that "bashing"? If the Coach does not seem to be getting the job done up to the fan expectations and is criticized for some of his decisions, does that mean his popularity is at an all time low? Remember, that Coach is in one of the premier conferences and is getting paid huge dollars, so being critical of losses by the fan base goes with the territory.
I'm probably too old to meet in a gravel parking lot, and have forgotten most of myUSMC training, but yes we probably should calm down a bit--depends on the definition of "calm down". After all this is a fan message/opinion board and people should be free to vent their frustrations when we lose or are not playing well--as long as it is kept within reason. Fans are passionate and are entitled to their opinion.
-
I've posted this before in another thread but it is a must view for those who are melting down...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n4Vb91aJQg
-
It all comes down to realistic expectations.
MU was picked to finish lower in the BE than ever before....There was a reason for that. We had many players with little or no D1 experience. We do not recruit freshman who have great impact in their first year (one and dones, mainly). I hope that we get there (minus the one and dones). Ted Thompson took a beating for doing things correctly, and I guess Buzz will too. Let's face it, outside of the Three Amigos and Lazar, Buzz did not have much to work with.
I did not expect MU to do as poorly as the experts, but I was thinking bubble NCAA, mid pack BE. I expect much more next year, but this was always a build up year.
Chill people.
What does it mean that Buzz "is doing things correctly?"
Bringing in JUCO's?
Having a freshman class that's had zero positive impact this season?
Being a nice guy?
I sure hope everyone that keeps saying this is a rebuilding year and next year is the year to pay attention to will hold Buzz accountable if things don't get better.
-
"Wish you would step out from that ledge my friend"
-
1965/nmb, detail exactly what your expectations are for the MU program. How is Buzz not moving toward them? Do you think we took a step back from Crean? If so, who would you like to see coaching the program that would be interested in coming. That eliminates Miller and Bennett. I honestly thought that last year's coaching job by Buzz was the best since Al retired. Making chicken salad out of chicken $h!t like he did was amazing. This year, we were very inexperienced at a D1 level. Some have made progress. Some haven't. Any team can say the same thing. So, is your solution to get rid of buzz and start over? What coach is going to want to come if we get rid of a coach 3 years in who has won 20 (and I truly believe we end up with 20 wins after the BEast tourney and postseason) each year, graduated players, and competed at the highest level of the BEast. So, I am flat our calling you out to man up and lay out your solution and which coach you would like to see that would be willing to come. Willie, this goes for you, too.
-
I think 10 people melted down so far.
The rest of us realize that before this season we only had 4 guys that had seen much Division 1 playing time before, and that's including Fulce.
Blue, Cadougan, Crowder, Gardner, Jones, Otule and Williams. Unknown quantities in November. If you're blowing your top that our team is *only* .500 in BEast play and is hanging with top 10 teams on a regular basis you need to get your head checked.
-
I think 10 people melted down so far.
The rest of us realize that before this season we only had 4 guys that had seen much Division 1 playing time before, and that's including Fulce.
Blue, Cadougan, Crowder, Gardner, Jones, Otule and Williams. Unknown quantities in November. If you're blowing your top that our team is *only* .500 in BEast play and is hanging with top 10 teams on a regular basis you need to get your head checked.
I agree that there are a select few who are blowing their tops re: the .500 record. There are others of us who are trying to point out issues about our defense, in general, and our late-game execution, in particular, but we're lumped in with the top-blowers and dismissed as haters who aren't "fans" of the team.
-
What does it mean that Buzz "is doing things correctly?"
Bringing in JUCO's?
Having a freshman class that's had zero positive impact this season?
Being a nice guy?
I sure hope everyone that keeps saying this is a rebuilding year and next year is the year to pay attention to will hold Buzz accountable if things don't get better.
Correctly means knowing how to build for the long haul (Ted Thompson reference) and understanding there may be some pain along the way. It also means ignoring the fan base that scream when you cut Brett Favre, because you understand the strategy your following.
JUCOs. There may be more than normal the last couple of years because the need to balance out the classes, but even so, I have no problem wiht Buzz recruiting JUCOs as long as they can handle MU academically, and they are good kids (by all accounts, these guys fit this criteria).
I specifically noted that I am not a fan of one and dones...Name a team that won a NCAA championship with one and dones. I think it was your man Al (My man also) that said the best thing about freshman is that they become sophmores. The point is, Buzz is building toward a program that does not depend on freshman. Harrison Barnes is having an impact at NC, but his play has leveled off. Sullinger and Irving have very strong players surrounding them. We all hoped JFB would play the same role that Lazar played last year, but it does not seem to be in his makeup. (That would be huge)
Don't care if Buzz is a nice guy. My best coach growing up was a b*st*rd. I don't think the players think Buzz is nice during boot camp. He is a great PR guy for the program, and that is great for MU.
I mention in my last paragraph that I expect more next year. I will be very disappointed if that does not happen. I have said repeatedly that I expect MU to be playing better basketball in February.
-
What does it mean that Buzz "is doing things correctly?"
Bringing in JUCO's?
Having a freshman class that's had zero positive impact this season?
Being a nice guy?
I sure hope everyone that keeps saying this is a rebuilding year and next year is the year to pay attention to will hold Buzz accountable if things don't get better.
Still waiting for my $50.
-
Name a team that won a NCAA championship with one and dones.
[/quote]
We play them Saturday. I was at their final four in New Orleans, severely hung over (ok ok, I was still loaded), watching them beat the team that destroyed us two nights earlier.
(Carmelo and Syracuse fyi)
-
seems like if you aren't part of the MU nation that is melting down, you're part of the MU nation that is on their high horse about the part of MU nation that is melting down.
-
The last couple of games have left a horrible taste in my mouth and feeling incredibly frustrated. That being said I will step to the side of the aisle that is seeing the glass as half full at this point. If there are not significant strides made by the younger players when we reach this point next season then I will consider jumping ship.
-
Personally, I am melting down due to the bad losses Marquette has had in recent years. When MU has a lead, I don't believe they will keep it. And I felt this way before Louisville. Its great that Marquette plays such close games, but it seems that we will lose if we give the other team a chance, regardless of how good the opposing team might be. Those of you that watched the DePaul game last year know what I'm talking about.
Though I am melting down, I am not going to a message board and hiding behind a fake name by blasting the players on the team. I realize that they are giving it everything they have and as a fan, that's all I can really ask. While I blame Buzz moreso than the players, I still am a big supporter of his. At times, it seems as though the basketball gods are to blame as we seem to get every bad break. IMO, its either the price we are paying for all the fortune we had in 2003 or its pain we are feeling now for the joy we will face when the ball starts bouncing our way in the near future. I sure hope its the latter and it starts soon.
-
seems like if you aren't part of the MU nation that is melting down, you're part of the MU nation that is on their high horse about the part of MU nation that is melting down.
"If you can keep your wits while all around are losing theirs, and blaming you. The world will be yours and everything in it. What's more, you'll be a man, my son. " Rudyard Kipling
-
Name a team that won a NCAA championship with one and dones.
We play them Saturday. I was at their final four in New Orleans, severely hung over (ok ok, I was still loaded), watching them beat the team that destroyed us two nights earlier.
(Carmelo and Syracuse fyi)
OK. But Cuse doesn't get fistfulls of them. Kentucky with multiples in the last couple of years....KSU with Beasley.... My larger point was that national championships have not been won by teams loaded with one and dones, or Kentucky would have won last year.
-
1965/nmb, detail exactly what your expectations are for the MU program. How is Buzz not moving toward them? Do you think we took a step back from Crean? If so, who would you like to see coaching the program that would be interested in coming. That eliminates Miller and Bennett. I honestly thought that last year's coaching job by Buzz was the best since Al retired. Making chicken salad out of chicken $h!t like he did was amazing. This year, we were very inexperienced at a D1 level. Some have made progress. Some haven't. Any team can say the same thing. So, is your solution to get rid of buzz and start over? What coach is going to want to come if we get rid of a coach 3 years in who has won 20 (and I truly believe we end up with 20 wins after the BEast tourney and postseason) each year, graduated players, and competed at the highest level of the BEast. So, I am flat our calling you out to man up and lay out your solution and which coach you would like to see that would be willing to come. Willie, this goes for you, too.
IMO, if MU misses the NCAA tourney this season and next, Buzz should be fired.
And I do think there is a chance of that happening due to this year's freshman class being full of "misses." It's hard for a coach to be successful when an entire freshman class has performed below expectations. And just as MU took a big hit with the loss of Lazar this season, next year another top player leaves with Butler. If people couldn't figure out who was "the guy, the leader" this season, who is it next year? DJO by default?
And I can't believe I'm going to say this since Tom Crean just oozed insincerity and slime (and I know someone who worked VERY closely with him), but the program has taken a step down now.
BTW, for those who think that MU will just get a great assistant to help Buzz out, I'm not sure that's going to happen. Buzz is very stubborn and bristles at the slightest criticism/questioning of his coaching decisions. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with his defensive scheme.
-
I corrected this for you.
IMO, if MU misses the NCAA tourney this season and next, Buzz should be fired.
And I do think there is a chance of that happening due to this year's freshman class being full of "misses." It's hard for a coach to be successful when an entire freshman class has performed below expectations. And just as MU took a big hit with the loss of Lazar this season, next year another top player leaves with Butler. If people couldn't figure out who was "the guy, the leader" this season, who is it next year? DJO by default?
And I can't believe I'm going to say this since Tom Crean just oozed insincerity and slime (and I know someone who worked VERY closely with him), but the program has taken a step down now.
BTW, for those who think that MU will just get a great assistant to help Buzz out, I'm not sure that's going to happen. Buzz is very stubborn and bristles at the slightest criticism/questioning of his coaching decisions. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with his defensive scheme.
-
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
13-8 ?
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
-
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
13-8 ?
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
A year ago weren't posters wondering how long it will be before Buzz bolts for another school since he's such a young, successful, highly respected coach?
-
BTW, for those who think that MU will just get a great assistant to help Buzz out, I'm not sure that's going to happen. Buzz is very stubborn and bristles at the slightest criticism/questioning of his coaching decisions. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with his defensive scheme.
Are you basing this on your numerous face-to-face discussions with Buzz about his defensive strategy?
-
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
really?
-
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
13-8 ?
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
Yes. Mike Deane said that MU should be content with the occasional NCAA berth and was bringing in progressively worse classes (Krunti Hester) and embarrassing the school (Tourney meltdown)
-
The way I see it... people calling for Buzz's head are stupid. No other way about it.
We have some passionate fans in our fan base and for a guy who sees the glass half full, its extremely frustrating to watch. I am sure everyone who watches the games shares my frustration. I would be fine if our team just wasn't good enough to play with these guys. I would be fine if we had some key players injured or playing really cold. I would be fine if we were consistently running into buzzsaws, like Pitt. Or if the ball wasn't bouncing our way. But none of that is the case. We look dominant at times, and through major stretches of the game. And it seems/looks like when the other team really pushes us hard, we crumble. There is no other way to see it. Against UL, ND, and UConn, we were seriously outplayed in the closing minutes. It has NOTHING to do with "they were ranked" or "they are better". They just wanted more than we did. And I think that's what gets people all worked up. Oh well... just my opinion.
-
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
13-8 ?
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
In my mind, going 7-5, 10-4, 9-5, 8-8, and then 6-10 in the Great Midwest / Conference USA is a shade worse than going 12-6 and then 11-7 in the Big East, even if there's a 9-9 thrown in this year.
-
In my mind, going 7-5, 10-4, 9-5, 8-8, and then 6-10 in the Great Midwest / Conference USA is a shade worse than going 12-6 and then 11-7 in the Big East, even if there's a 9-9 thrown in this year.
Yes, I would agree. However, the NCAA results are the same.
-
Yes, I would agree. However, the NCAA results are the same.
Which is why I don't like basing my opinion of a coach/team on the results of a three-week, single-elimination tournament.
-
I'm adding my voice to this thread simply because there are clearly folks within the MU athletic department that read messages boards (as evidenced by Buzz's radio show, when he essentially refers to this 'meltdown').
Last year, folks were loving how Buzz led the team to such an incredible run, perhaps underestimating the value of role players who became leaders (Acker, Cubillan).
This year, folks are ready to cut Buzz loose, despite the fact that he's dealt with a less experienced group of players.
I ache thinking about all the losses this year (to me, only during the Gonzaga and WI games did I feel that there was no way we'd win), and Buzz could certainly improve as coach.
But there is no way that anyone should think about getting rid of him. Even if we don't make the NCAA tourney this year (though I still think we will), I believe we are trending in the right direction.
-
To AnotherMU84 - There are no good losses. Wins are good. Losses are bad.
I agree that Buzz did an incredible coaching job last year. However, this year, it's become a trend, that his player selection is lousy and his play calling seem terrible, especially in the second half. In our recent losses it seems that Buzz is not playing his best players when we need them the most. And, it seems that he is uncomfortable playing our "bigs." And, it seems that our young players are not being coached well. As Top 100 recruits, you would expect that everyone on the team should be able to contribute and improve throughout the season.
It's ok to play hard and lose. But, to lose games when we were ahead in the games, by sitting our scorers or "bigs", seems like we're playing to lose. Still don't understand Buzz's coaching this year. He looked totally lost and dumbfounded after the UCONN game.
-
The youngs and the bigs aren't developed, but we need to expand our bench by playing our best players at crunch time. OK.
-
Marquette is currently in the midst of their toughest part of the schedule. They sit at 4-4 with 10 conference games left to play. Of those 10 games, I feel very confident about 6 of them (@USF, StJ, SHU H/A, Prov, Cincy) and feel that the other 4 games are winnable as well.
Syracuse is sputtering right now and games at Villanova, G'town and UConn will obviously be tough tests but I don't think it's ridiculous to think that MU could win any of those games. It's not out of the realm of possibility to think that MU could be heading into the Big East Tournament as winner of 5 of 6 or even 7 of 8.
There's a lot of season left to play.
-
What does it mean that Buzz "is doing things correctly?" Bringing in JUCO's? Having a freshman class that's had zero positive impact this season?
Being a nice guy? I sure hope everyone that keeps saying this is a rebuilding year and next year is the year to pay attention to will hold Buzz accountable if things don't get better.
Spoken like a true Bail Bondsman! Bravo!
-
So let's turn this question around as we know the half-empty sentiment: Why do people think MU will turn it around? Specific analyses please (no "In Buzz we trust" cliches).
Personally, MU is just right about where I figured...but better offensively and worse defensively. Maybe that adds to fans' grief....they see the upside but feel the bitter end of the rope when MU cannot stop runs at the end of games. Causes a bipolar reaction as we are "close enough" to be elite, but not good enough--thus, the half empty mentality. So, what is it that the half-full fans see upcoming?
btw, I can see us going 13-10 based on upcoming match-ups....then this board will be nuclear ;)
-
So let's turn this question around as we know the half-empty sentiment: Why do people think MU will turn it around? Specific analyses please (no "In Buzz we trust" cliches).
According to the stats, MU is the fifth best team in the BE. We have the best offense in the league. Over the last five games, MU has the stats of a team that should go 14.1 - 3.9.
In three of the last five games, MU has scored over 1.24 ppp. In four of the last five games, MU has held opponents to 1.06 ppp or less. But there's a lot of variability there. The half-full in me says young team = inconsistency/variability and this will get more consistent over time.
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=625
edit: 5th best team after the UConn game
-
According to the stats, MU is the third best team in the BE. We have the best offense in the league. Over the last five games, MU has the stats of a team that should go 14.1 - 3.9.
In three of the last five games, MU has scored over 1.24 ppp. In four of the last five games, MU has held opponents to 1.06 ppp or less. But there's a lot of variability there. The half-full in me says young team = inconsistency/variability and this will get more consistent over time.
Also throw in the fact that the schedule gets much easier down the stretch.
-
You agree that we are melting down?
No. There's only a few melting down. They're just vocal. Happens nearly every year.
-
According to the stats, MU is the fifth best team in the BE. We have the best offense in the league. Over the last five games, MU has the stats of a team that should go 14.1 - 3.9.
In three of the last five games, MU has scored over 1.24 ppp. In four of the last five games, MU has held opponents to 1.06 ppp or less. But there's a lot of variability there. The half-full in me says young team = inconsistency/variability and this will get more consistent over time.
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=625
edit: 5th best team after the UConn game
Damn, statistical proof for Murf that we should have gone 14-4.
-
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
13-8 ?
Could be Mike Deane v.2
After three years Deane was 66-29
Buzz is 60-30 so far
Will he outlast Deane?
You left out a minor note that we were playing in C-USA and the GMC with Deane. Our losses were to teams like TCU, East Carolina, SLU, etc. Not UConn, Pitt, ND, etc.
Deane also was about 20 years Buzz's elder and set in his way. Buzz has done a great job overall given everything, but has plenty of room to grow as a coach. He seems to be intelligent and does a bit of self-reflection, so I imagine he will improve quite a bit... he's only been here for 2.5 years.
-
No. There's only a few melting down. They're just vocal. Happens nearly every year.
Ehh imo the meltdowns are both happening much more often and much more vocal. Many posters are making their "arguments" personal at our players, and seem to be making short-sighted conclusions about our program overall. Tbh it's been pretty annoying to even come on here the last month, but comes with the territory of course since we're all fanatics.
I know there are people of all ages "melting down" right now, but I'd be willing to be there is some correlation to posters' ages. A decade ago when I was 20, I remember making idiotic points like Merritt his Junior year should lose his scholarship after a disappointing couple of games, and that Blankston wasn't worth having on our roster anyways when he left. I seem to be reading asinine arguments like this on a daily basis this season. Ten years later, it's still extremely frustrating losing these tight games to good teams, but I have a lot more patience. As a whole, if these are the worst of our problems, our program is in very good shape.
-
No. There's only a few melting down. They're just vocal. Happens nearly every year.
no melting here. actually got a few more inches of snow.
-
You left out a minor note that we were playing in C-USA and the GMC with Deane. Our losses were to teams like TCU, East Carolina, SLU, etc. Not UConn, Pitt, ND, etc. Deane also was about 20 years Buzz's elder and set in his way. Buzz has done a great job overall given everything, but has plenty of room to grow as a coach. He seems to be intelligent and does a bit of self-reflection, so I imagine he will improve quite a bit... he's only been here for 2.5 years.
Now, if we want to compare Night Life skills The Dancin' Deano was right up there with Huggins, Pitino, The Fredster, etc...Barrel Chested Two Fisted Denizens of the Dark who prowled the Night Streets in search of Excitement and Pleasure. We had a treasure in Mike Deane, a Man who lived life on his terms and brabbed for the gusto at every opportunity. Little did we know how blessed we truly were
-
And I do think there is a chance of that happening due to this year's freshman class being full of "misses." It's hard for a coach to be successful when an entire freshman class has performed below expectations. And just as MU took a big hit with the loss of Lazar this season, next year another top player leaves with Butler. If people couldn't figure out who was "the guy, the leader" this season, who is it next year? DJO by default?
Think back two years ago. Cubbie and Acker's junior year. They largely rode the bench but came up huge for us one year later.
Buzz always says you make your biggest jump between freshman and sophomore year. So we'll see.
To answer your question as to who is the best of the next year's sophomores. The answer is Jamil Wilson. Further, we will probably start two sophomores next year, Vander and Wilson.
How is a Freshman class that produces two starters Sophomore year a bust?
-
Don't know about "melting down by MU nation", but I do know that our favorite team has had some melt downs recently. Louisville, ND, UConn.
The posters on this board are passionate and want the team to win. "Bashing 19 year old kids"? Not sure what you mean by that. If people see a student athlete not playing well and critique it, is that "bashing"? If the Coach does not seem to be getting the job done up to the fan expectations and is criticized for some of his decisions, does that mean his popularity is at an all time low? Remember, that Coach is in one of the premier conferences and is getting paid huge dollars, so being critical of losses by the fan base goes with the territory.
Could you please explain these meltdowns you speak of? Louisville sucked, yes. It truly was a perfect storm though. That's a once in a blue moon finish. @ ND? So losing a lead on the road is unacceptable? With 20 minutes to play? So you bash getting outscored 14 in the 2nd half, but show no appreciation for being up 9 after the first 20? So he's a great coach for half the game, and a moron the other?
And maybe he's not living up to SOME fans expectations because THOSE fans expectations are unrealistic. This team was projected bottom half of the league this year. They were last year, and look how they did. It was a pretty special year, definitely overachieved. Have you forgotten already? It's pretty unrealistic to expect the team to overachieve EVERY year.
Get a f*cking grip. Have some perspective.
-
MUBasketball - Disagree. You play to win. We don't need 80 great players like football. We just need 10 very good players and a good coach to win. This is not little league. This is the Big East. We have to play hard. We have to recruit the best talent. And we have to coach smart to win. Let's do it.
-
Could you please explain these meltdowns you speak of? Louisville sucked, yes. It truly was a perfect storm though. That's a once in a blue moon finish. @ ND? So losing a lead on the road is unacceptable? With 20 minutes to play? So you bash getting outscored 14 in the 2nd half, but show no appreciation for being up 9 after the first 20? So he's a great coach for half the game, and a moron the other?
And maybe he's not living up to SOME fans expectations because THOSE fans expectations are unrealistic. This team was projected bottom half of the league this year. They were last year, and look how they did. It was a pretty special year, definitely overachieved. Have you forgotten already? It's pretty unrealistic to expect the team to overachieve EVERY year.
Get a f*cking grip. Have some perspective.
Most people, including myself, have been very complimentary about Buzz coming up with a good initial gameplan. The problem arises in the second-half when adjustments have been made by the opposing coach and Buzz becomes helpless in response. I certainly don't see the UCONN game as a meltdown, but when Calhoun made the late-game adjustment in defending Butler, Buzz was clueless in coming up with a counter.
And it isn't just on the road that MU had meltdowns. They collapsed vs Washington on a neutral court in the NCAA's, as well.
-
To answer your question as to who is the best of the next year's sophomores. The answer is Jamil Wilson. Further, we will probably start two sophomores next year, Vander and Wilson.
Actually, if we base it off of freshman year performance, its probably Blue.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p2=vander-blue&p1=jamil-wilson (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p2=vander-blue&p1=jamil-wilson)
-
no melting here. actually got a few more inches of snow.
That's good. I heard you could use a few more inches.
-
Could you please explain these meltdowns you speak of? Louisville sucked, yes. It truly was a perfect storm though. That's a once in a blue moon finish. @ ND? So losing a lead on the road is unacceptable? With 20 minutes to play? So you bash getting outscored 14 in the 2nd half, but show no appreciation for being up 9 after the first 20? So he's a great coach for half the game, and a moron the other?
And maybe he's not living up to SOME fans expectations because THOSE fans expectations are unrealistic. This team was projected bottom half of the league this year. They were last year, and look how they did. It was a pretty special year, definitely overachieved. Have you forgotten already? It's pretty unrealistic to expect the team to overachieve EVERY year.
Get a f*cking grip. Have some perspective.
i have a grip and perspective. You tyry the same. MU has not leld leads in the 2nd half against Louisville, ND, and UConn. Three of the last 4 games played. Buzz is getting paid big dollars and we are starting to fade big time. I do not expect them to overachieve. I expect them to compete for BEast titles, get into the dance and ocassionally advance deep. None of that is happening. You get some perspective!
-
Could you please explain these meltdowns you speak of? Louisville sucked, yes. It truly was a perfect storm though. That's a once in a blue moon finish. @ ND? So losing a lead on the road is unacceptable? With 20 minutes to play? So you bash getting outscored 14 in the 2nd half, but show no appreciation for being up 9 after the first 20? So he's a great coach for half the game, and a moron the other?
And maybe he's not living up to SOME fans expectations because THOSE fans expectations are unrealistic. This team was projected bottom half of the league this year. They were last year, and look how they did. It was a pretty special year, definitely overachieved. Have you forgotten already? It's pretty unrealistic to expect the team to overachieve EVERY year.
Get a f*cking grip. Have some perspective.
I think the ND loss is tough to take because they had a nine point lead at halftime on a team they absolutely dominated 10 days earlier. Thoroughly outplayed the Irish for three halves. That should result in two wins.
The issue began when they started to meltdown in games they absolutely had to win: @ Vandy; @ Ville, @ ND, UConn. Its not just points; its blowing it when it gets tight. In all the games I mentioned they buckled under pressure. The cumulative effect of that is the frustration we see today.
Finally, I disagree with the bolded. In fact, that's pretty much what MU has done in the Big East: overachieve. I believe in only one season did they finish worse than projected and that was when they finished 5th after being predicted to finish 4th. So, its not unrealistic in the slightest.
-
Finally, I disagree with the bolded. In fact, that's pretty much what MU has done in the Big East: overachieve. I believe in only one season did they finish worse than projected and that was when they finished 5th after being predicted to finish 4th. So, its not unrealistic in the slightest.
I'll further that by saying that it is realistic if the "experts" continue to underestimate us year in and year out. There was no reason to predict MU as low as they were predicted last year, and this year was just as bad a prediction (even if our record doesn't show it yet). MU just needs to keep being consistent and let the "experts" underestimate us and tell the world that we "overachieve".
-
i have a grip and perspective. You tyry the same. MU has not leld leads in the 2nd half against Louisville, ND, and UConn. Three of the last 4 games played. Buzz is getting paid big dollars and we are starting to fade big time. I do not expect them to overachieve. I expect them to compete for BEast titles, get into the dance and ocassionally advance deep. None of that is happening. You get some perspective!
Quit being a crybaby. They lost some games. Welcome to the Big East.
The bolded/underlined part makes absolutely no sense. You don't expect them to overachieve? Yet this team which was picked bottom half of the league (and if you look at it objectively....what a concept....is accurate given the huge number of new guys) you expect to not have a down year and still expect them to compete for the title this year? That's just silly. Unrealistic expectations. What coach could deliver on those expectations this year?
My whole point is each team goes through cycles, peaks and valleys. Hell 'ole Roy had Carolina in the NIT last year. Every year there are traditionally strong programs in the NIT, IT HAPPENS. I mean....THINK!!!!! Your sense of entitlement is sickening.
-
Quit being a crybaby. They lost some games. Welcome to the Big East.
The bolded/underlined part makes absolutely no sense. You don't expect them to overachieve? Yet this team which was picked bottom half of the league (and if you look at it objectively....what a concept....is accurate given the huge number of new guys) you expect to not have a down year and still expect them to compete for the title this year? That's just silly. Unrealistic expectations. What coach could deliver on those expectations this year?
My whole point is each team goes through cycles, peaks and valleys. Hell 'ole Roy had Carolina in the NIT last year. Every year there are traditionally strong programs in the NIT, IT HAPPENS. I mean....THINK!!!!! Your sense of entitlement is sickening.
Sorry--I did not do the uinderscore. By the way Pal, when you cannot argue facts, start the namecalling whichnd buy your gobbledegook. Sorry. Now I will move on.
-
I think that the "meltdowns" are a result of unrealistic expectations, and maybe those expectations are there because of last year's over-performing team. Because last year's team over-performed to such a great extent, some of us just assumed that this year's team would do the same. This year's team just isn't good enough, imho, and, doesn't have the "magic" of last year's team to exceed expectations.
-
I think that the "meltdowns" are a result of unrealistic expectations, and maybe those expectations are there because of last year's over-performing team. Because last year's team over-performed to such a great extent, some of us just assumed that this year's team would do the same. This year's team just isn't good enough, imho, and, doesn't have the "magic" of last year's team to exceed expectations.
I don't think last year's team over-performed. I think they performed appropriately to their talent level and exceeded some unrealistically low expectations.
This year's team seems to be under-performing to their talent this point, but only because the W's aren't there to go along with how well they've played most of the time. Hopefully they turn it around and some of these games go the other way and I can type something different at the end of the year.
-
With regard to significant D-1 playing time:
DJO is a sophomore
Crowder is a frosh
Otule is a frosh
Butler is a junior
Caddy is a frosh
Buycks is a sophomore
Fulce is a sophomore
Then you have our traditional frosh and sophs
In essence, while we are graduating two players at the end of the year, we have no seniors on this team in the mold of the 3 Amigos and Hayward (that is not a knock on Butler or Fulce or any of the leaders on this team)
Unfortunately, we won't get a full four years out of these guys. That is what happens when you have to rebuild your team when left with an empty bench and use JUCOs as filler to get you by until your main recruiting classes kick in. Most basketball teams take several steps back after a coaching change, the fact that we are a upper-middle-of-the-pack BE team during this period is a very good thing that we must not lose sight of.
I think most of us realists are seeing this season turn out as expected. Lots of season left to play with lots of very winnable games. Next year is when the fun really begins because MU is in an overall talent upswing, albeit talent that requires seasoning. Get in any tournament and this team can potentially have a good ride.
Also, the 3 Amigos were once young, inexperience players too. However, they had the benefit of having a senior on the team who was a pivotal part of a Final Four team.
-
With regard to significant D-1 playing time:
DJO is a sophomore
Crowder is a frosh
Otule is a frosh
Butler is a junior
Caddy is a frosh
Buycks is a sophomore
Fulce is a sophomore
Then you have our traditional frosh and sophs
In essence, while we are graduating two players at the end of the year, we have no seniors on this team in the mold of the 3 Amigos and Hayward (that is not a knock on Butler or Fulce or any of the leaders on this team)
Unfortunately, we won't get a full four years out of these guys. That is what happens when you have to rebuild your team when left with an empty bench and use JUCOs as filler to get you by until your main recruiting classes kick in. Most basketball teams take several steps back after a coaching change, the fact that we are a upper-middle-of-the-pack BE team during this period is a very good thing that we must not lose sight of.
I think most of us realists are seeing this season turn out as expected. Lots of season left to play with lots of very winnable games. Next year is when the fun really begins because MU is in an overall talent upswing, albeit talent that requires seasoning. Get in any tournament and this team can potentially have a good ride.
Also, the 3 Amigos were once young, inexperience players too. However, they had the benefit of having a senior on the team who was a pivotal part of a Final Four team.
If number of years of significant D1 experience matters, how is next year going to be better?
DJO will be a Junior
Crowder a soph
Otule a soph
Blue a soph
Wilson a soph (really more like a frosh+, since he played at a school that really wasn't D1-quality)
Cadougan a soph.
Jones, Gardner & Williams will still be frosh.
Plus our incoming freshmen, and perhaps an incoming JUCO or two.
We will have just one player that has more than one season of significant D1 experience.
-
I'll further that by saying that it is realistic if the "experts" continue to underestimate us year in and year out. There was no reason to predict MU as low as they were predicted last year, and this year was just as bad a prediction (even if our record doesn't show it yet). MU just needs to keep being consistent and let the "experts" underestimate us and tell the world that we "overachieve".
Really?
You think losing four seniors (three of whom were 4-year starters no less) who accounted for 64% of the teams scoring the year before isn't a reason to predict a drastic drop off in performance?
-
Sorry--I did not do the uinderscore. By the way Pal, when you cannot argue facts, start the namecalling whichnd buy your gobbledegook. Sorry. Now I will move on.
Willie,
He is arguing facts. You are completely unrealistic in your expectations for the program at the current time. If you do not understand why, then I am afraid no one is going to be able to help you get there.
-
Really?
You think losing four seniors (three of whom were 4-year starters no less) who accounted for 64% of the teams scoring the year before isn't a reason to predict a drastic drop off in performance?
I thought I adequately explained it above but let me repeat for you:
1. We had returning player in Hayward who was equally as good (if not better) than Matthews was as a junior--and with similar development could be counted on to approximate Matthew's performance.
2. We had a reserve in Butler who had demonstrated that he was among the best offensive players in NCAA--statistically speaking possibly better than McNeal. If he merely extended his stats when receiving the additional minutes made available by the departing seniors would approximate McNeal's performance.
3. We had a returning PG in Acker who had demonstrated a high degree of proficiency (2.5 assist to turnover ratio and 38% 3FG%) against eight teams--5 of which were arguably as tough or tougher than any competition we were likely to face the following year.
4. We had two first team JUCO AAs coming in in DJO and Buycks, who based on the typical performance of other first team JUCO AAs moving up to D1 level, should have been counted on to provide strong minutes, scoring and team contributions.
Was I wrong on any of these assumptions? No.
Were any of them unreasonable? I don't think so, but you'll have to tell me why you think so. Which ones were unreasonable?
To address your point on what we lost--well, if we had lost 64% of our scoring, but had nobody on the bench set to move up, and no good recruits coming on board, perhaps you would have had a point.
But as I saw it, we had a very strong core of returning players enhanced by a very strong recruiting class of replacements coming in.
If you believe that any of my four assumptions were off base, I think its high time for you to explain why. Stop telling me who left the team. Tell me why you thought the players we had weren't capable of getting the job done. Tell me why you thought Hayward couldn't step up. Tell me why you thought Butler's offensive performacne would regress. Tell me why you didn't think Acker would continue to play well.
I really want to know whether you really thought our returning and incoming players would regress and/or be busts, or whether you honestly didn't take a close look at them.
Yes, I know exactly what we lost.
The question is whether you knew what we had returning and what we had coming on board.
-
MU Nation now starts to solidify!
-
i have a grip and perspective. You tyry the same. MU has not leld leads in the 2nd half against Louisville, ND, and UConn. Three of the last 4 games played. Buzz is getting paid big dollars and we are starting to fade big time. I do not expect them to overachieve. I expect them to compete for BEast titles, get into the dance and ocassionally advance deep. None of that is happening. You get some perspective!
So Marquette in your mind is a school that should be expected to make the NCAA Tournament every year?
It should be viewed as flat out unacceptable to have any seasons where things just don't go as hoped and thus MU instead ends up in the NIT?
If that is what you do believe, you have very unrealistic expectations for the Marquette basketball program because there is a very small pool of coaches and programs which do make the big dance every year.
Even many programs with a much greater tradition of success and/or a much greater home recruiting base will miss the NCAA Tournament here and there. Hell, even very storied programs like UCLA and North Carolina for example ended up in the NIT last season.
No previous MU coaches in recent history either were able to avoid years where things didn't go great and thus the result was an NIT berth or even worse. Yet, there seems to be some here who feel if Buzz doesn't lead MU to the big dance every single season, he's doing a miserable job and his job security should be strongly questioned. It's insanity.
-
I thought I adequately explained it above but let me repeat for you:
1. We had returning player in Hayward who was equally as good (if not better) than Matthews was as a junior--and with similar development could be counted on to approximate Matthew's performance.
2. We had a reserve in Butler who had demonstrated that he was among the best offensive players in NCAA--statistically speaking possibly better than McNeal. If he merely extended his stats when receiving the additional minutes made available by the departing seniors would approximate McNeal's performance.
3. We had a returning PG in Acker who had demonstrated a high degree of proficiency (2.5 assist to turnover ratio and 38% 3FG%) against eight teams--5 of which were arguably as tough or tougher than any competition we were likely to face the following year.
4. We had two first team JUCO AAs coming in in DJO and Buycks, who based on the typical performance of other first team JUCO AAs moving up to D1 level, should have been counted on to provide strong minutes, scoring and team contributions.
Was I wrong on any of these assumptions? No.
Were any of them unreasonable? I don't think so, but you'll have to tell me why you think so. Which ones were unreasonable?
To address your point on what we lost--well, if we had lost 64% of our scoring, but had nobody on the bench set to move up, and no good recruits coming on board, perhaps you would have had a point.
But as I saw it, we had a very strong core of returning players enhanced by a very strong recruiting class of replacements coming in.
If you believe that any of my four assumptions were off base, I think its high time for you to explain why. Stop telling me who left the team. Tell me why you thought the players we had weren't capable of getting the job done. Tell me why you thought Hayward couldn't step up. Tell me why you thought Butler's offensive performacne would regress. Tell me why you didn't think Acker would continue to play well.
I really want to know whether you really thought our returning and incoming players would regress and/or be busts, or whether you honestly didn't take a close look at them.
Yes, I know exactly what we lost.
The question is whether you knew what we had returning and what we had coming on board.
Do you also post under the name TJ? I wasn't talking to you, but if you HONESTLY believe the above gibberish then by all means, please keep looking at your statistics and ignore real life where things like experience and leadership actually mean something.
-
Do you also post under the name TJ? I wasn't talking to you,
Sorry--thought you responding to my post, because I made essentially the same point.
t if you HONESTLY believe the above gibberish then by all means, please keep looking at your statistics and ignore real life where things like experience and leadership actually mean something.
Gee, there's a serious and well-thought out conter-argument. Don't refute any of the arguments--just respond by calling it "gibberish."
The irony here is that you claim my points aren't based on the real world because I actually used REAL WORLD data!! As if Acker, Butler and Hayward's stats from 2009 came out of fake "experience" gained in some "pretend" world that didn't actually "mean something."
And the comment on leadership is even more galling. Apparently, you dismissed Hayward's capability to develop into a team leader or Acker ability to become a floor general.
A year later, instead of admitting that YOU underestimated Hayward's and Acker's leadership capabilities, you're STILL trying to preserve your incorrect assessment by suggesting that they "overachieved."
-
Really?
You think losing four seniors (three of whom were 4-year starters no less) who accounted for 64% of the teams scoring the year before isn't a reason to predict a drastic drop off in performance?
People predicted us to be downright awful last year, and it was over the top, yes. Lazar and Jimmy and the talent coming in should not have been predicted to be so awful, at the very least by the MU fans. It's college sports - everybody loses players, and everyone has to rely on new faces all the time. On top of that, Buzz brought in talented JUCO's specifically because he wanted more experience to fill into the holes, and they came out just like he expected - more ready to play than freshmen would have been. So in summary... drop off - yes; fall off a cliff - no.
Do you really think in hindsight that the team "overachieved" that much ahead of its talent level? 22-12 (11-7), first round loss - isn't that about right for a team with an NBA 1st round pick, Jimmy, DJO, Buycks, Mo & David?
-
I thought I adequately explained it above but let me repeat for you:
1. We had returning player in Hayward who was equally as good (if not better) than Matthews was as a junior--and with similar development could be counted on to approximate Matthew's performance.
2. We had a reserve in Butler who had demonstrated that he was among the best offensive players in NCAA--statistically speaking possibly better than McNeal. If he merely extended his stats when receiving the additional minutes made available by the departing seniors would approximate McNeal's performance.
3. We had a returning PG in Acker who had demonstrated a high degree of proficiency (2.5 assist to turnover ratio and 38% 3FG%) against eight teams--5 of which were arguably as tough or tougher than any competition we were likely to face the following year.
4. We had two first team JUCO AAs coming in in DJO and Buycks, who based on the typical performance of other first team JUCO AAs moving up to D1 level, should have been counted on to provide strong minutes, scoring and team contributions.
Was I wrong on any of these assumptions? No.
Were any of them unreasonable? I don't think so, but you'll have to tell me why you think so. Which ones were unreasonable?
To address your point on what we lost--well, if we had lost 64% of our scoring, but had nobody on the bench set to move up, and no good recruits coming on board, perhaps you would have had a point.
But as I saw it, we had a very strong core of returning players enhanced by a very strong recruiting class of replacements coming in.
If you believe that any of my four assumptions were off base, I think its high time for you to explain why. Stop telling me who left the team. Tell me why you thought the players we had weren't capable of getting the job done. Tell me why you thought Hayward couldn't step up. Tell me why you thought Butler's offensive performacne would regress. Tell me why you didn't think Acker would continue to play well.
I really want to know whether you really thought our returning and incoming players would regress and/or be busts, or whether you honestly didn't take a close look at them.
Yes, I know exactly what we lost.
The question is whether you knew what we had returning and what we had coming on board.
Sorry you got yelled at for replying instead of me, but thank you for making my argument better than I did. (Yes I've seen you make the argument before and I agreed with you then too.)
-
I thought I adequately explained it above but let me repeat for you:
1. We had returning player in Hayward who was equally as good (if not better) than Matthews was as a junior--and with similar development could be counted on to approximate Matthew's performance.
2. We had a reserve in Butler who had demonstrated that he was among the best offensive players in NCAA--statistically speaking possibly better than McNeal. If he merely extended his stats when receiving the additional minutes made available by the departing seniors would approximate McNeal's performance.
3. We had a returning PG in Acker who had demonstrated a high degree of proficiency (2.5 assist to turnover ratio and 38% 3FG%) against eight teams--5 of which were arguably as tough or tougher than any competition we were likely to face the following year.
4. We had two first team JUCO AAs coming in in DJO and Buycks, who based on the typical performance of other first team JUCO AAs moving up to D1 level, should have been counted on to provide strong minutes, scoring and team contributions.
Was I wrong on any of these assumptions? No.
Were any of them unreasonable? I don't think so, but you'll have to tell me why you think so. Which ones were unreasonable?
To address your point on what we lost--well, if we had lost 64% of our scoring, but had nobody on the bench set to move up, and no good recruits coming on board, perhaps you would have had a point.
But as I saw it, we had a very strong core of returning players enhanced by a very strong recruiting class of replacements coming in.
If you believe that any of my four assumptions were off base, I think its high time for you to explain why. Stop telling me who left the team. Tell me why you thought the players we had weren't capable of getting the job done. Tell me why you thought Hayward couldn't step up. Tell me why you thought Butler's offensive performacne would regress. Tell me why you didn't think Acker would continue to play well.
I really want to know whether you really thought our returning and incoming players would regress and/or be busts, or whether you honestly didn't take a close look at them.
Yes, I know exactly what we lost.
The question is whether you knew what we had returning and what we had coming on board.
The reason many college basketball analysts and Big East coaches didn't expect much from Marquette last year is that Acker spent most of his time at MU being a small part role player. Cubillan spent the prior season playing terrible basketball and only receiving 9 minutes a game. Nobody could have realistically expected that Cubillan would become a key and effective cog who averaged nearly 32mpg and would shoot 45.8 from the field to team with Acker productively in probably the tiniest backcourt in college ball.
Then there was DJO and Buycks. While both were well thought of JUCO kids, neither had played a minute of high major college basketball, so they were still question marks to a degree. It's not as if all highly thought of JUCO kids come in and are automatically as good as DJO was last year.
In retrospect, college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette last year, but i can see reasons why they did. There was no reason IMO to think a midget backcourt of Acker/Cubillan could play 30 productive minutes a game together and DJO was quite a bit better than the normal JUCO recruit, even among the more highly thought of JUCO recruits. Hell, who was predicting that DJO would shoot nearly 48% from three while taking a lot of them and also be so effective attacking the rim?
After what the team lost in the three Amigos, bad injuries to Otule/Junior, and what was left for the 2009-10 season, Buzz ended up having to play a very limited and undersized rotation. There were going to be many folks out there who would have had legit reason to think the trio of Acker, Cubillan, and DJO wouldn't be productive as they were from simply prior performance of Acker/Cubillan, having three guys that size on the court so often together, and DJO was better than should have been as expected.
I'm generally more a glass half full type and even with that, no way did i expect Acker/Cubillan to be as good as they performed, that DJO would be that fabulous right away, or that MU could win that many games with those three playing together a ton while being only 5'8/5'11/6'2 tall.
-
The reason many college basketball analysts and Big East coaches didn't expect much from Marquette last year is that Acker spent most of his time at MU being a small part role player. Cubillan spent the prior season playing terrible basketball and only receiving 9 minutes a game. Nobody could have realistically expected that Cubillan would become a key and effective cog who averaged nearly 32mpg and would shoot 45.8 from the field to team with Acker productively in probably the tiniest backcourt in college ball.
Then there was DJO and Buycks. While both were well thought of JUCO kids, neither had played a minute of high major college basketball, so they were still question marks to a degree. It's not as if all highly thought of JUCO kids come in and are automatically as good as DJO was last year.
In retrospect, college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette last year, but i can see reasons why they did. There was no reason IMO to think a midget backcourt of Acker/Cubillan could play 30 productive minutes a game together and DJO was quite a bit better than the normal JUCO recruit, even among the more highly thought of JUCO recruits. Hell, who was predicting that DJO would shoot nearly 48% from three while taking a lot of them and also be so effective attacking the rim?
After what the team lost in the three Amigos, bad injuries to Otule/Junior, and what was left for the 2009-10 season, Buzz ended up having to play a very limited and undersized rotation. There were going to be many folks out there who would have had legit reason to think the trio of Acker, Cubillan, and DJO wouldn't be productive as they were from simply prior performance of Acker/Cubillan, having three guys that size on the court so often together, and DJO was better than should have been as expected.
I'm generally more a glass half full type and even with that, no way did i expect Acker/Cubillan to be as good as they performed, that DJO would be that fabulous right away, or that MU could win that many games with those three playing together a ton while being only 5'8/5'11/6'2 tall.
Ok, so there were reasons for the underrating, but you would agree that MU was underrated last year. I think so too. And I think that you can take that one step further and say that they performed appropriately to their talent level, given hindsight and not basing it on unrealistic preseason expectations.
-
In the words of the not so great Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were".
Some positives, some negatives . . .YES.
Freshmen looking like Freshmen . . . YES.
Probably about a 10-8 or 11-7 Beast team headed to about an 8 seed . . . My best guess.
Great win yesterday fellas!
-
Ok, so there were reasons for the underrating, but you would agree that MU was underrated last year. I think so too. And I think that you can take that one step further and say that they performed appropriately to their talent level, given hindsight and not basing it on unrealistic preseason expectations.
Yes college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette prior to the season and understandably so IMO. The players though clearly were better than 12th in the Big East.
That said, i do think Buzz did a fabulous job melding together what he had available to get 11 Big East wins. The team was severely undersized and had few bench options to help out when the main guys got tired or in foul trouble.
Defensively the team was able to defend and rebound decent enough to win those games even though for most of games Buzz would have on the court three guards standing 5'8/5'11/6'2 and two 6'6 small forwards having to play PF and Center. Offensively Buzz i thought was smart to not force a bunch of highly structured plays on to that roster and instead just let them use their quickness to mainly drive the paint to score or drive the paint and kick to shooters. An organized version of streetball in a way so long as there were enough paint touches. Sometimes i think coaches are such control freaks that they are unwilling to change what they prefer to run even if it doesn't fit the talent on their roster.
I remember when George Karl came to the Bucks, he came from a long run in Seattle where they won a ton of games largely via tough defense and a very structured offense. So he takes over the Bucks and tries doing the same thing, but the Bucks roster is littered with soft defenders who can really score points. Instead of continuing to try and make that roster into something it just wasn't built for, Karl eventually swallowed his pride and just accepted what the roster of players he had were good at. He stopped harping constantly over the poor defense and loosened the reigns on the offensive end. The Bucks then were able to beat teams with scores like 118-110 instead of Karl trying to force them to win games 94-89 which didn't fit the roster.
That's what i think Buzz did a great job of last year. He has a severely undersized roster, but it was very quick. Then once Cubillan showed he had his jumper back and DJO came out of the blocks immediately as an impact player, Buzz implemented an offensive system that fully maximized the strengths of the main six players he'd trust using. He also was willing to almost always keep a very undersized roster on the floor because those guys were his best players and made opposing coaches adjust to our quickness instead of putting some height on the floor just to have height on the floor as coaches do sometimes.
That team of players and coaches last year was a group that for me at least as a fan i found myself to be very proud of in how they represented the university on and off the court. They played their assses off every night even though they had very little help on the bench, were majorly undersized, and none besides Lazar/DJO were highly recruited kids. They just flat out brought it each night regardless of their limitations.
-
Yes college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette prior to the season and understandably so IMO. The players though clearly were better than 12th in the Big East.
That said, i do think Buzz did a fabulous job melding together what he had available to get 11 Big East wins. The team was severely undersized and had few bench options to help out when the main guys got tired or in foul trouble.
...
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year. I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much. I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate. I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.
-
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year. I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much. I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate. I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.
By saying a team "over-achieved" doesn't mean i'm implying that the coach should get all the credit for it.
While i do think those main 6-7 guys took on a mentality that Buzz preached of always playing extremely hard, being tough, and playing a quick pace even though there were few bench options to help with potential fatigue, it was those kids who had to actually produce and fight on the court, not the coaches.
A coach can preach physical toughness, mental toughness, and playing hard all the time for which opposing Big East coaches and in game announcers constantly praised our team for last year, but we've all seen that not every college player will actually do that. Not all college kids will buy in completely to a team first mentality. Well, last season those main 6-7 players were more talented than Big East coaches/college analysts expected, but they also did play as hard as any team out there and IMO that played a partial role in allowing them to win that many games even though they were so undersized and there was little help off the bench.
A team/the players can "over-achieve" to a degree without that having to mean the players involved were mainly just low talent stiffs who won almost entirely via hustle. There can be a middle ground where a fairly talented group of kids reach say 11 Big East wins instead of 8 because they were selfless team first players who by always giving 100% were better able to cover up for team flaws or limitations. I believe that because often enough in college ball we see the complete reverse. Supposedly very talented college teams that are expected to be really good, but not all of the players buy into a team first mentality and/or don't always play hard, so they end up losing quite a few more games than expected.
-
A team/the players can "over-achieve" to a degree without that having to mean the players involved were mainly just low talent stiffs who won almost entirely via hustle. There can be a middle ground where a fairly talented group of kids reach say 11 Big East wins instead of 8 because they were selfless team first players who by always giving 100% were better able to cover up for team flaws or limitations. I believe that because often enough in college ball we see the complete reverse. Supposedly very talented college teams that are expected to be really good, but not all of the players buy into a team first mentality and/or don't always play hard, so they end up losing quite a few more games than expected.
This has nothing to do with the coach. Everyone did a good job last year. My issue is with MU fans saying that their talent level should have gotten them only 8 BE wins (the way they say it, many seem to think that number should be lower). I don't think they won 3 more games than their talent would indicate last year (in fact, DePaul...) - which 3 would you switch because they ground out a win they otherwise wouldn't have? They beat the teams below them, lost to the teams above them, and had a good season. They were talented enough to win 11 games. "Over-achieving" implies that they weren't, and I want to know why people still believe that, even with hindsight.
-
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year. I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much. I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate. I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.
I don't think it should be taken as an insult per se. I don't think any of us knew what we had before the season started. Who knew DJO would perform as he did? Who knew that Cuby was recovered and Mo would play as well as he did? Many unknowns last year, as there was this year.
-
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year.
Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.
-
I don't think it should be taken as an insult per se. I don't think any of us knew what we had before the season started. Who knew DJO would perform as he did? Who knew that Cuby was recovered and Mo would play as well as he did? Many unknowns last year, as there was this year.
So they exceeded expectations - they didn't "over-achieve".
To answer your questions... I had every confidence that a senior Mo Acker could be an effective PG. I did not think Cuby would be able to turn it around though. And I did feel like a newcomer would be a contributing factor to our success, though I didn't know which newcomer nor could I have guessed how good he would be.
-
Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.
But remember: Marquette84 has the perspective of little Stanford taking on the Mighty Trojans of USC. In Joanie's weltanschauung the bar has been pegged mighty high. Mighty high indeed.
"I know Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is a brother of mine. Buzz Williams is no Jim Harbaugh."
-
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.
The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.
-
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.
The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.
People picked us in the bottom half of the BE again this year; expectations were not too optimistic.
Honestly, I think that the denigration is the 12th place pick to begin with, but either way you can't say in hindsight that the talent on that team did that much better than they should have been able to, just better than a bunch of uninformed predictions said they would do.
-
Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.
We underachieved in five specific games--DePaul, Florida State, NC State, Notre Dame and Washington
We really only overachieved in one game--Villanova in the BET.
-
It happens when we have been to the tournament 5 years in a row. Also because Marquette really should be in Louisville's position right now at 7-2 in conference (2nd place by ourselfs, basically auto-bid into the NCAA tournament) but we choked it away; now an NCAA bid is not even close to automatic.
-
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.
No. Whether a team Under- or over-achieves can only be based on the actual talent we had.
Expectations can be wrong.
Say you're like Lenny, where you thought that there was no way that DJO could come close to taking the place of McNeal in the backcourt. He never really stated exactly what his expectations were, but let's say he believed DJO was a 15 mpg/5ppg player.
Yet from day one, we knew that DJO was going to be special. 10 games into the season, he was averaging nearly 30 mpg and 13 ppg.
Did he overachive? No--he's AVERAGING that. From day one.
Clearly DJO is giving you exactly what he was always capable of delivering. Clearly the low expectations were wrong.
Now lets say you face Villanova--coming in with nearly 30 mpg and 13 ppg. And you only play 17 minutes and 4 points. I say that is underachiving.
The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.
[/quote]
-
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, last year's team achieved results greater than the sum of its parts. Acker and Cubillan's skills were maximized, and that's not debatable. That is a sign of great coaching. The rest is just pointless "overachieved/underachieved" semantics.
-
We underachieved in five specific games--DePaul, Florida State, NC State, Notre Dame and Washington
We really only overachieved in one game--Villanova in the BET.
So based on our "talent" MU should have been 13-5 and tied for 2nd in the Big East. That translates into at least 2-1 in the conference tourney. So in your world our "talent" equated to a 26-7 regular season, resulting in a 2 or 3 seed in the tourney and a minimum Sweet 16 and quite likely Elite 8 finish (either 28-8 or 28-9). And that's just if Buzz gets out of the way and let's our mega talent take over. If he actually does something positive with it we're at least in the Final 4 and we're probably talking National Championship. Certainly no agenda evident in those kind of expectations.
-
No. Whether a team Under- or over-achieves can only be based on the actual talent we had.
So, Joanie, what was the coach's impact in little Stanford vanquishing The Mighty Trojans of USC?
"I know Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is a brother of mine. Buzz Williams is no Jim Harbaugh!"
-
So based on our "talent" MU should have been 13-5 and tied for 2nd in the Big East. That translates into at least 2-1 in the conference tourney. So in your world our "talent" equated to a 26-7 regular season, resulting in a 2 or 3 seed in the tourney and a minimum Sweet 16 and quite likely Elite 8 finish (either 28-8 or 28-9). And that's just if Buzz gets out of the way and let's our mega talent take over. If he actually does something positive with it we're at least in the Final 4 and we're probably talking National Championship. Certainly no agenda evident in those kind of expectations.
So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent? Really?
And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET). So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".
But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament. Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round? How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?
-
So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent? Really?
And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET). So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".
But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament. Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round? How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?
Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.
The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement for a team consisting of Mo Acker, David Cubillan, DJO, JFB, Lazar and almost no bench. I think that's insane.
-
So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent? Really?
And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET). So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".
But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament. Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round? How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?
The fact that we were a 6 seed in the first place is the overachievement. Given what we had on last year's team I don't see how anybody could or would argue otherwise.
-
Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.
The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement for a team consisting of Mo Acker, David Cubillan, DJO, JFB, Lazar and almost no bench. I think that's insane.
No kidding
Those five guys and basically just Buycks beat Xavier, Villanova, Georgetown, and Louisville.
Besides beating those tourney teams, beating teams like Seton Hall, Cincinnati, and UConn on the road wouldn't be easy wins for any team.
There were also the very close losses on the road to a pair of two seeds in WV and Villanova. Yea they ended up being losses, but that doesn't diminish the great efforts the team put up on the road vs two very good teams.
I actually think this year's MU team has more talent than last year's team, but talent isn't everything. Last year there were three seniors who were on the court most of the time. That type of senior leadership i think would have prevented a loss or two that the team this year has struggled with when try to hold on to second half leads. DJO not being able to hit from the perimeter early in the season also factored into close losses to Duke and Gonzaga. If he wasn't so frigid from the perimeter in both of those games, i think we win at least one of them.
-
"or El Duderino...if brevity isn't your thing..."
-
Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.
Of course our talent was better than ND. We had far more athleticism, our stud was a first rounder (versus late 2nd for Harangody), Acker was a better PG. We had more JUCO AAs and HS top 100 players.
Plus we were playing at home.
The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record
No. This is where your inability to apply critical thinking gets you into trouble.
A loss to a 50/50 team would have been understandable. Had we finished 11-7, but those losses were to Georgetown or Louisville instead of Notre Dame and DePaul, that wouldn't have been a sign of any underachivement.
My point is that a team that can beat Georgetown and Louisville SHOULD be able to have beaten Notre Dame at home and DePaul on any court in the nation.
and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement
Again, it depends on where the losses come. Certainly losing to an 11 seed (when you're a six) is an underachievement. Had we won the first game, losing to the #3 seed in the 2nd round would not have been an underachivement--it would have been expected.
for a team consisting of Mo Acker (#4 nationally in A:T ratio), David Cubillan (#7 offensive rating in the Big East) , DJO (#6 3 point shooting percentage nationally, #1 in conference), JFB (#6 offensive rating nationally, #1 in the Big East) , Lazar(Only first round pick other than Wade in last 30 years) and almost no bench(15.9 ppg, 11 rpg).
Earlier you got mad because I claimed you said our players weren't very good.
Now you're just listing their names in an attempt to suggest that they weren't very good.
-
The fact that we were a 6 seed in the first place is the overachievement. Given what we had on last year's team I don't see how anybody could or would argue otherwise.
See above.
I've made my points. I think that last year's team was more talented than you all seem to want to give them credit for. They did a great job and got some good results, but it wasn't because of magic. They were a talented bunch that worked hard, played to their potential, and got good results.
I'm done with this for now. Have a nice day to all.
-
Again, it depends on where the losses come. Certainly losing to an 11 seed (when you're a six) is an underachievement. Had we won the first game, losing to the #3 seed in the 2nd round would not have been an underachivement--it would have been expected.
I get that 3<6<11. So in your simplistic world the 3 seed is always more talented than the 6 seed and the 6 seed is always more talented than the 11 seed. One problem - it's not always true - and you'd know that if you actually paid attention. Washington was red hot coming into last year's tournament and was every bit our equal if not our better. I was sure that the winner of our game would have NO problem with the very overrated 3 seeded New Mexico. So when Washington crushed New Mexico 82-64 you were shocked by what you incorrectly assumed was a monumental over/under performance. For me, the game went as expected.