Marquette's Brand and Bigs

[Wareagle]

I think that there is a lot of discussion that implicates Marquette's "brand" of basketball, but I haven't seen a separate post for it.  I'll give my thoughts and I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions. 

- Marquette, like it or not, is now thought of as a guard/wing-oriented team that generates offense through penetration or transition off steals or missed shots. 

- This, more than anything else, explains why Crean is unable to land that big that the entire board covets.  Just imagine yourself, as a 6-11 prospect looking at a lineup where the 5 spot averages 10% of the team's total points and the three best players on the team are guards, all of whom will probably return for their senior seasons.  Why would you sign up to join this team?

- Even after DJ, Wes, and Jerel leave, Lazar will be a senior, and Nick Williams and Tyshawn Taylor will most likely be scoring a lion's share of the points that are left.  Add to that the possibility that Jamil Wilson becomes a Warrior in 09, and I think the unspoken for shots are starting to dry up quick.

- Unfortunately, Marquette is not one of the lucky few schools that every recruit dreams of playing for like a UNC, Duke, UCLA, or Kansas.  These schools have the luxury of reinventing themselves every 1-2 years and filling gaps with McD's AA's. 

- It is also not a school that can successfully present a full-court press to land a one or two year stud like Michael Beasley.  These players tend to go to lesser developed programs where they are guaranteed to be the focal point of the offense that will be redesigned to showcase their skills.  See Kansas St., Georgia Tech next year, Wake Forest with Chris Paul.  We are better than that, and the long term prospects of these kinds of schools are severely limited, because they will only land these types of stars once every 5-10 years, while getting scrubs in between.

- Honestly, where would most MU fans want to be right now?  We are able to recruit players with very high ceilings at the college level and who will play for at least 3 years.  If we started subscribing to the Kansas State model, we'd be bouncing in and out of the tournament on a yearly basis, probably never advancing out of the first weekend.  I know that some people would say "well, that's exactly where we are now."  I would counter this by saying that we were one missed circus shot away from being in the Sweet 16, we've made three consecutive NCAA appearances and the possibilities for next year are better than they were this year.

- There are some teams that can be annual contenders with a procession of high school all americans.  Marquette will never be able to do this, because the brands in front of it have been stronger and more established for longer than these same high schoolers have been alive.  That said, we are in a position to be able to contend for Sweet 16's annually, and Final Fours occasionally, which is more than 95% of the other 300+ teams in division 1 can say. 

- Marquette has escaped from the basketball wilderness, and has done so as a perimeter-oriented team.  Like it or not, that's what we are now, and shifting course now, after 3 consecutive NCAA appearances, and a sparkling BEast record is a mistake in my mind.

[MarquetteDano]

I think that there is a lot of discussion that implicates Marquette's "brand" of basketball, but I haven't seen a separate post for it.  I'll give my thoughts and I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions. 

- Marquette, like it or not, is now thought of as a guard/wing-oriented team that generates offense through penetration or transition off steals or missed shots. 

- This, more than anything else, explains why Crean is unable to land that big that the entire board covets.  Just imagine yourself, as a 6-11 prospect looking at a lineup where the 5 spot averages 10% of the team's total points and the three best players on the team are guards, all of whom will probably return for their senior seasons.  Why would you sign up to join this team?

You had a lot in your post but I would like to respond the two points above.  First, we are a guard oriented team because if the players we have.  Our offense, Crean runs sets.  Thus, he can simply change those sets to accomodate who is on the team.  It's not like we run the Princeton offense or something where we have to find players to fit the offense.

Remember that when Crean had Jackson and Merrit we threw the ball inside considerably.  He recruited both of them.  When we had Diener and Novak (with the big guys gone), I would not say we were "guard oriented" or penetration oriented.

Given my first point, this makes me believe point two (inability to recruit big gys) may be true currenty, but there is no reason to believe a Top 100 inside player would not come to Marquette.  In fact, as it has been stated before, a big guy who can run the floor may lick his chops thinking how all that penetration and transition will get him easy baskets.

The bottom line is that I am not willing to pidgeon hole the team as guard/penetration oriented for the rest of Crean's tenure.  Things may change.  One big recruit could do it.

[Pardner]

We are a team built on athleticism and quickness.  In TC's system, a 5 has to run the floor.  If that protype isn't there, he will plug in a 4 or lean into a project.  (We still are able to outrebound our opponents, however.)  With a guard oriented system, a post-up Big would create spacing for our guards--especially against a zone--making them that much more effective.  It was a major shortcoming this year--just look at Stanford's spacing against us.

A bigger problem this year is that we also had no one who could consistently nail a trey like Novak could.  So, with no 5 and no outside threat, the right match-up teams like UL or UCONN could blow us out without a fight by compressing their zone and closing off the entry lanes.  Yet, when we found those lanes, we blew out some very good teams which hadn't happened in quite some time.  I love the style of play, we just need the complements in place to move to the next level

[MUSF]

I think that there is a lot of discussion that implicates Marquette's "brand" of basketball, but I haven't seen a separate post for it.  I'll give my thoughts and I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions. 

- Marquette, like it or not, is now thought of as a guard/wing-oriented team that generates offense through penetration or transition off steals or missed shots. 

- This, more than anything else, explains why Crean is unable to land that big that the entire board covets.  Just imagine yourself, as a 6-11 prospect looking at a lineup where the 5 spot averages 10% of the team's total points and the three best players on the team are guards, all of whom will probably return for their senior seasons.  Why would you sign up to join this team?

- Even after DJ, Wes, and Jerel leave, Lazar will be a senior, and Nick Williams and Tyshawn Taylor will most likely be scoring a lion's share of the points that are left.  Add to that the possibility that Jamil Wilson becomes a Warrior in 09, and I think the unspoken for shots are starting to dry up quick.

- Unfortunately, Marquette is not one of the lucky few schools that every recruit dreams of playing for like a UNC, Duke, UCLA, or Kansas.  These schools have the luxury of reinventing themselves every 1-2 years and filling gaps with McD's AA's. 

- It is also not a school that can successfully present a full-court press to land a one or two year stud like Michael Beasley.  These players tend to go to lesser developed programs where they are guaranteed to be the focal point of the offense that will be redesigned to showcase their skills.  See Kansas St., Georgia Tech next year, Wake Forest with Chris Paul.  We are better than that, and the long term prospects of these kinds of schools are severely limited, because they will only land these types of stars once every 5-10 years, while getting scrubs in between.

- Honestly, where would most MU fans want to be right now?  We are able to recruit players with very high ceilings at the college level and who will play for at least 3 years.  If we started subscribing to the Kansas State model, we'd be bouncing in and out of the tournament on a yearly basis, probably never advancing out of the first weekend.  I know that some people would say "well, that's exactly where we are now."  I would counter this by saying that we were one missed circus shot away from being in the Sweet 16, we've made three consecutive NCAA appearances and the possibilities for next year are better than they were this year.

- There are some teams that can be annual contenders with a procession of high school all americans.  Marquette will never be able to do this, because the brands in front of it have been stronger and more established for longer than these same high schoolers have been alive.  That said, we are in a position to be able to contend for Sweet 16's annually, and Final Fours occasionally, which is more than 95% of the other 300+ teams in division 1 can say. 

- Marquette has escaped from the basketball wilderness, and has done so as a perimeter-oriented team.  Like it or not, that's what we are now, and shifting course now, after 3 consecutive NCAA appearances, and a sparkling BEast record is a mistake in my mind.

A lot of things to discuss here.

First, I'm not sure I buy your overall premise that MUs "brand" of BBall excludes big men.

The reason we have a hard time recruiting a top big prospect is that they are hard to find. How many 6'11 plus prospects with talent and polished post skills are out there? How many good big men playing now were considered projects?

You say we are not a program like Duke but look what happened to a program like Duke this year. They had some great post prospects that were McDonalds All-Americans who never worked out. Now they are a perimeter oriented as we are. It can happen to anyone because it is hard to find good bigs with ability that translates to the next level. Look at the NBA draft. How many bigs bust? How many PGs? Do you think the Bucks would rather have Chris Paul right now or Bogut? It's easier to find good guards.

You also say that we aren't capable of putting on a full court press for a guy like Beasly but I think it is more an issue of us being unwilling to go after a guy like Beasley.

[Wareagle]

When I talked about Beasley, I meant that Crean wouldn't do it, because of the way our team is structured and the values our program has.  We simply can't offer what K-State did, and I think that's a good thing.  We are too good year in and year out to be able to be a black canvas for a fly by night superstar.  I should have been more clear.

[Wareagle]

A lot of things to discuss here.

First, I'm not sure I buy your overall premise that MUs "brand" of BBall excludes big men.

The reason we have a hard time recruiting a top big prospect is that they are hard to find. How many 6'11 plus prospects with talent and polished post skills are out there? How many good big men playing now were considered projects?

You say we are not a program like Duke but look what happened to a program like Duke this year. They had some great post prospects that were McDonalds All-Americans who never worked out. Now they are a perimeter oriented as we are. It can happen to anyone because it is hard to find good bigs with ability that translates to the next level. Look at the NBA draft. How many bigs bust? How many PGs? Do you think the Bucks would rather have Chris Paul right now or Bogut? It's easier to find good guards.

You also say that we aren't capable of putting on a full court press for a guy like Beasly but I think it is more an issue of us being unwilling to go after a guy like Beasley.

I will give you an example of two teams that can recuit bigs consistently.  Gtown and Wisconsin.  UW has the #11 big in the country coming in next year, replacing an albeit overrated McDonald's employee of the month.  Gtown has Monroe coming in, who is the top rated big in the country.  I also believe that you'd have to place UW at the top of the pack to land Evan Anderson as well.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a value judgment on whether or not the programs are better, just that it's possible to consistently do it without being a Duke or North Carolina. 

Gtown has done this for years on end, and since Ryan era began there seems to have been copious amounts of tall white people roll through that program.  I don't think there is a coincidence that either of these schools can land bigs as frequently as they do.  In the public's mind, they both play slow grind it out styles with the bigs heavily involved in the action.  I'm not making a value judgment on if this is a good style or not, I just believe their ability to consistently get highly rated talent to fill those spots is not luck.

[MUSF]

GTown has history: Ewing, Mutumbo, Mourning, Harrington, Hibbert
I also think you have to put GTown's program a level above us now.

Wisconsin recruits bigs that fit their system. They are un-athletic and wouldn't be as successful in many other programs. Sure Butch would have helped us but is he much better than Merritt? How many of their bigs will be on an NBA roster anytime soon?

[Pardner]

If we recruited that type of Big as GT or UW, we would also have to change the type of guards and forwards we recruit to fit the style of play we would have to employ.  TC's system ideally would call for a Love or Hansbrough who can run behind the defense in transition and who could post up in the half court.  Not a lot of those types out there for us to grab, so we end up like MSU or Duke looking for athletic 4's with big wingspans. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Crean has adjusted based on the type of players he's had.  When we had Jackson and Merritt, we played a more traditional low post type of game.  When we've missed out on Butch or Stiemsma, he went in a different direction and played to the talents of the team.

That is what a good coach does.  But Crean will go whatever direction he can based on the talent he has at his disposal.  Keaton Nankivil sits on the bench right now in Madison and Crean wanted him badly....but Keaton rots on the bench over there.  It's not like Crean doesn't want a big or bigs, he does and would utilize them.

The bigs we have now are not offensive threats, thus they are there to rebound, set picks, etc.  If he had a talented big offensively, he would use him (like he has proven in the past) more in a traditional set.

Heck, he found plenty of looks even for Barro though Barro couldn't always convert.  Problem is that those skilled offensive bigs (Fazekas, Butch, etc) we have continued to come in runner-up for in their services.  If I'm a big, I'd say "I start right away for those guys and I'm the missing piece".  Maybe one of them comes around some day to that conclusion.  Until then, some will continue to rot on the bench for their 1 year of glory. 

[Wareagle]

GTown has history: Ewing, Mutumbo, Mourning, Harrington, Hibbert
I also think you have to put GTown's program a level above us now.

Wisconsin recruits bigs that fit their system. They are un-athletic and wouldn't be as successful in many other programs. Sure Butch would have helped us but is he much better than Merritt? How many of their bigs will be on an NBA roster anytime soon?

Exactly, what you call "history" I call a brand.  What we have going now with guards, Gtown has with bigs, but to a more established degree. 

I don't know that I'd call Nankivil unathletic.  I think you could make the argument that he would be a fine fit in our system.

As far as Butch and Merritt, I think it's almost impossible to compare because if he came hear, he would have been a completely different player because I doubt TC would have had him put on all that weight.

[Wareagle]

Crean has adjusted based on the type of players he's had.  When we had Jackson and Merritt, we played a more traditional low post type of game.  When we've missed out on Butch or Stiemsma, he went in a different direction and played to the talents of the team.

That is what a good coach does.  But Crean will go whatever direction he can based on the talent he has at his disposal.  Keaton Nankivil sits on the bench right now in Madison and Crean wanted him badly....but Keaton rots on the bench over there.  It's not like Crean doesn't want a big or bigs, he does and would utilize them.

The bigs we have now are not offensive threats, thus they are there to rebound, set picks, etc.  If he had a talented big offensively, he would use him (like he has proven in the past) more in a traditional set.

Heck, he found plenty of looks even for Barro though Barro couldn't always convert.  Problem is that those skilled offensive bigs (Fazekas, Butch, etc) we have continued to come in runner-up for in their services.  If I'm a big, I'd say "I start right away for those guys and I'm the missing piece".  Maybe one of them comes around some day to that conclusion.  Until then, some will continue to rot on the bench for their 1 year of glory. 

Here's my thought, MU has great guards currently, and guess who is willing to come to MU in the next two years...  more highly rated guards who are suited to play a similar style to the one that is currently played.  I have no doubt in Crean's coaching ability to utilize a offensively talented big, I just feel that the path MU is trekking makes is less likely we get one. 

This isn't to say TC isn't a good recruiter who is thoroughly capable of landing a talented big, I think he is, it's just I think we have an established identity that we didn't have the couple post-Wade years that makes it less likely to land bigs, but makes it easier to land very talented guards.

[Wareagle]

If we recruited that type of Big as GT or UW, we would also have to change the type of guards and forwards we recruit to fit the style of play we would have to employ.  TC's system ideally would call for a Love or Hansbrough who can run behind the defense in transition and who could post up in the half court.  Not a lot of those types out there for us to grab, so we end up like MSU or Duke looking for athletic 4's with big wingspans. 

I agree, I think MU's recruiting hits and misses are a manifestation of the path dependency you describe. 

[NCMUFan]

I think the question is are we improving at the 4 & 5 position?  With Trevor, Hazel, Eric Williams, Fulce and Otule we will find out.  Our guards are so good it's easy to look at what appears to be our weakness.  I like our brand of basketball.  Forces everyone to play their A game and come out with a chip on their shoulders.  Which in my opinion is Warrior basketball.  We outrebounded Stanford didn't we?  McNeal, Wes and DJ were getting rebounds.  Sure we could always used bigs with greater talent but I like the team just the same.

[bma725]

I think the question is are we improving at the 4 & 5 position?  With Trevor, Hazel, Eric Williams, Fulce and Otule we will find out.  Our guards are so good it's easy to look at what appears to be our weakness.  I like our brand of basketball.  Forces everyone to play their A game and come out with a chip on their shoulders.  Which in my opinion is Warrior basketball.  We outrebounded Stanford didn't we?  McNeal, Wes and DJ were getting rebounds.  Sure we could always used bigs with greater talent but I like the team just the same.

Erik Williams is a 2/3 combo, not a 4.

[sigep80]

Let's not forget the genisis of the current "guard orientation".  Remember back just a few years ago, the year after the final four we were 9-2 in non conference but really sucked in CUSA and finished 19-12.  The next year, Travis got hurt towards the end of the year, we lost 7 out of the last 10.  With Travis out, we had no point guard.  We were terrible.  I remember watching the St Louis game, the last game of the year, and we couldn't even get the ball past half court.  I remember something like 6 or 7 staight turnovers due to full court pressure - it was obsurd. 

I think TC learned that you cannot have too many good guards.

[MUSF]

We all want some quality bigs at MU, including Crean, but I think we have seen that poor guard play is a lot more devastating than poor post play. If we have to have one at the expense of the other, I think you take guards every time. That said, I hope that we can get both some time in the near future and I am certain that TC would like to see the same thing.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Stanford has poor guard play.

[MUSF]

They played just fine against us.

Hit some big shots and didn't turn the ball over.

Just because they aren't the focal point of the team, doesn't make them poor.

[MUSF]

BTW, how is Davidson's post play?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

They played just fine against us.

Hit some big shots and didn't turn the ball over.

Just because they aren't the focal point of the team, doesn't make them poor.

No, their point guard's waist-high 1950's set shot makes him poor.

[RawdogDX]

We can recruit good g's because crean has proven he can get them into the nba.  We haven't had a post player get into the nba yet.  Once one of our projects actually pan's out and makes it he will be able to point at that player and say see, you could be the next ____ on our team if you are willing to buy into my sistem and that will pave the way for improved 5 spots.

[MUSF]

We can recruit good g's because crean has proven he can get them into the nba.  We haven't had a post player get into the nba yet.  Once one of our projects actually pan's out and makes it he will be able to point at that player and say see, you could be the next ____ on our team if you are willing to buy into my sistem and that will pave the way for improved 5 spots.

I agree to an extent but I don't think it is that simple. There are a lot of factors in recruiting. NBA development is definitely a big factor but we lost Nankivil and Butch to Wisconsin. Who is the last big from Wisconsin to play in the NBA? They went to UW because it is big State U that everyone they know follows and they felt comfortable with the prospects of playing in Bo's system. As I have said before, you don't recruit in a vaccum. There are many factors that go into recruiting and most of those factors do not work to MUs favor.

[muwarrior87]

in regards to gtown's bigs, yes, they have a history. at the same time, many considered hibbert a project his freshman year. Out of shape, pretty darn weak and not the best positioning. he had hands and the size and with the coaching he got, turned into a really solid player. there are a good amount of diamonds in the rough out there when talking about bigs, find the right ones that you can mold into your system and who blossoms at the right time and he can get national recognition as a great big.

[MUSF]

in regards to gtown's bigs, yes, they have a history. at the same time, many considered hibbert a project his freshman year. Out of shape, pretty darn weak and not the best positioning. he had hands and the size and with the coaching he got, turned into a really solid player. there are a good amount of diamonds in the rough out there when talking about bigs, find the right ones that you can mold into your system and who blossoms at the right time and he can get national recognition as a great big.

If you buy the right stock at the right time and then sell it at the right time, you can get rich.

Easier said than done.

[muwarrior87]

i know, i'm just saying that find a guy with good hands and that's pretty athletic and you can teach the positioning and get them stronger.  there are things to look for in the raw talents.  like a mark against Barro is his bad hands.  he has gotten better over the 4 years hear but that's generally something you will have in high school as well.