New Orleans fans "feel sorry for MU players"

[Pakuni]

I think you are over simplifying the recruiting question.  Can he recruit a winning team outside of Texas?  As a head coach?  Without Gillespie?  In the Big East?  Again, I don't think you can say Buzz has proven himself yet.

I'm not oversimplfying the question. You're changing the question the suit your position.
The question was "Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?"
The answer is yes.
Since you apparently aren't satisfied with that answer, you've changed the question to "Can Buzz recruit a winning team outside of the state of Texas, inside the Big East, as a head coach, without Billy Gillespie?"
OK, fair enough. He hasn't proven that. Which is exactly what I said.
Of course, he hasn't had an opportunity to prove that. Might as well ask whether Buzz has proven he can win back-to-back games against Wisconsin. Makes about as much sense.

I have two issues with your out coaching examples.  One, he had a better team in both instances.  Does anyone think we are equal to Wisconsin or Providence?  Two, the sample size is awfully small to call it proof. Buzz was an unknown this year.  Who knew what his style or philosophy was going to be?  What will happen when other coaches become familiar with Buzz?  One more time, I think it is a little early to say he has proved that he can out coach other top coaches.

Once again, you're changing the question.

Apparently, it's your position that the coach of a more talented team can never outcoach an opponent. Fair enough. Then you would have to agree that Buzz clearly was never outcoached this season by Jim Calhoun, Jamie Dixon, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino or Jay Wright. Because all those guys had better talent. And it's likely, by your logic, Roy Williams never will outcoach anyone. At least this year or last year. Because no one has had more talent.

You're suggesting Buzz's coaching success is due, or at least partially due, to opponents not knowing him and what he's going to do? Before the invention of film, your argument might hold some water. The Providence game was MU's 18th of the season. Pretty sure Keno had an inkling by then what MU is all about.
If you really believe that Bo and Keno weren't outcoached in those games, you simply weren't paying attention. MU came back from significant deficits in both games because of moves Buzz made and the lack of moves those coaches made in response.

As for the sample size, not sure how that's relevant. The question was "Has he proved he can out coach anyone?" It wasn't "Has he proved he can outcoach 14 different coaches in games in which those other coaches had more talent?"

The arguments being made to prove that Buzz has proven himself are a little weak IMO.

Fine. I'm not making that argument. In fact, I said Buzz still has a lot to prove.

[MUSF]

I'm not oversimplfying the question. You're changing the question the suit your position.
The question was "Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?"
The answer is yes.
Since you apparently aren't satisfied with that answer, you've changed the question to "Can Buzz recruit a winning team outside of the state of Texas, inside the Big East, as a head coach, without Billy Gillespie?"
OK, fair enough. He hasn't proven that. Which is exactly what I said.
Of course, he hasn't had an opportunity to prove that. Might as well ask whether Buzz has proven he can win back-to-back games against Wisconsin. Makes about as much sense.


Once again, you're changing the question.

Apparently, it's your position that the coach of a more talented team can never outcoach an opponent. Fair enough. Then you would have to agree that Buzz clearly was never outcoached this season by Jim Calhoun, Jamie Dixon, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino or Jay Wright. Because all those guys had better talent. And it's likely, by your logic, Roy Williams never will outcoach anyone. At least this year or last year. Because no one has had more talent.

You're suggesting Buzz's coaching success is due, or at least partially due, to opponents not knowing him and what he's going to do? Before the invention of film, your argument might hold some water. The Providence game was MU's 18th of the season. Pretty sure Keno had an inkling by then what MU is all about.
If you really believe that Bo and Keno weren't outcoached in those games, you simply weren't paying attention. MU came back from significant deficits in both games because of moves Buzz made and the lack of moves those coaches made in response.

As for the sample size, not sure how that's relevant. The question was "Has he proved he can out coach anyone?" It wasn't "Has he proved he can outcoach 14 different coaches in games in which those other coaches had more talent?"

Fine. I'm not making that argument. In fact, I said Buzz still has a lot to prove.

Buzz Williams is currently a head coach.  When someone makes a statement that he hasn't proven that he can recruit a winning team, I think it is safe to assume that they are talking about his ability as a head coach.  You brought that up yourself.  I think it goes beyond just the "as a head coach," angle into many other variables which I listed.  To your point, yes, I guess I am changing the literal question but it is playing coy to address only the literal question and not the obvious implication.

Example:  Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota.  When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled  His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach.  Was he really a great offensive coach?  Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith?  Did he have other great coaches around him?  Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC.  In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator.  Nothing more nothing less.

As for the lack of opportunity, you are exactly right.  I have not, nor has Rawdog, demanded that Buzz prove anything.  He hasn't had the opportunity to prove a lot of things which is why I have said numerous times, that I am going to reserve judgement on his ability as a HC.

It is not my position that a more talented team can never out coach an opponent.  However, I think evenly matched teams or upset victories would provide the best case study to determine whether one coach out coached another coach.  I also was trying to make the point that I don't think one game proves much of anything in terms of coaching ability.  When attempting to prove that a drug cures cancer, do you stop after the first test?  Or do you conduct more trials with different controls and variables?  If Bo Ryan beats Buzz for the next 7 years, would you still say that he has proved that he could out coach Bo?  Or, would you say that he beat Bo with a talented bunch of seniors when Wisconsin was having a down year?

I do think that Buzz being new has a certain advantage.  10 years from now other coaches may know that Buzz has never changed his motion offense or used a 3-2 zone but right now, they have to be prepared for almost anything.

Let me say again, I think Buzz did an adequate to good job this year.  I think he has shown potential for greatness at times this season and made some rookie mistakes.  I will make my judgement on his abilities and true potential after a few years.

[RaleighWarrior]

1983 (old guy here)

'83 journalism here too.

[4everwarriors]

IU's season is over?  You mean he can't get the NIT to bring Western Michigan to Bloomington?

I understand the banner is being manufactured as we type.

[Lennys Tap]

normally when I’m this annoyed with someone's inability to understand a post I count to ten before responding, but I’m in a hurry.

Oh, my agenda is clear is it?  Pray tell what do you think it is?  If you think it’s:  To wait a few years and then evaluate Buzz after seeing him work with his own team. You are correct.  Yeah that makes me a huge dick.
BIAS?  That poster said beyond a reasonable doubt, I brought up reasons for a reasonable doubt, doubt of something that I THINK IS TRUE.  That isn't bias, did you go to MU? Do you understand what critical thinking is?

A new low point?  Seriously.  That post was a new low point?  Someone comes on here and says we should fire the guy but I’m actually lower than him because I said that I THINK he’s good but think that he still has some work to do to PROVE IT?  Stupid.

I'm sorry that it takes more than ONE season (in which no 'special' wins occurred) TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You are f'ing insane if you think that post showed any sort of agenda or bias.  Stop polishing buzz's nob for a second and try and understand what posters are saying.  I wasn't saying that he SHOULD have proved any of that.  I wasn't saying that he had an OPPORTUINTY to.  And I certainty wasn't saying that he has proved that he wasn't a good coach.  I don’t know why it would be unfair to say that a coach needs to recruit his own team and win some games that matter for him to be ‘Proven.’




Rawdog,

I'll address your personal insults first and then discuss some of our substantive disagreements.
1.I don't think that I'm "f'ing insane". At least I've never been institutionalized and therefore have never been judged to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".
2.I have never "polished Buzz's knob". I have, in fact, never even met him. I can't prove this but am willing to take a polygraph if you'll pay for it.
3. I may indeed be "stupid" though I think most reasonable people would want more "proof" of this than your opinion however informed you may think it is.
4.I did indeed attend MU and, as much as it may shock you, graduated. This I can prove beyond "a shadow of a doubt" as I have "papers" to prove it.
5.I am told by some that "critical thinking" is one of my strong points. I don't for a minute expect you to accept this as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", but I respectfully submit that your assertions to the contrary are, at most, informed opinions.


Regarding more substantive matters, I'd like to begin with the first poster you attacked. His statement was that Buzz had proven to be a "solid coach" beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with him that Buzz has proven at least solid at coaching the game of basketball. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone and his brother acknowledges his career will ultimately hinge on whether he can "recruit a winning team" and that time alone can answer that question.

On your second point, I stand by my statement that Butler has developed under Buzz. I can't PROVE it to you any more than you can PROVE he hasn't developed. If you really believe he hasn't your in an extremely small minority. I can PROVE to you that you are wrong about people calling Butler a wasted scholarship but my time is worth more than the $1 incentive you offer. You can look it up yourself.

Your 3rd point is that Buzz hasn't outcoached anyone. That's your OPINION. Others have a different OPINION. Since it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove either way it is meaningless.

Finally, you say he hasn't pulled any upsets. Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" says you are wrong, yet you have the temerity to suggest that when a 5 point UNDERDOG beats the FAVORITE it's not an upset. And you know this why? Because you live in Vegas and spend 10-20 hours a week in casinos? Congrats on what must be your only hobby, but I'm guessing if Vegas will let me bet the money line pay me $1.70 or so for each $1 I bet on a 5 pt dog they think it's an upset.

[bartmiller#1]

Example:  Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota.  When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled  His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach.  Was he really a great offensive coach?  Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith?  Did he have other great coaches around him?  Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC.  In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator.  Nothing more nothing less.

Two points:

Bill B. never coached in Minnesota or Baltimore.  I think you're referring to Brian Billick, who is an entirely different type of coach.

Regardless, I think your comparison is weak.  Buzz had a great year-- a better year than Crean had last year-- with the same talent.  IMO, he can coach.  He's proven that he can-- and he's also proven that he can recruit based on the results from his years as an assistant and the rankings of the guys coming in next year.

I agree with all of Pakuni's statements.

While he might not be Bellichek, he's certainly better than Billick. 

[Lennys Tap]

Buzz Williams is currently a head coach.  When someone makes a statement that he hasn't proven that he can recruit a winning team, I think it is safe to assume that they are talking about his ability as a head coach.  You brought that up yourself.  I think it goes beyond just the "as a head coach," angle into many other variables which I listed.  To your point, yes, I guess I am changing the literal question but it is playing coy to address only the literal question and not the obvious implication.

Example:  Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota.  When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled  His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach.  Was he really a great offensive coach?  Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith?  Did he have other great coaches around him?  Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC.  In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator.  Nothing more nothing less.

As for the lack of opportunity, you are exactly right.  I have not, nor has Rawdog, demanded that Buzz prove anything.  He hasn't had the opportunity to prove a lot of things which is why I have said numerous times, that I am going to reserve judgement on his ability as a HC.

It is not my position that a more talented team can never out coach an opponent.  However, I think evenly matched teams or upset victories would provide the best case study to determine whether one coach out coached another coach.  I also was trying to make the point that I don't think one game proves much of anything in terms of coaching ability.  When attempting to prove that a drug cures cancer, do you stop after the first test?  Or do you conduct more trials with different controls and variables?  If Bo Ryan beats Buzz for the next 7 years, would you still say that he has proved that he could out coach Bo?  Or, would you say that he beat Bo with a talented bunch of seniors when Wisconsin was having a down year?

I do think that Buzz being new has a certain advantage.  10 years from now other coaches may know that Buzz has never changed his motion offense or used a 3-2 zone but right now, they have to be prepared for almost anything.

Let me say again, I think Buzz did an adequate to good job this year.  I think he has shown potential for greatness at times this season and made some rookie mistakes.  I will make my judgement on his abilities and true potential after a few years.




That paragraph about "Bill Belicheck"(sic) cracks me up. Your great assistant coach (who won nothing at Minnesota) goes on to be a failure as a head coach (winning the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at QB). By the way, his name is Brian Billeck. Other than that you're spot on.
Maybe you should stay within the realm of your expertise.That would be college/Marquette basketball,right? [/color]

[GGGG]

Two points:

Bill B. never coached in Minnesota or Baltimore.  I think you're referring to Brian Billick, who is an entirely different type of coach.

Regardless, I think your comparison is weak.  Buzz had a great year-- a better year than Crean had last year-- with the same talent. 

He has not had a better year than Crean had last year.  He may yet if they get to the Sweet 16, but Crean went further into the BE tournament.

[wildbill sb]

Another one:  It's "a lot" not alot.  No such word, unless you're misspelling "allot."  Sorry, it's the MU Journalism degree making me do it.

And of course, the old standby:  a personal pronoun in the objective case used as the subject of a sentence.  Arrrrrgh!

[Pakuni]

He has not had a better year than Crean had last year.  He may yet if they get to the Sweet 16, but Crean went further into the BE tournament.

I guess if progress in the BE tournament is your lone measure of success, then you're correct.
Buf for those of us willing to gauge success by more than just having one more game in the conference tourney, then, by and large (and particularly before DJ's injury), this team has performed better than last year's. And, arguably, with less with which to work. Certainly less depth, and less ability in the post.

[GGGG]

A coach's success is ultimately determined by how far he gets his team in the NCAA tournament.  Beyond that, you have to look at conference tournaments and overall record. 

Last year's team had seven conference losses...this one had six.  Non-conference, last year MU only lost to Duke by four points.  It can be argued that they had roughly the same regular seasons.  Last year's team upset ND in the BE quarters though...this team didn't pull off the same type of upset.

So IMO it comes down to the NCAA's.  Get into the Sweet 16 and Buzz has had a better year.  And yeah, I understand that DJ's injury throws a wrench into the equation, but MU and Crean had a very good year last year.  Buzz has not exceeded that yet.

[romey]

And of course, the old standby:  a personal pronoun in the objective case used as the subject of a sentence.  Arrrrrgh!

I'll remember that in the future.  Thank you.

[Pakuni]

So IMO it comes down to the NCAA's.  Get into the Sweet 16 and Buzz has had a better year.  And yeah, I understand that DJ's injury throws a wrench into the equation, but MU and Crean had a very good year last year.  Buzz has not exceeded that yet.

DJ's injury does more than "throw a wrench" into the equation. It blows up the equation. Last year's team - with DJ and Ooze - was better, probably much better, than the team Buzz will take into the tournament.

To say - now - that the only true comparison between their respective coaching jobs is how far their different teams go into the tourney is patently inaccurate.
It's like arguing whether Bill Self did a better job coaching last year or this year. By your logic, it clearly was last year. After all, Kansas won the national championship. And yet Self already has won (at least) two national coach of the year awards for his work with a team this year probably will not win the national championship.

[GGGG]

DJ's injury does more than "throw a wrench" into the equation. It blows up the equation. Last year's team - with DJ and Ooze - was better, probably much better, than the team Buzz will take into the tournament.

Without DJ...yes.  But that has only been the last few games.  I think this team, with the big three having one more year and will Jimmy Butler, is better than last year's team.  I liked Ooze, but he hardly was the difference maker that Butler is.

[MUSF]

That paragraph about "Bill Belicheck"(sic) cracks me up. Your great assistant coach (who won nothing at Minnesota) goes on to be a failure as a head coach (winning the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at QB). By the way, his name is Brian Billeck. Other than that you're spot on.
Maybe you should stay within the realm of your expertise.That would be college/Marquette basketball,right? [/color]

Ok, I got it, it's Billeck (sp?).  My bad.

Now, you are all missing the point.  I never said Billick was a failure as a head coach, and I never said he won anything in Minnesota.  The initial point was about Buzz proving his ability to recruit a winning team at A&M, which by the way, if we use your standard for winning, Buzz's A&M recruits, "never won anything," because they didn't win an NCAA championship.  See, that Minnesota Vikings team lost one regular season game, won their division, and went to the NFC championship game. So, if they didn't win anything, then what did Buzz's A&M teams win?

To the point, we were discussing a specific part of the college game, recruiting.  I compared that to another specific part of the NFL game, offense.  Buzz has proved, as an assistant, that he had skill in that specific area.  Billick proved that he had skill as an offensive coordinator.  Billick's offensive abilities as an assistant didn't translate in that specific area when he became a head coach.  He won a Super Bowl with one of the best defenses in the history of the NFL and a pretty pedestrian offense.  Time will tell if Buzz's ability to recruit a winning team as an assistant will translate to the same success as a head coach.

[MUSF]

You know what, let's use an example that is a little closer to home.

There is absolutely no question that Crean proved he could recruit a winning team at MSU.  His recruits at MSU won a national championship and multiple Big Ten titles.  That's a little better than Buzz's resume as an assistant.

Now, there are many people here that would claim that TC didn't display the same recruiting ability at MU.  If you believe that TC was not a great recruiter at MU then you must admit that what he proved as an assistant didn't mean much in terms of head coaching ability.

You can hand the keys to the castle over to Buzz right now if you want.  I'm going to wait and see.

[Pakuni]

You can hand the keys to the castle over to Buzz right now if you want.  I'm going to wait and see.

Oh, please. Nobody is handing anybody the keys to the castle.
The vast majority of posters here - including those that like Buzz and think he's performed well - agree he still has much to prove.

[rocky_warrior]

OT: Dear all - esp Lenny & MUSF,

Please make sure you start typing your post under the line that says [/quote]

It will make responses much easier to read. 

Thank you.

[Pakuni]

Without DJ...yes.  But that has only been the last few games.  I think this team, with the big three having one more year and will Jimmy Butler, is better than last year's team.  I liked Ooze, but he hardly was the difference maker that Butler is.

Before DJ went down, this team was 24-5, 12-2 in conference and ranked in the top 10. They were in far better position and performing far better than they had the previous year.

Jimmy Butler is not a difference maker, at least not this year. He's a luxury.
If given a choice for this team, I'd take Ooze over Jimmy without thinking twice. Not because Ooze is the better player - he's not -but because he fills a far greater need. With Ooze, MU had a small semblance of a post threat, a guy who could give you 6-12 points on a given night along with a steady 6+ boards every night. And he could give the team some defense - and five more fouls - against the likes of Blair (who scored eight points in two games against MU last year), Thabeet, etc. Right now, all MU has is Burke, who's not bad defensively, but is a major, major liability on the offensive side of the court. MU might as well be playing 4-on-5 when he's out there.

Again, I'm not arguing who's the better player. But the team would be better off with a guy like Ooze simply because they're so soft in the middle and get so little out of the post position.

[MUSF]

Oh, please. Nobody is handing anybody the keys to the castle.
The vast majority of posters here - including those that like Buzz and think he's performed well - agree he still has much to prove.

Then why take issue with Rawdog or me?  That is all either of us has been saying.  When Rawdog claimed that Buzz had much to prove, Lenny went off on Rawdog's "anti-Buzz agenda."  You started pointing to all the ways that Buzz has already proven himself then attached the disclaimer that you think he still has much to prove.

I like Buzz and think he has performed well but there is no way that Buzz has proved, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that he is a "solid" coach.  Those comments sound to me like someone who has already made up their mind and is ready to hand the keys over to Buzz.  That is what Rawdog and I were taking issue with.  

[Pakuni]

Then why take issue with Rawdog or me?  That is all either of us has been saying.  When Rawdog claimed that Buzz had much to prove, Lenny went off on Rawdog's "anti-Buzz agenda."  You started pointing to all the ways that Buzz has already proven himself then attached the disclaimer that you think he still has much to prove.

I've never suggested either of you have an anti-Buzz agenda, so I can't speak to that. But what I did was answer/take issue with the obviously rhetorical questions Rawdog had asked regarding what had Buzz proven. Because his clear implication was that Buzz had proven nothing - including the things he brought up. Because, contrary to what he was implying, Buzz has outcoached someone(s) and Buzz had recruited a winning team. I'm not sure why there's an argument, because the facts are there for all to see. I suspect you agree, because you went about changing Rawdog's questions.

Is it not possible to believe Buzz has proven some things, and yet still has much to prove? To the best of my knowledge, those aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

[MUSF]

I've never suggested either of you have an anti-Buzz agenda, so I can't speak to that. But what I did was answer/take issue with the obviously rhetorical questions Rawdog had asked regarding what had Buzz proven. Because his clear implication was that Buzz had proven nothing - including the things he brought up. Because, contrary to what he was implying, Buzz has outcoached someone(s) and Buzz had recruited a winning team. I'm not sure why there's an argument, because the facts are there for all to see. I suspect you agree, because you went about changing Rawdog's questions.

Is it not possible to believe Buzz has proven some things, and yet still has much to prove? To the best of my knowledge, those aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

It is quite possible, and quite true, that Buzz has proven some things.  I do agree, and I acknowledged "changing" the question, because I think there was a clear implication that Rawdog was speaking about Buzz as a head coach/our head coach. 

I don't think there was a clear implication from Rawdog's post that Buzz had proven nothing.  I think his post was quite clear in stating that Buzz has not yet proven himself in the specific areas listed and that overall Buzz has not proven himself to be a solid coach beyond a reasonable doubt, as others have claimed. 

So, since you disagree with the specific points Rawdog raised and you take issue with my position on the matter, I wonder, in what areas do you think Buzz still has much to prove?  I don't know what could be left to prove since he has proven that he can recruit a winning team, he can out coach other good coaches, and he can beat teams with superior talent. 

[LCDutchman]

Grow up or move to Indiana and get a Crean and Crimson sweat shirt.  I don't agree with them but the psychology is interesting?  You sir are an idiot.

[MR.HAYWARD]

well said lcdutchman he reaLLY IS  i can only imagine how many times someone has kicked the s#!t out of him.

[ChicosBailBonds]

LOL.  Nope, never has happened but if you want to go toe to toe Joey I'm up for it.