Luke Winn dives in with Buzz about the team, press conferences and how many ice cubes he likes in his Ice Tea. Really interesting article...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/luke_winn/10/02/marquette/?eref=sircrc
Nice article...Luke Winn is a native of Fort Atkinson BTW.
Five guard lineup? Yikes!
My same reaction... Five guard sets??? Does he know that most the other teams in the big east have big guys on the floor at all times? I am starting to get worried. They better be working Burke's tail off.
the diet pepsi jab was hilarious
Thanks to the Mbakwe transfer, a lineup with the three amigos, plus Lazar and Fulce is almost a certainty at times. Plus, we ran 4 guards plus Lazar several times last year. Not what anybody wants, but you have to play the cards that are dealt you.
I'm just wondering if some of you actually read the entire paragraph--past the words "five-guard sets."
To see people, presumably serious, suggesting that the way to beat Harangody or Thabeet is to "work Burke's tail off" is amazing. As if that is enough to propel MU's frontline into the the equal of the league leaders.
Newsflash: There is No. Way. In. Hell. that Burke can catch up to the top bigs in the conference. Therefore, the notion that we can "work his tail off" so that we can effectively play five on five against the teams with better bigs is pure folly, and would only serve to neutralize our backcourt advantage.
Because it appears people missed it, here's the rest of Buzz's statement:
"-- is one way to lengthen games, by upping the number of possessions and taking advantage of Marquette's quickness in a league filled with talented post players, such as Notre Dame's Luke Harangody and UConn's Hasheem Thabeet. Marquette ranked 118th in the nation (and sixth in the Big East) in adjusted tempo last year, at 68.1 possessions per game, and could likely move into the 70s next season. The faster the better, in Williams' opinion, because "as the game gets shorter, our size dilemma gets revealed."
If we are forced to play five-on-five/position-on-position against the league, we're in trouble. A five guard offense is an intriguing idea that would create just as many mismatches for the other teams as it would for us, and it would create exactly the situation described above where we create more offense off of quickness than one-on-one moves by Burke or Otule. Can you imagine Thabeet trying to guard Aacker one on one? Or Harangody on Cubillan?
Yes, this strategy is going to give up some easy baskets inside when the other teams are able to set up in a half court--but the five-guard strategy is also going to get you more steals, resulting in fewer posessions for the other team--and even if the other teams wind up going to the line it will reduce the number shots from the floor, reducing their point total.
You would have to steal the ball everytime or Harangody would kill us for over 60 points.
TC went perimeter against UCONN last year (started Fitz, and dCube and Mo got good minutes, while the 4/5's had plenty of pine time). I actually liked the TC move for its creativity. Result, we got absolutely hammered, down 67-38 at one point. UCONN shot 39 FT's
I say work Burke's tail off because he is the only big body on our team that is not a freshmen. We need someone who can just put in the effort and hold their own (meaning not laid down or foul every play) on the defensive end. Five guard set is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Who is going to guard Luke? Let me think of the game plan from ND's stand point. Dump it inside to Luke for an easy bucket or FT's. Either way, the game will slow down considerably. Burke just needs to do what Barro did. Barro was not amazing, but he was fine for how our team was built. Burke just need to put in effort 25 minutes a game, mix in the freshmen and figure out something for the couple minutes where there could be gaps. Last year, Burke could not play for more than 10 minutes. If we can't look to him for more significant minutes, we don't have a shot against any good BE team (Georgetown, UConn, ND, Louisville).
Jeez people...you are getting all caught up on one minor part of the article.
The five guard line-up will likely only be used in certain situations to up the pace in games. It'll be used with either a full-court or half-court press that backs into a zone of some sort. Basically a change of pace.
You make it sound as if Buzz said that he's going to be starting five guards and play them all game.
A "five guard" offense isn't practical nor will it be effective in the BE. Rebounding, interior defense vs bigs, and an inside offensive game would all suffer.
Most teams would zone that alignment so we can't take advantage of mismatches on offense-----dubious idea that will be quickly discarded if implemented.
Buzz seems crazy, but its the good kind of crazy. Buzz wants to play the way that I have thought they shoudl have played for years, the up temp style will tire out big men like thabeet and Harangody, and hopefully force them to play less minutes, that is why you push tempo. Gary Williams, Nolan Richardson, and Rick Pitino all have used this strategy at one time or another to make up for their lack of big man depth. If you press and make steal and deflections the ball won't even be able to get into the post for those guys to finish, besides Harangody was a fluke adn this year will prove it.
Quote from: MUMOVERUWMBA2011 on October 03, 2008, 07:55:02 AM
Buzz seems crazy, but its the good kind of crazy. Buzz wants to play the way that I have thought they shoudl have played for years, the up temp style will tire out big men like thabeet and Harangody, and hopefully force them to play less minutes, that is why you push tempo. Gary Williams, Nolan Richardson, and Rick Pitino all have used this strategy at one time or another to make up for their lack of big man depth. If you press and make steal and deflections the ball won't even be able to get into the post for those guys to finish, besides Harangody was a fluke adn this year will prove it.
Harangody was a fluke? I guess his freshman season was a fluke as well? I don't like the guy but he has a real nice offensive game.
Coaches this year will discover how you beat the men, not to say I am a great coach by any means but that orge has abotu one move, drive to basket get fouled, grunt a lot, drool, make 20 free throws, play no defense, repeat, you exhaust him on the defensive end and he will not be as big a factor on the offensive end.
Quote from: MUMOVERUWMBA2011 on October 03, 2008, 07:55:02 AM
Buzz seems crazy, but its the good kind of crazy. Buzz wants to play the way that I have thought they shoudl have played for years, the up temp style will tire out big men like thabeet and Harangody, and hopefully force them to play less minutes, that is why you push tempo. Gary Williams, Nolan Richardson, and Rick Pitino all have used this strategy at one time or another to make up for their lack of big man depth. If you press and make steal and deflections the ball won't even be able to get into the post for those guys to finish, besides Harangody was a fluke adn this year will prove it.
Uptempo BB works at home where the crowd gets into it, but we're going to win most of those games anyway (or should).
However on the road or in the NCAA to rely on "uptempo BB" is a mistake.
I don't like the lack of confidence that Buzz seems to have in Burke and Otule. Crean ruined Burke by not building on the postup talents that he came to MU with------also Burke lost a lot of his agility by bulking up too much too quickly presummingly by overdoing the weightlifting. Even at this late date, Burke could be developed into being at least a serviceable postup.
It's certainly not a solution for long stretches of time, but we saw last year (when Crean finally stopped being stubborn) how pressure and speed can turn a game on its head (see at ND last yr).
Personally I love the idea of throwing off rythym with speed. I'd much rather see them do that when outsized then let entry pass after entry pass into the post, uncontested, ala Stanford.
I hope Buzz isn't as obsessive compulsive as Jeff Lewis from Flipping Out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhwTVJHaRKw
What about Patrick Hazel? Will he be able to help at the 5 for about 5-7 minutes a game? Everyone seems to forget the poor guy.
Quote from: downtown85 on October 03, 2008, 10:09:49 AM
What about Patrick Hazel? Will he be able to help at the 5 for about 5-7 minutes a game? Everyone seems to forget the poor guy.
Hazel shows a lot of effort, but I'm not sure how much of a difference it is with him in there. He's listed at 6'7 220, so he'll also be too small to match up with the big guys that people are concerned about.
Yeah, to play up tempo, you don't need 5 guards on the court. All our players need to be in shape. As far as Burke bulking up too much is not what I see. I saw a fat boy last season that looked like he never touched the ball and was pretty clueless in the game. I thought that's why we have this assistant coach who can develop big men. Time for someone to earn their pay check. A serviceable big man for MU this season will focus on defense. Defense is mainly fundamentals and technique. If our coaches can do that for Burke, MU will never have a good post player unless we get some 5 star that has all the tools already.
Well Otule isn't a five star-----he's a 3 star, but from what I've seen there is no reason why he can't be developed into a good postup-----that is provided that Buzz doesn't get all caught up with this guard stuff
and allow Otule's talent to wither.
The only way we will ever get a 5 star big recruit, is if they have the visibility of being a major part of the offense based on what MU's current bigs are contributing.
Not to be a Buzz kill....but, Buzz is now a Head Coach on top Tier program. I think the time spent studying other coaches pressers should be a thing of the past. He has a great story, but, time for the present and future.
If Buzz wants to be big time he needs to focus an the now. Keeping his roots is awesome. I just hope that now the got here he knows what to do.
Great job recruiting so far, no argument. Being a top coach is much different than calling coaches every week. Forget the six ice cubes and focus on five star players.
Aw schucks, we'll see if studying all the minusia will pay off. I agree his humble beginnings is now starting to wear thin. Yet, it's a refreshing change from the ever-present arrogance of the departed T-Cubed. How many days has Buzz now been the coach?
Quote from: THEGYMBAR on October 03, 2008, 03:12:10 PM
Not to be a Buzz kill....but, Buzz is now a Head Coach on top Tier program. I think the time spent studying other coaches pressers should be a thing of the past. He has a great story, but, time for the present and future.
If Buzz wants to be big time he needs to focus an the now. Keeping his roots is awesome. I just hope that now the got here he knows what to do.
Great job recruiting so far, no argument. Being a top coach is much different than calling coaches every week. Forget the six ice cubes and focus on five star players.
Unfortunately, gymbar, this kind of behavior was cited as a big reason we hired Williams. Letter writing, timing how long it took for a coach to thank his wife. Mentioning how many things he forgot to mention in his press conference. I find these stories increasingly disturbing.
Question for Chicos or anybody else familiar with these things...do we have somebody working with our coaches as far as public speaking? He obviously needs some work...which is rather unbelievable for a Big East basketball program.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 03, 2008, 03:56:48 PM
How many days has Buzz now been the coach?
To make it easier for Buzz, and MUScoopers to keep track, I've added a convenient counter to the MUScoop stats page.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=stats
Whew - no more calculations by hand. Hopefully this will save buzz at least a minute every day ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's a lot of work to go and click on that link. I mean... I'd have to move my mouse and bookmark the link or something...
Could you make it show up on the front page of the site like the consolidated recruiting info or scholarship link?
Quote from: Pardner on October 02, 2008, 09:30:18 PM
TC went perimeter against UCONN last year (started Fitz, and dCube and Mo got good minutes, while the 4/5's had plenty of pine time). I actually liked the TC move for its creativity. Result, we got absolutely hammered, down 67-38 at one point. UCONN shot 39 FT's
Here's the stats, including the play by play:
http://www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/stats/mbasketball/2007-2008/MMUCONN.HTM
The interesting is the +/- on Barro. With Barro in the game UConn outscored MU 48 to 16. With Barro on the bench, MU outscoured UConn 57 to 41.
it's called a ZONE
Quote from: Marquette84 on October 03, 2008, 05:52:57 PM
Here's the stats, including the play by play:
http://www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/stats/mbasketball/2007-2008/MMUCONN.HTM
The interesting is the +/- on Barro. With Barro in the game UConn outscored MU 48 to 16. With Barro on the bench, MU outscoured UConn 57 to 41.
Point being? That in the last ten minutes MU almost doubled their points in garbage time? That Lazar and Fitz were so mismatched that they fouled out, leaving Mo to go at Thabeet? That TC had to keep running in Ooze as the mismatch wasn't working? That UCONN had their 2nd highest FG% game of the season? That UCONN held the shot block advantage 10-2 as we kept trying to drive right into the heart of the frontline? That MU was outrebounded 34-19? Like I said, creative thought by TC considering the mismatch, but you cannot be arguing that it was successful?--TC himself didn't think so as he never tried this again (starting all perimeter players). Finally, I will leave the final word to the opposing HOF coach if you don't agree with me:
"I felt Hasheem owned the middle," Calhoun said. "We decided to take advantage of our size right away by going inside on offense and that's what allowed us to be 5-for-11 on 3s."Powned and Zoned!
Quote from: Pardner on October 03, 2008, 09:28:31 PM
Point being? That in the last ten minutes MU almost doubled their points in garbage time? That Lazar and Fitz were so mismatched that they fouled out, leaving Mo to go at Thabeet? That TC had to keep running in Ooze as the mismatch wasn't working? That UCONN had their 2nd highest FG% game of the season? That UCONN held the shot block advantage 10-2 as we kept trying to drive right into the heart of the frontline? That MU was outrebounded 34-19? Like I said, creative thought by TC considering the mismatch, but you cannot be arguing that it was successful?--TC himself didn't think so as he never tried this again (starting all perimeter players). Finally, I will leave the final word to the opposing HOF coach if you don't agree with me:
"I felt Hasheem owned the middle," Calhoun said. "We decided to take advantage of our size right away by going inside on offense and that's what allowed us to be 5-for-11 on 3s."
***Like I said, creative thought by TC considering the mismatch, but you cannot be arguing that it was successful?
Actually, it was unsuccessful because Crean only used the mismatch for the first four minutes of the game, then wound up giving Barro his season average in minutes.
Lets forget garbage time and only consider the first half.
UConn had a 15 point half time lead. Guess how much of that lead was built with Barro in the game. ALL OF IT!!! 100%. In other words, the mismatch worked--the traditional approach didn't.
In the 7 minutes Barro was on the bench, (4 minutes to start the game, and 3 minutes from 8:00 to 5:00), the "mismatch" played UConn to a 11-11 tie. In the 13 minutes Barro was in the game, UConn's scoring advantage was 28 - 13.
That's not garbage time--that's the first half.
UConn finished the first half with a 15 point lead--and NONE of that lead was due to a mismatch of running 5 perimeter players at the Huskies.
A five guard offense MAY have worked against UConn last year. We don't really know because it wasn't actually tried--despite your comments to the contrary.
Its obvious that a traditional front line including Ooze at the 5 wasn't able to contain UConn defensively last year--I don't think we have anyone who will be any more effective this year.
So the approach that Buzz is outlining is simply this: Why bother trying? Simply focus your attention at putting the five best offensive players on the floor and outscoring the other team. It's very likely that our five best offensive players will be perimeter/guard players.
Five guard offense is "pie in the sky"-----won't work unless we have 3-4 NBA types lining up.
The problem against UCONN last year is first of all we were on the road, secondly we had beaten them the previous 2 years, and finally they overwhelmed and overpowered us with size (Barro or no Barro). Their size dominance inside required that we don't play as tight to the outside as we had most of the year----leaving us very vulnerable on the perimeter.
The press would have to come with a 5 guard offense because there's no way you could win a half court battle for 40 minutes just based on rebounding and defense alone, i.e., higher percentage shot is a lay up than 10-22 footer. I wouldn't mind seeing it as a change up before half or something like that but I think Buzz will utilize Burke as much as he can and hopefully Otule can play defense.
Quote from: Murffieus on October 04, 2008, 09:14:22 AM
Five guard offense is "pie in the sky"-----won't work unless we have 3-4 NBA types lining up.
The problem against UCONN last year is first of all we were on the road, secondly we had beaten them the previous 2 years, and finally they overwhelmed and overpowered us with size (Barro or no Barro). Their size dominance inside required that we don't play as tight to the outside as we had most of the year----leaving us very vulnerable on the perimeter.
Actually, UConn didn't overwhelm and overpowered us "Barro or no Barro." They only overwhelmed and overpowered us with Barro in the game. He was ineffective on defense, and made our offense 4 on 5.
When he was on the bench, the game was even.
I know you don't like to hear it, but facts are facts. We did not need "3-4 NBA types lining up" to play UConn even with a perimiter offense. We did it with the lineup we had last season.
Quote from: Marquette84 on October 04, 2008, 05:34:36 PM
Actually, UConn didn't overwhelm and overpowered us "Barro or no Barro." They only overwhelmed and overpowered us with Barro in the game. He was ineffective on defense, and made our offense 4 on 5.
When he was on the bench, the game was even.
I know you don't like to hear it, but facts are facts. We did not need "3-4 NBA types lining up" to play UConn even with a perimeter offense. We did it with the lineup we had last season.
We started off down 7-1 when Barro was on the bench. Thabeet had two blocks right off the bat, and TC ran Ooze in as we were getting dominated inside. The real damage done was the last 4:00 minutes of the first half--with yes, Barro in the game...and with Mo, JM, Wes and DJ. With Fitz and dCubes coming in for Wes and Mo in that span. That was a perimeter game move by TC--and the same way he started the game. If you can blame that blowout solely on Barro, so be it. I wish Mo would have bitten Thabeet's knee cap a little harder--maybe we could have pulled out a W.
James keeps a stat that tracks when the game is statistically over. This game ended at 9:31 of the second half--earlier than our game with UWM. Going small against UCONN was fruitless. Running Ooze in happenstance with a small line up against UCONN was bound to fail. TC didn't even employ this against Stanford.
So, to be clear...are you arguing that the five guard line up is a good idea---or that Ooze sucked? If the first, please provide an instance in the BE where this worked for a small team regularly vs. a team like UCONN on the road. This may help me gain confidence that this may actually work.
SJS/84----you bet UCONN beats us "Barro or no Barro"-----UCONN shoots 51% (45% on treys) in the first half and meanwhile MU shoots only 27% ----some of that happened when Barro was in the game and some of it happened with him out of the game!
MU's problem vs UCONN and all year was very poor interior defense-----again with or without Barro!
Quote from: Murffieus on October 04, 2008, 08:22:15 PM
SJS/84----you bet UCONN beats us "Barro or no Barro"-----UCONN shoots 51% (45% on treys) in the first half and meanwhile MU shoots only 27% ----some of that happened when Barro was in the game and some of it happened with him out of the game!
Murff, let me remind you of the scoring: In the 7 minutes Barro was on the bench, (4 minutes to start the game, and 3 minutes from 8:00 to 5:00), the "mismatch" played UConn to a 11-11 tie. In the 13 minutes Barro was in the game, UConn's scoring advantage was 28 - 13.
We can pretend that this was pure coincidence. Or we can learn from it.
My view of the lesson--don't bother trying to defend UConn inside--nobody is capable of doing so. Put your five best offensive players on the court and hope your shots fall.
Quote from: Pardner on October 04, 2008, 07:39:13 PM
So, to be clear...
To be clear, here's what I'm saying:
DEFENSIVELY, I saw no difference in UConn's ability to score at will regardless of what lineup we had on the floor.
OFFENSIVELY, MU performed better with a perimeter offense (meaning Ooze was on the bench).
You can argue that this was frutiless all you want, the scoring numbers back me up. Whether you measure the first half only, or for the full game.
I suppose you could argue that this was just a massive game-long coincidence. That purely by chance during the 19 minutes Ooze was in the game MU only scored 16 points, and in the 21 minutes he was on the bench MU scored 48 points. Just a great big coincidence.
BTW, I would say your example of a perimeter-oriented team that beat UConn at home is Providence. Hanke--their only player taller than 6'8"--played just 13 minutes, and as with MU, the Friars played worse with him in the lineup than when he was on the bench. In fact, despite only picking up 1 PF, Hanke went to the bench with 16:44 left in the game, and never saw action again. The proportion of minutes PC gave to guards and WFs was even more than MU vs. UConn.
SJS/84----if UCONN did most of their net production with Barro playing, it's coincidence. Or it could be that Thebeet and other UCONN studs were on the bench when Barro was on the bench. Or it could have been that UCONN just came out of the box all pumped up because of two previous straight losses to MU. Or it could be that Burke was/is a better defender than Barro-----remember I said that MU interior defense was poor "with or without Barro".
BTW, as I recall what killed us in that first half against UCONN was their 50% trey shooting in the first half-----can't blame that on Barro!
Quote from: Murffieus on October 05, 2008, 09:05:47 AM
SJS/84----if UCONN did most of their net production with Barro playing, it's coincidence. Or it could be that Thebeet and other UCONN studs were on the bench when Barro was on the bench. Or it could have been that UCONN just came out of the box all pumped up because of two previous straight losses to MU. Or it could be that Burke was/is a better defender than Barro-----remember I said that MU interior defense was poor "with or without Barro".
BTW, as I recall what killed us in that first half against UCONN was their 50% trey shooting in the first half-----can't blame that on Barro!
***--if UCONN did most of their net production with Barro playing, it's coincidence.
You miss the point. I'm not talking about UConn's production--I'm talking about MU's ability to match or surpass it.
MU did most of their net production with Barro on the bench. Given that Barro is not known for his gifted offensive skills, I don't believe that is a coincidence.
***. Or it could be that Thebeet and other UCONN studs were on the bench when Barro was on the bench.
Nope. Thabeet played 32 minutes, Barro only 19.
***Or it could have been that UCONN just came out of the box all pumped up because of two previous straight losses to MU
I'm sure they were.
Despite that, MU somehow managed to match UConn point for point whenever Barro was on the bench. When he was in the game, they outscored us 3 to 1.
***Or it could be that Burke was/is a better defender than Barro-----remember I said that MU interior defense was poor "with or without Barro".
Burke only played six minutes. That means 15 minutes with neither Burke nor Barro in the game.
What's your point? I said MU's interior defense was poor with or without Barro in the game----you seem to be swatting flies here.
Quote from: Murffieus on October 06, 2008, 07:08:40 PM
What's your point? I said MU's interior defense was poor with or without Barro in the game----you seem to be swatting flies here.
Once again, you're ignoring half the argument:
A. DEFENSIVELY, I saw no difference in UConn's ability to score at will regardless of what lineup we had on the floor.
B. OFFENSIVELY, MU performed better with a perimeter offense
You apparently agree with me on point A.
So what about point B?