When most your recruits are slashing "athletes" you will not have much of an outside game. When none of your key recruits are over 6-5 you will not have much of an inside game. When most of your recruits over 6-5 are projects, transfers from poor programs or marginal JC players, you won't have much of an inside game. This team has no balance in skills. When TC had balance (Wade slashing, Diener and Novak shooting, Jackson and Merritt quality big men inside), he did fine and his offense/defense was fine. C'mon Tom, you're billed as a great recruiter, let's get on with it.
You hit the nail on the head. Recruiting has been average at best, as evidenced by the fact that we're throwing scholarships at players at the last minute just to fill up practice spots.
You are absolutely correct on the recruiting thing. Yes we have some decent to good guards, but unless you are Chicos you need more than that to win. (see Prov., Wisco, and Syr.) People like to say all the time on this board "well if you dont like Crean we could also ways go back to Dukiet" Well I was in school during Dukiet and Oneill and I will say that the front court that Tom Crean has assembled is no better than the assortment that Dukiet put together. Joe Nethen is 2x the player as were Ty Baldwin and Trevor than anything on our roster the last 3 years. Apart from Scott Merritt 7 years ago who had more than his share of inadequacies those 3 Dukiet kids are superior to anything Crean has done. As vomit inducing a lineup of Grosse, Luerck, Nethen and some of those guys were it is better than what we have now. Then as far as Oneill is concerned his players were not only vastly better coached and prepared but the lineup of players like Abraham, Key, Mcilvaine, Mccaskill, Crawford, even guys such as Shaw and Joseph are vastly superior to the collection that we have now. This group is not even low major quality. Yet crean has the Final 4, Big East, and the Al to recruit with, how is it Dukiet and Oneill could sign superior up front talent?
To me, player development is the frustrating part. Crean has had a hard time developing anyone outside of the three that are in the NBA right now. And when you look at this team, who honestly is better than they were last year? Right now the only one close is Jerel.
Assuming we start 0-3 and end up NIT bound, there has to be some SERIOUS questions raised about the direction of this program. There is no excuse for this team not making the tournament, and if that happens Crean deserves some major scrutiny.
Hopefully we get this thing turned around. Fast.
Werent people saying the exact same thing after the 2 year debacle that followed the Final 4 run? Was not the collection of talent we had in Diener's final season a cuase for concern in Creans 6th year! Then he gets an NCAA birth which should be a perennial thing and gets what amounts to a lifetime contract!! Despite being beaten by a lower seeded team for the second time in his 3 trips ...in 7 years!!
Absolutely we need to recruit better! But the thing is when you look back at all these big guys under the last few coaches - THEY GOT BETTER! Even someone like John Mueller - this guy was a walk on his first year - when he was a senior he was a decent player! Crawford, McCaskill, Abraham on and on. THEY GOT BETTER!!! Where is the player developement with Crean. Who does one thing this year that they could not do last year? Couldn't we teach Burke ONE inside move by now? Lott, Barro, who has ONE skill that they did not have last year?
I agree with post player development. It really hasn't happened at MU. We need to give TC some credit though. Robert Jackson was by far a better player at MU than he was at MSU. Also, Marcus Jackson did improve between his Jr. and Sr. year. He became a reliable inside defender. Unfortunately, he only really played 1 year because of the injuries his Jr. year.
Other than that, it's very hard to think of anyone. Merritt improved, but not nearly the amount us fans had hoped he would.
The recruiting is not the main problem.
Remember when teams coached by supposed "legends" Bob Knight and Coach K played man to man against the same MU team , and got their ass kicked.
Marquette's problem is they have no idea how to play against a zone defense.
Crean is just like a lot of other major program coaches. They are salesman. They are marketers. They are character builders. They are not always great basketball coaches. If Bo Ryan prepared MU and coached during the games, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
OK, we all know TC is NOT a great game coach. The problem is when his recruiting falls to the level of his coaching, then you are where we are--likely headed to the NIT.
Quote from: Untucked on January 08, 2007, 10:23:17 AM
The recruiting is not the main problem.
Remember when teams coached by supposed "legends" Bob Knight and Coach K played man to man against the same MU team , and got their ass kicked.
Marquette's problem is they have no idea how to play against a zone defense.
Crean is just like a lot of other major program coaches. They are salesman. They are marketers. They are character builders. They are not always great basketball coaches. If Bo Ryan prepared MU and coached during the games, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Did a zone hurt us that much last year? No...Novak and Chapman took care of that by being outside threats and therefore opening up lanes. If Bo had this team who would give him the inside-out threats that he needs to run his offense? Bo recruits big men and little men not all slashers. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a team that does not have the ability to post or shoot outside and we're going to suffer with that for a few years because freshmen won't supply what we need until they have a year or two under their belts. I really don't like our near-term future.
I agree with the development but only to a degree. The problem is we are starting with such a deficit. Ooze has developed trmendously...but he never played HS ball. Burke has gotten better and will probably be decent when he is a senior. But the rest...Lott, Kinsella, Blackledge are in way over there heads. There is a reason we beat out hypenated schools for them. The players at other schools are developing too, and when you are twice as good to start out with when then even at the same rate of development you stay twice as good. i will also say becuase the players on the other teams are bigger, stronger, better athletes and ball players to begin with the actually develop at a higher rate ie higher ceiling. My analogy would be a midget can triple his high jump but he will never be as good as the 6'6" athlete who only doubles his!!!. The Big East is full of Top 150 or higher rated 4-5's, we have none.
I am willing to give Crean a break on the absence of recruited outside shooters. Many of the players on the roster were reputed to be good shooters and just hasn't panned out. Novak/Diener type shooters are not easy to find. Unfortunately, couple that shortcoming with a cast of big men whose primary skill seems to be setting moving screens (Crean teaches that one better than anyone else in the country.)
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 08, 2007, 11:28:35 AM
I am willing to give Crean a break on the absence of recruited outside shooters. Many of the players on the roster were reputed to be good shooters and just hasn't panned out. Novak/Diener type shooters are not easy to find. Unfortunately, couple that shortcoming with a cast of big men whose primary skill seems to be setting moving screens (Crean teaches that one better than anyone else in the country.)
"Reputed" to be good outside shooters? Don't we scout and make an evaluation before we recruit them? I hope we're not recruiting on hearsay. Many peple here have pointed out flaws in players outside shots. That should have been detected by whoever scouted them. Our key guys (Matthews, McNeal, James) were touted as slashers not shooters. Hayward was touted as a shooter but doesn't take any shots. Fitz was touted as a shooter but it shouldn't have taken much scouting to question his shot. Cubillon seems to be the only shooter we have.
Quote from: Harrison on January 08, 2007, 09:20:39 AM
You are absolutely correct on the recruiting thing. Yes we have some decent to good guards, but unless you are Chicos you need more than that to win. (see Prov., Wisco, and Syr.) People like to say all the time on this board "well if you dont like Crean we could also ways go back to Dukiet" Well I was in school during Dukiet and Oneill and I will say that the front court that Tom Crean has assembled is no better than the assortment that Dukiet put together. Joe Nethen is 2x the player as were Ty Baldwin and Trevor than anything on our roster the last 3 years. Apart from Scott Merritt 7 years ago who had more than his share of inadequacies those 3 Dukiet kids are superior to anything Crean has done. As vomit inducing a lineup of Grosse, Luerck, Nethen and some of those guys were it is better than what we have now. Then as far as Oneill is concerned his players were not only vastly better coached and prepared but the lineup of players like Abraham, Key, Mcilvaine, Mccaskill, Crawford, even guys such as Shaw and Joseph are vastly superior to the collection that we have now. This group is not even low major quality. Yet crean has the Final 4, Big East, and the Al to recruit with, how is it Dukiet and Oneill could sign superior up front talent?
So if I hear you correctly, you're saying if our guards played better and shot better we wouldn't be better, despite not having the bigs you think are out there in abundance?
Of course that is complete crap. If these guards could make free throws and shoot even a little bit better, we would have a better team. The size of the players isn't the issue, it is their inability to do what those positions are supposed to do...namely shoot the ball well.
So far this season has done nothing in terms of helping out future recruiting. Potential guards are witnessing the lack of an offense...and Potential Bigs--well I guess we never have any 'potential bigs.' We just pick up what is left!!
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 08, 2007, 11:28:35 AM
I am willing to give Crean a break on the absence of recruited outside shooters. Many of the players on the roster were reputed to be good shooters and just hasn't panned out. Novak/Diener type shooters are not easy to find. Unfortunately, couple that shortcoming with a cast of big men whose primary skill seems to be setting moving screens (Crean teaches that one better than anyone else in the country.)
I agree with CT on this one. We've been spoiled, especially for the past 5 or so years, with good 3 point shooters. Novak and Diener are not easily replaced. Before that we at least had a consistent 3 point shooter. We've all seen Fitz, Cubillan, Matthews and even McNeal show that they can shoot from the outside, but nobody has been consistent. Matthews goes 5-6 early on in the season and hasn't come close, Fitz passes up his shots too much to see if he can be consistent, Cubillan is finally being more agressive, and McNeal....well I'd rather see him take another shot first but he had one good game shooting from threes, which isn't good enough. This team just needs to find a couple guys to be consistent from the outside, then we have a good team. And about Hayward, supposedly he was a really good 3 point shooter. I can't say anything but that because I didn't see him play before MU, but I doubt we would recruit him based on what was said and not seen.....
Quote from: State on January 08, 2007, 01:17:08 PM
So far this season has done nothing in terms of helping out future recruiting. Potential guards are witnessing the lack of an offense...and Potential Bigs--well I guess we never have any 'potential bigs.' We just pick up what is left!!
Or it's a boon to recruiting. If you're a good 3 point shooter, you have a roll on this team immediately, no doubt about it.
Hasn't worked that way with bigs. We've had a huge hole there since Jackson left and that hasn't brought any quality big men flocking to our door. (I will give you that shooters are little easier to find.)
It comes down to the players on the floor performing to the level of their capabilities. There is no way that this team should be playing this poorly. The players themselves need to pull their heads out of their asses and make the change. I don't doubt that Coach Crean and the rest of the coaching staff have tried every trick in the book to motivate the team. There is no clear leader on this team outside of Jerel. I cannot put the performance of this team on the coaching staff. This team beat Duke, a top ten team, their performance since then has been a pile of crap. They need to find the motivation in themselves and turn the season around.
Quote from: LastWarrior on January 08, 2007, 04:50:05 PM
It comes down to the players on the floor performing to the level of their capabilities. There is no way that this team should be playing this poorly. The players themselves need to pull their heads out of their asses and make the change. I don't doubt that Coach Crean and the rest of the coaching staff have tried every trick in the book to motivate the team. There is no clear leader on this team outside of Jerel. I cannot put the performance of this team on the coaching staff. This team beat Duke, a top ten team, their performance since then has been a pile of crap. They need to find the motivation in themselves and turn the season around.
Could not agree more. The talent is there, they just haven't played like it. DJ last year drove constantly, last night he drove ONCE. Just one of many examples. All shot better last year then this year. They aren't playing up to their talent levels, if they do then we win games and a lot of them.
Here's what I don't understand, though .. on the one hand, folks are saying the poor performance isn't the fault of the coaching staff, that it's the players, with the example of DJ (not) driving to the hoop. -- Doesn't Crean design plays for DJ to do just that? Sure he's trying to let DJ show his shooting ability for the NBA (?!?!?) but he'd be an idiot to not make DJ do the things he's successful at, so we can get the W. I think we can safely assume the staff wants DJ to drive to the basket and score occasionally.
So .. is DJ ignoring Crean's direction? Is Crean telling him to chuck up 3s instead of driving to the basket? Historically, we know Crean has a doghouse that he puts guys in if they don't follow his command.
Honestly, I'm just completely confused. It really seems like the problem is a little of everything, which is most troublesome.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on January 08, 2007, 08:09:35 PM
Here's what I don't understand, though .. on the one hand, folks are saying the poor performance isn't the fault of the coaching staff, that it's the players, with the example of DJ (not) driving to the hoop. -- Doesn't Crean design plays for DJ to do just that? Sure he's trying to let DJ show his shooting ability for the NBA (?!?!?) but he'd be an idiot to not make DJ do the things he's successful at, so we can get the W. I think we can safely assume the staff wants DJ to drive to the basket and score occasionally.
So .. is DJ ignoring Crean's direction? Is Crean telling him to chuck up 3s instead of driving to the basket? Historically, we know Crean has a doghouse that he puts guys in if they don't follow his command.
Honestly, I'm just completely confused. It really seems like the problem is a little of everything, which is most troublesome.
I cannot imagine he's telling James to jack up 3's when they are out of rhythm but I don't know. Like the Shaq example I gave on ft's...every major coach in the world has worked with him on that, doesn't mean it means a hill of beans if he can't execute.
Some kids can get it through their heads and some cannot....even though it's the same coach. Is Crean applauded for coaching Wade, Diener and Novak (3 of those 3 were never considered NBA prospects in highschool) or is he wrangled for those that couldn't take it to the next level? It's the old Sam Okey situation. Does Sam Okey make Dick Bennett a bad coach?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on January 08, 2007, 08:09:35 PM
Here's what I don't understand, though .. on the one hand, folks are saying the poor performance isn't the fault of the coaching staff, that it's the players, with the example of DJ (not) driving to the hoop. -- Doesn't Crean design plays for DJ to do just that? Sure he's trying to let DJ show his shooting ability for the NBA (?!?!?) but he'd be an idiot to not make DJ do the things he's successful at, so we can get the W. I think we can safely assume the staff wants DJ to drive to the basket and score occasionally.
So .. is DJ ignoring Crean's direction? Is Crean telling him to chuck up 3s instead of driving to the basket? Historically, we know Crean has a doghouse that he puts guys in if they don't follow his command.
Honestly, I'm just completely confused. It really seems like the problem is a little of everything, which is most troublesome.
I have the same paradox.. One explanation I have been arriving at fairly consistantly is that perhaps Crean is having difficulties with getting DJ to listen and buckle down.. Crean's post game interview has really reaffirmed these thoughts.. he said that the team isn't listening and he said that they aren't putting in the gym/game study time. I don't think DJ is the only one but if you are a newcomer to the team and the star player/supposed team leader follows his own lead on and off the court, are you going to likely be doing any different? leadership by example goes both ways..
so the logical thing would be to hold him accountable and possibly bench him.. problem is that he is a much-hyped future nba draftee.. bench him and 1.) he may get pissed off and definitely go pro in the next draft, 2.) if he doesn't get favorable draft evaluations Crean could become the excuse - i.e. Crean gets blamed for holding him back, 3.) if he is firmly in the seat of team leader, pissing him off could have negative consequences on Crean's relationship with the team as a whole, 4.) Crean may be caught up in all the hype on DJ too and, just as his doghouse players can do no right - DJ can do no wrong.
so.. another approach is to draw the line in the sand and start defining the minimum expectations for things that you normally haven't had to define (we all have heard about how many of the past team leaders lived their lives in the old gym or the al practicing shots, etc.).
frankly I admire it when a coach is not afraid to bench a key starting player for a few games if that player isn't committing/listening. It doesn't seem to happen that often but those coaches that have demonstrated that they have the balls to do it always seem to have a fairly firm control over their team. Has crean ever done this with a starter?
note that despite what I say in this post I am certainly NOT trying to be anti-crean in any way but I am also certainly not under any delusion that the latest slide in games is 100% on the player's shoulders.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 08, 2007, 07:38:00 PM
Quote from: LastWarrior on January 08, 2007, 04:50:05 PM
It comes down to the players on the floor performing to the level of their capabilities. There is no way that this team should be playing this poorly. The players themselves need to pull their heads out of their asses and make the change. I don't doubt that Coach Crean and the rest of the coaching staff have tried every trick in the book to motivate the team. There is no clear leader on this team outside of Jerel. I cannot put the performance of this team on the coaching staff. This team beat Duke, a top ten team, their performance since then has been a pile of crap. They need to find the motivation in themselves and turn the season around.
Could not agree more. The talent is there, they just haven't played like it. DJ last year drove constantly, last night he drove ONCE. Just one of many examples. All shot better last year then this year. They aren't playing up to their talent levels, if they do then we win games and a lot of them.
The talent is there? Where? I agree we have 3 nice guards but what else? It's a team game and you have to cover more than 1 facet of the game to be good. Sure our guards are not playing up to expectations and we could be doing better but there are reasons such as lack of an inside game and outside shooting. DJ isn't driving because with no outside game or inside presence theer are no lanes available to him. And sure we beat Duke but they tried to man us with freshmen - didn't work and every team since played zone and it does work. We are understaffed with big men and shooters to compete at this level
You are absolutely right MU71. The talent doesnt exist!!
sarcasm on -Chicos can say the guards need to play and that big man do not matter. I guess his point is 60% of the team needs to carry 100% of the load. You know if our guards rebounded better and defended the post btter we would not get dunked on and rebounded to death, too. -sarcasm off-
there is no doubt our guards could be doing better. but i will actually argue that over the last 5-6 games JErel and Wesley have been playing very well. Dj needs to setep up but the front court is getting dominated!!! And it's not effort it is pure talent. Those guys are mediocre at best aaginst the cup cakes!! Trend, Lott, Kinsella should not be on a D1 roster at least not anything but a low major team. Burke will be OK but is a green soph and Ooze has developed but started with a trmendous deficit never playing HS ball. Sorry folks but that is our collection of bigs...pretty sorry for a team off a Final 4, with the BE and the Al as recruiting tools. Oneill, Deane, and Dukiet put toghether better front courts!
Quote from: Harrison on January 09, 2007, 10:02:06 AM
Trend, Lott, Kinsella should not be on a D1 roster at least not anything but a low major team. Burke will be OK but is a green soph and Ooze has developed but started with a trmendous deficit never playing HS ball....Oneill, Deane, and Dukiet put toghether better front courts!
All true. Oooze is a keeper and Burke has promise since time is on his side --- but Trend, Lott and Kinsella were all desperate reaches.
and people who do not understand the game better keep saying our guards need to drive more and shoot better!!?? no kidding, would that not be nice!!, but when your front court is so poor that it does not have to be respected the zone pushes up. Both the Prov. and Syr cuse zones were extended, their bigs played up which forces our shooters farther out and makes driving even more difficult. Why are teams able to do that? pretty simply becuase they hold zero respect for our bigs offensive abilities and know they can guard them with one man and recover in time. When your front court is so deficient it make the job of the guards infinitely more difficult.
(But remember its just a guards game...but a question on the it's guards game statemnet....if so why do schools spend such time recruiting and developing 4's and 5's? Would teams not be better off with 5 guards? Why the fight for top 150 bigs by all these schools? I guess they are not listening to Chicos? chico's methinks Tom Crean alone is dispelling your "theory" )
Well, last year Marquette wasn't much different int he frontcourt, and we still did fine. The big difference in the team? We lost Novak - the guy who forced teams to extend their defense.
A great frontcourt would be wonderful, but we don't have it. Don't know why people feel the need to complain about it ad nauseam. :-\
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 09, 2007, 10:08:29 AM
Quote from: Harrison on January 09, 2007, 10:02:06 AM
Trend, Lott, Kinsella should not be on a D1 roster at least not anything but a low major team. Burke will be OK but is a green soph and Ooze has developed but started with a trmendous deficit never playing HS ball....Oneill, Deane, and Dukiet put toghether better front courts!
All true. Oooze is a keeper and Burke has promise since time is on his side --- but Trend, Lott and Kinsella were all desperate reaches.
Can we all lay off Lawrence for a bit? He's been here for half a season, and played, what, 20minutes total? If that? Let's see the kid play before we throw him under the bus.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 09, 2007, 11:21:06 AM
Well, last year Marquette wasn't much different int he frontcourt, and we still did fine. The big difference in the team? We lost Novak - the guy who forced teams to extend their defense.
A great frontcourt would be wonderful, but we don't have it. Don't know why people feel the need to complain about it ad nauseam. :-\
And didn't Novak play the frontcourt and lead our team in rebounding???
And didn't Novak play the frontcourt and lead our team in rebounding???
yes, but statistically MU is a better rebounding team this year than last year.
Quote from: MU71 on January 09, 2007, 11:55:23 AM
And didn't Novak play the frontcourt and lead our team in rebounding???
Well, he lead in rebounding. And was technically the 4, but he didn't play the frontcourt.
Quote from: Harrison on January 08, 2007, 09:20:39 AM
You are absolutely correct on the recruiting thing. Yes we have some decent to good guards, but unless you are Chicos you need more than that to win. (see Prov., Wisco, and Syr.) People like to say all the time on this board "well if you dont like Crean we could also ways go back to Dukiet" Well I was in school during Dukiet and Oneill and I will say that the front court that Tom Crean has assembled is no better than the assortment that Dukiet put together. Joe Nethen is 2x the player as were Ty Baldwin and Trevor than anything on our roster the last 3 years. Apart from Scott Merritt 7 years ago who had more than his share of inadequacies those 3 Dukiet kids are superior to anything Crean has done. As vomit inducing a lineup of Grosse, Luerck, Nethen and some of those guys were it is better than what we have now. Then as far as Oneill is concerned his players were not only vastly better coached and prepared but the lineup of players like Abraham, Key, Mcilvaine, Mccaskill, Crawford, even guys such as Shaw and Joseph are vastly superior to the collection that we have now. This group is not even low major quality. Yet crean has the Final 4, Big East, and the Al to recruit with, how is it Dukiet and Oneill could sign superior up front talent?
As vomit inducing a lineup of Grosse, Luerck, Nethen and some of those guys were it is better than what we have now.
You're kidding, right?
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 09, 2007, 11:58:42 AM
And didn't Novak play the frontcourt and lead our team in rebounding???
yes, but statistically MU is a better rebounding team this year than last year.
We haven't played anyone yet so the statistics can't be measured until we play more of our conference schedule. Our rebounding numbers in the last 2 conference games weren't very stellar. As for Novak playing the frontcourt, he certainly did on defense. And we also had Grimm to take up space, play defense and do some screening to keep other teams' big boys off the boards. Bottom line, we need either an inside presence or outside shooting (nice to have both.) Novak brought a little of both (a lot of one.) To say our frontcourt isn't much different than last year simply is not correct.
"To say our frontcourt isn't much different than last year simply is not correct. "
Um, never said that.
Regardless, based on tempo free stats (and cumulative) MU is a better rebounding team this year vs last year.
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 09, 2007, 12:52:56 PM
"To say our frontcourt isn't much different than last year simply is not correct. "
Um, never said that.
Regardless, based on tempo free stats (and cumulative) MU is a better rebounding team this year vs last year.
Sorry, responding to 2 posts - Rocky Warrior said it. Also sorry, don't know what "tempo free stats" is.
Novak helped in the same sense a good front court would help it made us less than one dimensional. the most difficult teams to stop a re multi dimensional. We are not. Novak helped spread the defense and gave them something else to worry about. This year without Novak they have one thing to stop ...the drive. they can have 5 defenders concentrating on the drive and literally forget about anything else. lastly, he led us in rebounding.
And to the poster that Questioned my statement on Dukiet. yes, i beleive the Front court of Powell, nethen, Luerck and grosse and Ty Baldwin is better than we currently have. Dukiet got fired for it crean a lifetime contract. and yes joe Nethen is better than any big we currently have. grosse is no worse than kinsella.
Powell was a great player for Marquette. We'd kill to have somebody like him right now. Baldwin was decent, but I recall him getting arrested for punching somebody outside O'Donahue's. I'd still like to have him, though.
Quote from: MU71 on January 09, 2007, 12:41:54 PM
As for Novak playing the frontcourt, he certainly did on defense.
Novak was a liability on defense. He did improve his senior year, but only to the point of being "ok". I'm pretty sure the guys we have in now defend at least as well as Novak.
Quote from: MU71 on January 09, 2007, 12:41:54 PM
And we also had Grimm to take up space, play defense and do some screening to keep other teams' big boys off the boards.
Grimm played an average of 7 or so minutes per game. I loved him, and he played hard nosed D, but losing him wasn't losing a lot in the frontcourt. Besides, most people are complaining about frontcourt "studs" that can score.
Quote from: MU71 on January 09, 2007, 12:41:54 PM
Bottom line, we need either an inside presence or outside shooting (nice to have both.) Novak brought a little of both (a lot of one.) To say our frontcourt isn't much different than last year simply is not correct.
We agree on the shooting, but as you look at the offensive frontcourt, it really hasn't changed much. Only the shooting has, and that was my main point.
Quote from: Harrison on January 09, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Novak helped in the same sense a good front court would help it made us less than one dimensional.
This thread has drifted quite a bit. But I think you're actually coming around to the "guards game" argument :) You see, if we had guards that could shoot (ala Novak), you wouldn't be complaining about the frontcourt so much this year.
Quote from: Harrison on January 09, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Dukiet got fired for it crean a lifetime contract.
Uhhh...I wasn't around for that period of MU hoops, but I believe Dukiet got fired for losing correct? That's something Crean hasn't done yet (losing season that is).
Quote from: Harrison on January 09, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Dukiet got fired for it crean a lifetime contract.
Uhhh...I wasn't around for that period of MU hoops, but I believe Dukiet got fired for losing correct? That's something Crean hasn't done yet (losing season that is).
[/quote]
Holy moly, we'd have to be pretty bad to finish below .500 with the pathetic non-conf. schedule we play. As it is, we were lucky to get by Idaho St., got beat by North Dakota St. and are not off to a good start in the Big East.
Rocky...we are coming closer together. Now if I can just get you to understand that Novak WAS a part of our frontcourt and kept a weak #4 off the court, we might agree. Novak brought a ton of points, the most rebounds on the team, an outside threat and played adequate defense. But probably most important, he enabled us to keep only 1 weak frntcourt player on the court instead of 2. That alone makes our frontcourt a lot different than last year and not as good. The inside scoring hasn't changed but the rest has.(Also, although I don't have any stats in front of me, I do think you'd find that near the end of last year after Amo stopped getting any minutes at all, Grimm played quite a bit more than 7 minutes.)
MU 71 has hit the nail on the head. Novak was a very good "4" as a senior (on top of his shot). A huge loss at the "4".
PRN is absolutely correct about Dukiet in so far as when I was in school before Conference days marquette played a who's who of schedules. Even early in the smaller conferences we only played 10- 12-14 games ayear in conference. We did not feast on 15 bunnies, Dukiet got fired but I will argue that this years team and those two absolutely pathetic products Crean brought to the court in 2004 and 2005 would not have been any where near the 14-2 or what ever these three teams were if they played any type of non-conference schedule that MU played back then.
I recall the 67-68 season Tip Off season w/Al McGuire began with St Thomas! Al knew all about "cupcakes" it was his term. Non-Conference is preseason and many games are meant for experimenting. You don't do that against good mid-majors if you want to reach the tournament.
1. Right now I think St. Thomas, a D-3 school, has a better team than Cardinal Stritch, a D-2 team.
2. MU wasn't in a conference when Al was coaching.
It was completely different then. Many good college basketball schools (including many in the Big East were independent). Non-conference games with Dayton, DePaul, Xavier and Notre Dame were on the Schedule. MU began the year playing schools like South Dakota State and St Thomas and others just like this year to get ready for Dayton and ND. BTW, the Cardinal Stritch game took the place of Athletes in Action, not some d-2 team. Because they are a team, theey give us better games than AIA.
until we joined the Big east the strenght of schedule of the Dukiet and Oneill teams was more difficult than Mu's schedule during 2004 and 2005. creans 2004 and 2005 teams went 13-2 or whatever against a terrible precon schedule. They would have been .500 playing the competion Oneill and Dukiet played in their first 15. I will also argue conference Usa in 2004 and 2005 were only slightly stronger than were the Great Midwest and even the MCC were. So yes Crean won 19 games in those 2 years but 12-15 were absolute gimmees. His teams sucked due to a lack of recruiting and transfers, and here we go again, no seniors to speak of, no leadership, and a team that has only 6-7 Big East caliber players. We need to recruit better and keep kids on campus...after 7 years this is still a big question mark.