MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: CreightonWarrior on January 10, 2009, 12:24:16 PM

Title: Maurice Acker
Post by: CreightonWarrior on January 10, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
Hey Guys,

Just watching the game online and haven't seen Acker on the floor yet. Is he hurt?
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: nyg on January 10, 2009, 01:03:12 PM
Acker and Cubillian had no pt.  They are now nailed to bench
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: IAmMarquette on January 10, 2009, 01:06:04 PM
This one wasn't in hand until late. That's why we didn't see Acker, Cubillan, Fulce or Otule.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: CreightonWarrior on January 10, 2009, 01:08:10 PM
I don't quite understand. Cubillan has really dropped off from last year. Crean must have liked him a lot better than Williams does. Too bad, he's a great shooter. I wonder whats up with those two.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: nyg on January 10, 2009, 01:10:43 PM
Cubillian is now a terrible shooter and has been for two years.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: Badgerhater920 on January 10, 2009, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: CreightonWarrior on January 10, 2009, 01:08:10 PM
I don't quite understand. Cubillan has really dropped off from last year. Crean must have liked him a lot better than Williams does. Too bad, he's a great shooter. I wonder whats up with those two.

Eh, Cubi really hasn't been a great shooter since his freshman year.  3 point percentage has dipped in epic fashion.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: The Man in Gold on January 10, 2009, 01:20:16 PM
Great win for MU.  Normally only playing 7 players would scare me, but with a week off I think it was the right move by Buzz since the game was close until the 8:30 mark of the second half.  Enjoy the rest boys!
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: MUFan71 on January 10, 2009, 01:25:52 PM
 Buzz on with Homer and Mac right now. He said he was gun shy after the Rutgers game and thats why he did not use more of the bench. He said Acker and Cubillan have earned time, Fulce is not there yet. He did mention Otule a little.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: CreightonWarrior on January 10, 2009, 01:29:07 PM
It was a good win. I've been really impressed by the start of their BE schedule. I really think they have been screwed over in the polls and should be top 10. They have a great test in Providence and then a cake in Depaul before huge games against ND and GU.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: ecompt on January 10, 2009, 01:33:27 PM
actually, they only play once in the next 13 days, so everybody should be rested.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: Markusquette on January 10, 2009, 01:38:01 PM
I'm surprised Mo didn't get a few minutes to give James periodic breaks, but we won regardless.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: rugbydrummer on January 10, 2009, 01:42:40 PM
I was worried that they were playing so much out there... they were getting tired.  Thank goodness we can use Jimmy Butler & Pat Hazel occasionally

How did Wes rack up 4 fouls?? 

Also, i didn't understand what was going on when Huggins and the ref were arguing and then the ref ran to talk to buzz.  nothing really happened?
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: wadesworld on January 10, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
Quote from: rugbydrummer on January 10, 2009, 01:42:40 PM
I was worried that they were playing so much out there... they were getting tired.  Thank goodness we can use Jimmy Butler & Pat Hazel occasionally

How did Wes rack up 4 fouls?? 

Also, i didn't understand what was going on when Huggins and the ref were arguing and then the ref ran to talk to buzz.  nothing really happened?
They called a technical foul on West Virginia.  Huggins thought there were 6 people on the court because a West Virginia player was standing in the corner.  Turns out he was in the game.  So then they took the technical foul away from West Virginia.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: rugbydrummer on January 10, 2009, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: wadesworld on January 10, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
They called a technical foul on West Virginia.  Huggins thought there were 6 people on the court because a West Virginia player was standing in the corner.  Turns out he was in the game.  So then they took the technical foul away from West Virginia.

So Bob Huggins thought MU had 6 people on the court, and started yelling at the refs?  I'm confused.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: wadesworld on January 10, 2009, 01:50:25 PM
Quote from: rugbydrummer on January 10, 2009, 01:49:11 PMSo Bob Huggins thought MU had 6 people on the court, and started yelling at the refs?  I'm confused.
No.  The ref called a technical foul on West Virginia because he saw a guy who looked like he was on the bench standing in the corner of the court.  The guy was actually in the game, not on the bench.  So they had to take the technical foul back.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: TallTitan34 on January 10, 2009, 02:45:42 PM
I think Mo didn't play because of his size. It was a very physical game and I just don't think he has the size to compete versus some of the WV guys. Jimmy Butler has that size. 
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: muhoops1 on January 10, 2009, 02:47:43 PM
According to Buzz....Reece's absence was due to match up issues created by WVU.  Same reason Fulce, Cubillan...
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: Big Papi on January 10, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
Buzz has stated numerous times that he does not feel comfortable with 2 out of the big 4 being on the sidelines in tight games.  Haywards flu and Matthews foul trouble was the reason why McNeal and DJ played the whole game and Acker and Cube did not see any time on the court.  Had we not blown that huge lead against Rutgers you might have seen Acker or Cube in the game for a few minutes.
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: robmufan on January 10, 2009, 04:26:35 PM
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 10, 2009, 02:45:42 PM
I think Mo didn't play because of his size. It was a very physical game and I just don't think he has the size to compete versus some of the WV guys. Jimmy Butler has that size. 

I was talking with the people I was with about this same topic.  I agree, Mo would have been torched today if he was in.  I think Jerel on the Defensive end was overmatched, D. Butler had his way when he was in.
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: AZWarrior on January 10, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
I haven't looked at the box yet, but from the lack of Acker, I conclude that DJ played every single minute.  And at quite a high defensive level.  And with no cramping.   :)

Does anyone have a theory as to why less cramping this season?  Nutritional difference?  Lack of Crean??   ::)
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: Brewtown Andy on January 10, 2009, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 10, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
I haven't looked at the box yet, but from the lack of Acker, I conclude that DJ played every single minute.  And at quite a high defensive level.  And with no cramping.   :)

Does anyone have a theory as to why less cramping this season?  Nutritional difference?  Lack of Crean??   ::)
Did the strength & conditioning coach/staff change at all?
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: MR.HAYWARD on January 10, 2009, 06:18:38 PM
DJ rarely if ever cramped last year or much at all as a soph.  his big cramping issues were as a Fresh.
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: romey on January 11, 2009, 02:46:14 PM
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 10, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
I haven't looked at the box yet, but from the lack of Acker, I conclude that DJ played every single minute.  And at quite a high defensive level.  And with no cramping.   :)

Does anyone have a theory as to why less cramping this season?  Nutritional difference?  Lack of Crean??   ::)

Midol?
Title: Re: Maurice Aker
Post by: ondo10 on January 11, 2009, 04:31:16 PM
Quote from: Jeronne_toMU09 on January 10, 2009, 01:38:01 PM
I'm surprised Mo didn't get a few minutes to give James periodic breaks, but we won regardless.

It would have been a terrible match-up had Acker played.  Since Bryant only played 13 minutes because of foul trouble, Ruoff was playing the point for most of the game and he is 6'6".  James has the strength and athletic ability to guard Ruoff, but Acker doesn't.  They would have probably isolated Ruoff against Acker time after time.
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: Daniel on January 11, 2009, 05:29:26 PM
James played all 40 mintues, and I am sure both he and Buzz wanted him to....defensively, he was awesome.  Acker would not have been as successful defensively, and we needed it badly.
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: rugbydrummer on January 12, 2009, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: romey on January 11, 2009, 02:46:14 PM
Midol?


I'm pretty sure that's an off-label indication, there, romey.  Nothing that a lil Gatorade won't fix  ;D


Or maybe Buzz isn't letting Nique eat McDonald's anymore?
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: muwarrior87 on January 12, 2009, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: rugbydrummer on January 12, 2009, 06:01:50 PM

I'm pretty sure that's an off-label indication, there, romey.  Nothing that a lil Gatorade won't fix  ;D


Or maybe Buzz isn't letting Nique eat McDonald's anymore?

he's still munching on McDonald's. Although since G2 has been introduced, maybe he's getting the fluids he didn't his freshman year. I know it was stated on here that he did not like drinking water.
Title: Re: Maurice Acker
Post by: rugbydrummer on January 25, 2009, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: muwarrior87 on January 12, 2009, 08:32:27 PM
he's still munching on McDonald's. Although since G2 has been introduced, maybe he's getting the fluids he didn't his freshman year. I know it was stated on here that he did not like drinking water.


well, water wouldn't fix his cramps anyway without any electrolytes... so that's still a mystery.

i know those guys burn cals like nobody's business... but i can think of a lot yummier food than McDonald's to eat :)
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev