Mo Acker doesn't get much respect on the MU boards eventhough against six of the best teams in the country last year (3 of them #1 seeds)-----he had a 2.4-1 assist to TO ratio, shot 44% on treys, and did an excellent job of bringing the ball up against pressure.
What we haven't examined is his sophomore year where in 13 mpg he averaged 44% on FGs (53 out of 120 attempts), 43% on treys (26 out of 61 attempts), and had 62 assists.
Furthermore in his Soph year he averaged approximately the same amount of assists per minute of play (62 assists in 13 mpg) that DJ did that year. DJ had 154 assists in 31 mpg.
My purpose here is not to start a DJ vs MA thread here-----but instead to use DJ's assist performance as a benchmark as to what standards are set by quality PGs.
IMO, MA will be our starting PG and all things considered do a better than adequate job there. Experience is the best teacher------successful prime time experience is hard to beat.
The hate on Acker has little to do with his offensive skillset. While he isn't a scorer, he does a nice job running the offense and is an above average passer. It never hurts to have a senior running the point, but where people run into problems with Mo is his defense.
He is a liability and definitely not cut out for the Big East in that sense. His size does not allow him to play physical and any tall point guard (6'2" on up) is going to get just about any shot he wants, even if Mo closes out perfectly.
Not to mention the holes that will open up on your d when you need to bring help every time down.
Experience is important...but not as important as talent.
MA may start the season as the starter, but my guess is that Buycks is starting pretty quickly.
Quote from: Stone Cold on September 26, 2009, 04:44:17 PM
Not to mention the holes that will open up on your d when you need to bring help every time down.
Also, the offense is slowed down as well since he has difficulty getting into the lane on offense as his size limits his effectiveness. Good open shooter and ball handler. Whether he starts or not, he will get solid minutes due to lack of depth at guard.
I like Acker...always have. He's not the kind of point guard we're used to with Diener and James being primary scoring options. There is nothing wrong with that. As far as his defense, of course a guard could post up a guy smaller than him, but how many guards in the NCAA are offensive threats from the post? Not very many. The guy hustles and he played a great game against Syracuse...save for his final pass that Flynn picked off.
If Acker is going to play, he needs to look for his shot and shoot without hesitation.
I'm still not convinced he's the starter. Even before Cadougan went down, I thought DJO & Buycks were our starters.
Buycks ran the point all summer in pickup games and was his JC team's PG last year. He'll start at the point. It's a no brainer.
To you guys who think that MA can't play defense -----did you know that on a per minute played basis the past 2 seasons that Acker has as many steals as DJ and and in the ballpark with McNeal's steal per minute played totals the past two seasons? Now steals certainly aren't the sole gauge of good perimeter defense (although McNeal was BE defender of the year based on steals)----but there is no reason in the world with his quickness he can't be taught to stay in front of his man-----also as far as people shooting over him is concerned, he's about the same size as Cordell Henry who kept shooters at bay very well defensively.
BTW Boone----there is a huge difference between a rookie (Bucyks) playing PG in preseason scrimmages and in playing against some of the best PGs in the coutry as Acker has done successfully!
If Acker is your starting 1 guard this season, we're in deep dung. Might be a nice guy, good dresser, cool with the ladies etc., but NOT a Big East talent. He's not a threat to score, can't check anyone, and doesn't direct the offense with authority. About the only thing Mo has going for himself is that he doesn't turn it over. IMO, should play a relief role of 8-10 minutes/game.
I think people do not realize that it was Acker's job not to screw up the last six games. It was not his job to take over the game. Last year's team was not designed for him running the show. If he turns out to be the point guard this year, than Buzz will have to design the offense and defense to account for his strengths and weakness. He will have a more active roll in the offense. Having said that, I think we start 4 forwards and Buycks. Acker will not be the starter.
Why am I not surprised that Glaser can't grasp the concept of Buycks starting as a no brainer?
I sure hope Acker is a 'chip on his shoulder' kind of guy. People love to lambaste his size, his skills, his performance, his contributions...hell, even his presence on the team. I hope he reads all this and get driven to prove everyone wrong. For what it is worth, I think he did prove many naysayers wrong with how he stepped in at the end of last year, not that I believe he proved himself to be a high-level BE PG.
I think we know what we have and what we will get from Acker, and it is no longer necessary to debate his past performances. I'm guessing that however much playing time he gets this year tells us more about how Buzz feels about other players than how he feels about Acker. If younger players prove themselves ready, or if we are so out of the post season picture, Buzz will have Acker on the bench, with the desire to look ahead being most important.
Anyway, I hope Acker hates reading all the hate, and turns that into motivation for a good season.
I think with proper ankle taping and a steady diet of listerine, Acker will be a starter...
Quote from: mug644 on September 26, 2009, 08:52:10 PM
I sure hope Acker is a 'chip on his shoulder' kind of guy. People love to lambaste his size, his skills, his performance, his contributions...hell, even his presence on the team. I hope he reads all this and get driven to prove everyone wrong....
i think he does other things to relieve that kinda stress, right? :D
Acker cannot D anybody 6 feet or over, he cannot shoot and cannot penetrate. He is not BEast talent. If we are going to rely on him, we are in a world of hurt. Please stop deluding yourselves.
Quote from: willie warrior on September 27, 2009, 06:36:23 AM
Acker cannot D anybody 6 feet or over, he cannot shoot and cannot penetrate. He is not BEast talent. If we are going to rely on him, we are in a world of hurt. Please stop deluding yourselves.
Not BE talent?----Looked to me like Acker he stood up very well against some of the best PG s in the nation those last 6 games vs top 10 teams.
Bilsu said it best when he said that it wasn't his job last year to take the initiative from Mathews/McNeal-----it was his job to not make mistakes and to hit catch & shoot treys when his guy sagged off on WM & JM-----which he did.
As far as "not being able to take it to penetrate"----that's bogus---he brokedown the CUSE zone better than anyone all year via penetration-----he's just not going to finish at the hoop----but he will draw bodies and kick the ball back out (a chance of 3 points vs 2).
Sitting a senior with successful BE & NCAA experience would be a mistake!
Quote from: Murffieus on September 27, 2009, 07:25:04 AM
Not BE talent?----Looked to me like Acker he stood up very well against some of the best PG s in the nation those last 6 games vs top 10 teams.
How many of those 6 games did we win??? I would think winning would be the true measure of a basketball player.
Quote from: pbiflyer on September 27, 2009, 11:52:10 AM
How many of those 6 games did we win??? I would think winning would be the true measure of a basketball player.
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about Mo as our starting PG, but looking at those games from last year, how many can you say we would have definitely won with James in the game? In which of those games did Acker's shortcomings as a player directly cause Marquette to lose?
Quote from: pbiflyer on September 27, 2009, 11:52:10 AM
How many of those 6 games did we win??? I would think winning would be the true measure of a basketball player.
How many were we favored to win? (Being favored doesn't mean a whole lot, but as Chicos claimed with Super Bowls it matters to a small degree to show team expectations).
At Loiusville-No
At Pitt-No
Home Uconn-No
Neutral Villanova-I don't think so (lost on last second shot)
Neutral against Missouri-No-winning in last minute, however.
Home against the Cuse-Maybe, don't recall. Lost in OT.
IMO, Acker played well enough in those games to give the team a chance to win the games. They didn't. A bounce here or there and the game would have been to MU. You could make the claim that if he had more substantial minutes during the season he would have faired even better running the team down the stretch.
We are better off having Mo on the team this year than not - that's for sure. He has defensive issues, but was great at times, (like against ND), but he can't slash to the basket and score - not a threat there - so that limits getting a pass off to an open guy as a slasher can (like DJ). Can't do much about that.... defense is what he should key on.
Quote from: pbiflyer on September 27, 2009, 11:52:10 AM
How many of those 6 games did we win??? I would think winning would be the true measure of a basketball player.
THERE ARE 5 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR at a time----NOT JUST ONE.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 27, 2009, 05:45:21 PM
THERE ARE 5 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR at a time----NOT JUST ONE.
Thought the sign of a good pg was to make those around him better.
I am happy to have Mo. Just don't think he is going to be our starting guard to get that 10-8 record you project for us.
Murf...we get the point. You have been trying to make this argument for the last 8 months. You obviously believe in it, while others are skeptical. Both sides are entitled their opinion, and I do respect that, and I respect your passion.
However...give it a rest! We get it!!
You have called out Vander Blue and Brett Favre in the past for doing things to draw attention to themselves...yet you are doing the EXACT same thing. Any time this years PG situation comes up, your shtick starts right back up again. It was old in April, and now its September...
We all know how you feel, give it a rest.
Quote from: pbiflyer on September 27, 2009, 08:42:51 PM
Thought the sign of a good pg was to make those around him better.
I am happy to have Mo. Just don't think he is going to be our starting guard to get that 10-8 record you project for us.
Depends on the system-----in Crean's system he put a lot of pressure on his PG to perform as the PG in that system
had more touches and spent more time with the ball (east/west dribbling)than any other guy on the floor. With 5 apg, I guess he did make it easier for others (but just 5 times a game).
However, if Buzz plays his passing/motion offense (which I think he will), the PG plays a relative passive role with no more touches or time with the ball than any other player on the floor. In that role all he has to be able to do on offense is bring the ball up against pressure, be able to shoot treys, and to be able to drive the seams of the defense and kick out-----all of which Acker does very well.
If Buzz plays his system that doesn't require a point guard beyond the first pass, start someone who can defend. Why would you only want 4 defenders on the floor? And Murf, the fact that doddsy told you to give it a rest and you still felt compelled to come over here instead and start the same damned argument says more about you than about Mo. You are truly an army of one.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 28, 2009, 05:52:35 AM
Depends on the system-----in Crean's system he put a lot of pressure on his PG to perform as the PG in that system
had more touches and spent more time with the ball (east/west dribbling)than any other guy on the floor. With 5 apg, I guess he did make it easier for others (but just 5 times a game).
However, if Buzz plays his passing/motion offense (which I think he will), the PG plays a relative passive role with no more touches or time with the ball than any other player on the floor. In that role all he has to be able to do on offense is bring the ball up against pressure, be able to shoot treys, and to be able to drive the seams of the defense and kick out-----all of which Acker does very well.
"Shoot treys" well? When he was playing 30+ minutes for Ball State as a freshman, he shot 29.8% from behind the line. That isn't good by any stretch.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 27, 2009, 05:45:21 PM
THERE ARE 5 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR at a time----NOT JUST ONE.
Save for the occasional "3" Acker is a total non threat offensively. But for an occasional steal he is a total liability defensively. Since opponents don't have to guard him (unable to finish at all) things are tougher on the offensive end for the other 4. His lack of size and strength forces his teamates to cover for him on the defensive end. Put another way, he makes those around him worse not better. Not what you want in a starting point guard.
If Acker is as bad defensively as people are making him out to be, would it be out of the question to run more zone to allow these deficiencies to be lessened?
Quote from: Murffieus on September 28, 2009, 05:52:35 AM
Depends on the system-----in Crean's system he put a lot of pressure on his PG to perform as the PG in that system
had more touches and spent more time with the ball (east/west dribbling)than any other guy on the floor. With 5 apg, I guess he did make it easier for others (but just 5 times a game).
However, if Buzz plays his passing/motion offense (which I think he will), the PG plays a relative passive role with no more touches or time with the ball than any other player on the floor. In that role all he has to be able to do on offense is bring the ball up against pressure, be able to shoot treys, and to be able to drive the seams of the defense and kick out-----all of which Acker does very well.
I understand Murph's logic on this point...but I think there are two major assumptions/flaws. First, we don't know if Buzz is going to play the motion offense. If he sticks with the three guard offense from last year, Mo is less effective in that IMO. That leads me to my second point, I think Acker is low average to below average at driving the seams and kicking out (for a PG). He does not get down to the giants and find the open man. My memory may be a bit foggy b/c I wasn't looking for it at the time, but I believe Acker tends to focus on ball reversals and not attacking the seams, and I think this knocks out 1 of the three areas you need to excel in to be an effective PG in Buzz's motion offense...especially if only 2 guards are on the floor!
Quote from: Tmreddevil on September 28, 2009, 01:01:28 PM
I understand Murph's logic on this point...but I think there are two major assumptions/flaws. First, we don't know if Buzz is going to play the motion offense. If he sticks with the three guard offense from last year, Mo is less effective in that IMO. That leads me to my second point, I think Acker is low average to below average at driving the seams and kicking out (for a PG). He does not get down to the giants and find the open man. My memory may be a bit foggy b/c I wasn't looking for it at the time, but I believe Acker tends to focus on ball reversals and not attacking the seams, and I think this knocks out 1 of the three areas you need to excel in to be an effective PG in Buzz's motion offense...especially if only 2 guards are on the floor!
Yes, Acker does not attack the seams as he is ineffective in trying to do so. Definitely more into ball reversal.
Acker is a solid addition on the team. He will have his ups and downs depending on the situation and competition. I see him as someone who can contribute depending on matchups. If MU is to be successful that success will depend on someone else stepping up and leading at the PG with Mo adding value when matchups call for it. Lets not slam Mo as he does give his best and can help us out.
Why does it seem to be impossible to get some reasonable discussion of Acker?
On one hand, we have Murff, who seems to be hell-bent on (mis)using stats to suggest that Acker is as good as (if not better than) Domnic James.
On the other hand, we have the same misuse of stats, assuming that five minutes a game in garbage time is indicative of what regular starting performance would give us.
I think its reasonable to look at Acker's performance in those last eight games, and make a fair assessment based on such performance.
Over the course of the last eight games--when Acker started and was part of the regular rotation--he shot 11 of 29 on three pointers, or 38%. That's a respectable number. And before anyone tries to suggest that he loaded up against Utah State or St. Johns, his 3 point percentage was actually higher in the six losses--a combined 10 of 23 or 43.5%.
Similarly, over the course of the last eight games, he had a 2:1 Assist to Turnover ratio--that's respectable--especially considering the quality of the competition down that stretch.
And, Acker was capable of contributing during the clutch---people seem to prefer to point out his mistakes, as opposed to, say, his clutch three pointer that closed MU to within a point against Villanova in the waining minutes in the BET.
The bottom line is that Acker is neither as good as Murff suggests--or as bad as his detractors make him out to be.
As I've said before, if can play to a 2:1 A/T ratio, shoot 38% on threes against five elite eight teams (in single-digit games), then we'll be fine with him running show against everyone else.
And if Acker's performance in the last eight games is the floor and Buycks is good enough to take minutes from him? Then we are absolutely in good shape when it comes to the point next year.
+1 and a reasoned argument. Those last 8 games were against some very good teams and Acker held his own for the most part.
is this SJS and Murf sort of agreeing on something? holy crap! ;D
next, PRN will show up at a game with a yellow shirt and an eagle hat.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 28, 2009, 02:04:57 PM
+1 and a reasoned argument. Those last 8 games were against some very good teams and Acker held his own for the most part.
Agree. Acker's not going to embarrass us. But, he does have his limitations and is not an elite level collegiate PG who will lead MU to a Top 4 BE finish. Some posters here need to be realistic that MA is going to play a lot more than 5 to 8 minutes simply due to lack of depth and the fact that he is the only tru PG on the active roster. Mo's is our guy even with his obvious size issues. No one can challenge his efforts. But, guys like Murff need to understand Mo's limitations and matchup issues. In the end, lets be MU guys and support Mo.
Quote from: Marquette84 on September 28, 2009, 01:57:03 PM
Why does it seem to be impossible to get some reasonable discussion of Acker?
On one hand, we have Murff, who seems to be hell-bent on (mis)using stats to suggest that Acker is as good as (if not better than) Domnic James.
On the other hand, we have the same misuse of stats, assuming that five minutes a game in garbage time is indicative of what regular starting performance would give us.
I think its reasonable to look at Acker's performance in those last eight games, and make a fair assessment based on such performance.
Over the course of the last eight games--when Acker started and was part of the regular rotation--he shot 11 of 29 on three pointers, or 38%. That's a respectable number. And before anyone tries to suggest that he loaded up against Utah State or St. Johns, his 3 point percentage was actually higher in the six losses--a combined 10 of 23 or 43.5%.
Similarly, over the course of the last eight games, he had a 2:1 Assist to Turnover ratio--that's respectable--especially considering the quality of the competition down that stretch.
And, Acker was capable of contributing during the clutch---people seem to prefer to point out his mistakes, as opposed to, say, his clutch three pointer that closed MU to within a point against Villanova in the waining minutes in the BET.
The bottom line is that Acker is neither as good as Murff suggests--or as bad as his detractors make him out to be.
As I've said before, if can play to a 2:1 A/T ratio, shoot 38% on threes against five elite eight teams (in single-digit games), then we'll be fine with him running show against everyone else.
And if Acker's performance in the last eight games is the floor and Buycks is good enough to take minutes from him? Then we are absolutely in good shape when it comes to the point next year.
SJS/84-----I'm not saying Acker is a great PG-----what I am saying is that he's very serviceable at PG and our best bet there this year because of proven BE and NCAA experience and the fact he is a senior (leadership)-----(Bucyks is a #2 shooting guard and DJO i seem to recall turned the ball over 4 times a game on a JUCO level-----if i recall correctly hardly PG material).
The idea that you need a super star at PG to have a successful season is bogus----especially if Buzz plays his motion/passing game offense.
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I had to comment on a WISN local new headline on my Google Desktop, "Acker Pleads No Contest...". I believe my first thought was, "you've got to be _&*()@#% kidding me!!!".
Thankfully, when I clicked on the link I saw a photo of a 50-ish balding white guy in the orange jumpsuit. I don't think I can take another "issue".
The facts are these: We've got a short bench and only one guy who's a proven 30 mpg workhorse. Buzz is going to need to need every player we've got (guard and otherwise) to keep oppontents from hammering our size at the 1, 2, 4, and 5.
As Buzz continues to develop as a head coach, I'd love to see him develop that ability to get the most he possibly can out of every player, even the ones who's contibutions may be more minor. I'd love to see him utilize our very different pieces in different situations as opponent personnel and game tempo dictate.
When Acker's in the game his ability to harass dribblers, stalk passing lanes, control the dribble, push into transition (assuming we can get a rebound MA's speed could be just the guy to get EWill and DJO pushing up the floor) and 40%-ish 3-pt-FGs will provide one look.
When Acker sits we'll have Buycks who seems significantly bigger and stronger and should be more capable of pushing the ball into the paint and then dishing. Bucks and DJO should also be able to keep more physical guards out of the paint.
Hopefully we can also see Cubie find a meaningful role (say 10 mpg) similar to what we saw his freshman year: energy, enthusiasm, chest-to-chest defense and fearless/timely 3 pt shooting.