The postings to MU Scoop over the last 12 hours.
So far I have read that Buzz sucks, the team has no heart and no balls, and Lazar isn't a leader. Sad.
This team is a marginal NCAA tournament team that played a bad game. It really is just that simple. But some fans think that somehow they are entitled to root for a team that is more than that. When that doesn't happen, the bad sports cliches fly around and they throw their team under the bus.
Sometimes in sports bad teams lose to better teams. It happens.
+1
Actually most of the time bad teams lose to better teams. It didn't happen last night. Just awful.
Like clockwork .. people are mad after a loss. And people are mad at those who are mad.
Then there's the people who are mad at those who are mad at those who are mad.
What's for lunch?
Amen
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on January 21, 2010, 11:31:16 AM
Like clockwork .. people are mad after a loss. And people are mad at those who are mad.
Then there's the people who are mad at those who are mad at those who are mad.
What's for lunch?
Pizza Man...
/too soon?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 21, 2010, 11:27:24 AM
The postings to MU Scoop over the last 12 hours.
So far I have read that Buzz sucks, the team has no heart and no balls, and Lazar isn't a leader. Sad.
This team is a marginal NCAA tournament team that played a bad game. It really is just that simple. But some fans think that somehow they are entitled to root for a team that is more than that. When that doesn't happen, the bad sports cliches fly around and they throw their team under the bus.
Sometimes in sports bad teams lose to better teams. It happens.
Particular attacks on particular players I think is out of bounds. The comments about someone sucking, etc...I agree, also out of bounds.
The result last night, however, was embarrassing. I don't know any other way to describe it. DePaul is THAT BAD. It's an embarrassing loss, no other way to state it, but to your point, the personal attacks are equally embarrassing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 11:34:57 AM
Particular attacks on particular players I think is out of bounds. The comments about someone sucking, etc...I agree, also out of bounds.
The result last night, however, was embarrassing. I don't know any other way to describe it. DePaul is THAT BAD. It's an embarrassing loss, no other way to state it, but to your point, the personal attacks are equally embarrassing.
The result was embarrassing...the team isn't. I'm proud these guys represent my alma mater.
Quote from: MUsoxfan on January 21, 2010, 11:29:43 AM
Actually most of the time bad teams lose to better teams. It didn't happen last night. Just awful.
Yeah, I said that wrong didn't I!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 21, 2010, 11:39:29 AM
The result was embarrassing...the team isn't. I'm proud these guys represent my alma mater.
I'd say the result and effort were embarrassing. The players on the team are not. Frustrating loss, that is for sure. Shocking result quite frankly. I'm very hard pressed to think of a worse loss in the last 15 years. Maine in the Deane era and ND State I'm sure come to mind, but both of those opponents actually had some success. DePaul is beyond brutal. Especially with the amount of MU fans there, the rivalry component, the fact that this team should not be taking anyone for granted. Shocking result. Unfortunate.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 11:50:07 AM
I'd say the result and effort were embarrassing.
How do you know? You didn't watch the game.
One bad loss so far this year. Embarassing is way to strong of a word for it, IMO. Time to move on to the next game.
Yeah..but you can't lose that game. It is an embarrassing loss and becasue of that people are upset and are going to say things. So why don't you just relax a little bit and let people vent. 5 losses by a combined 7 points is tough for any team and their fans.
Because it isn't just venting. I've said a number of things here...the offense simply sucked. They didn't give Lazar enough touches in the second half. They couldn't handle the switching on every screen, etc.
I have a problem with throwing them under the bus..."the team is embarrassing," "They have no heart," etc.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on January 21, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
How do you know? You didn't watch the game.
One bad loss so far this year. Embarassing is way to strong of a word for it, IMO. Time to move on to the next game.
DVRS...new invention. ;D
I watched it on DVR this morning, the second half. Watching some of the first half right now. When I say effort, I mean energy. There is no energy out there, there seems to be a lack of hustle at times and desire. Very flat. When I see a flat team I equate it to effort. A team with great effort is never flat.
How would you describe being the first team to lose to another team in almost two years in conference,, WITHOUT their best player, in a building where half the crowd were Marquette fans, and the closest margin of defeat they had was within 13 points. I can't think of a better word than embarrassing. What word would you prefer if you think that one is too harsh?
Chicos, I think that you are correct that the energy level was down. I think you can credit Tracy Webster's game plan for a lot of that. After the run to put MU up 20-8, De Paul switched their defense to something Mike Kelly called "man-to-man with zone principles." Basically what they did was switch all screens on defense which really limited our penetration, which is such a big part of our game.
Their big guys also played very well by keeping Butler and Hayward off of the offensive boards. I have yet to see Henry Sugar's analysis, but my guess is that this was the least effective offensive game of the season, precisely because our offensive rebounding was so poor.
I think De Paul's plan was very good, exercised well, and we didn't respond - neither energy-wise nor Xs and Os wise.
No matter what way you cut it...it WAS an embarrassing loss. I am sure they are embarrassed by their performance. I wish they played ith a little more heart last night. That's all it should have taken to beat that DePaul team.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 21, 2010, 12:39:51 PM
Chicos, I think that you are correct that the energy level was down. I think you can credit Tracy Webster's game plan for a lot of that. After the run to put MU up 20-8, De Paul switched their defense to something Mike Kelly called "man-to-man with zone principles." Basically what they did was switch all screens on defense which really limited our penetration, which is such a big part of our game.
Their big guys also played very well by keeping Butler and Hayward off of the offensive boards. I have yet to see Henry Sugar's analysis, but my guess is that this was the least effective offensive game of the season, precisely because our offensive rebounding was so poor.
I think De Paul's plan was very good, exercised well, and we didn't respond - neither energy-wise nor Xs and Os wise.
And it will likely become a pattern that other teams will explore using. I have no way of knowing this, but my guess is that we just took them for granted. We saw how horrible they were, felt we would stroll in there and win, came out flat with little effort and got bit big time. In my mind, that's on the coaching staff and the seniors. It's human nature to look at a piss poor team and think you're going to win, but it's also part of the senior leadership and the coaching staff to make sure they don't allow that to happen.
You know what is embarrassing is our free throw shooting. How many games are they going to lose this way?
I'd like to point out one bit of good in this:
I was able to take one of the buses to the game that left from the Al Center. And though the All State arena looks like a bowling alley and the outcome of the game was not in our favor, I think it was an otherwise fun time.
The Marquette Student Fans were much louder than the DePaul Student fans for about 36+ minutes in the game. And the contingent of alums that took the bus was fun but seeing a lot of Chicago MU fans come to the came was remarkable as well. Still calling the All-State the Al McGuire Court South might be a bit of an overstatement but MU fans out numbered DePauls. DePaul's student section had a particularly pathetic turn out. I think the MU fans were able to help raise the energy level of the team, even if that energy knob was only moved from 0 to 1.
However if anyone is superstitious, this was my first MU away game so I might be banned from future bus trips.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 11:50:07 AM
I'd say the result and effort were embarrassing. The players on the team are not. Frustrating loss, that is for sure. Shocking result quite frankly. I'm very hard pressed to think of a worse loss in the last 15 years. Maine in the Deane era and ND State I'm sure come to mind, but both of those opponents actually had some success.
That Maine team finished 11-20, playing in the America East conference.
Interesting definition of success.
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest this Depaul team could win 11 games playing in that conference.
what the hell is this " you can't comment if you didn't see the game" crap?
losing to a patsy with a home game feel crowd and a final minutes lack of free throw shooting(again) certainly warrants comment ,regardless.
With that kind of logic no one could speak about the disaster in haiti
Quote from: elephantraker on January 21, 2010, 01:03:25 PM
what the hell is this " you can't comment if you didn't see the game" crap?
losing to a patsy with a home game feel crowd and a final minutes lack of free throw shooting(again) certainly warrants comment ,regardless.
With that kind of logic no one could speak about the disaster in haiti
It's simple, Chicos said the team lacked effort, prior to even watching the game on this newfangled device called a DVR :P
Quote from: Ari Gold on January 21, 2010, 12:59:08 PM
I'd like to point out one bit of good in this:
I was able to take one of the buses to the game that left from the Al Center. And though the All State arena looks like a bowling alley and the outcome of the game was not in our favor, I think it was an otherwise fun time.
The Marquette Student Fans were much louder than the DePaul Student fans for about 36+ minutes in the game. And the contingent of alums that took the bus was fun but seeing a lot of Chicago MU fans come to the came was remarkable as well. Still calling the All-State the Al McGuire Court South might be a bit of an overstatement but MU fans out numbered DePauls. DePaul's student section had a particularly pathetic turn out. I think the MU fans were able to help raise the energy level of the team, even if that energy knob was only moved from 0 to 1.
However if anyone is superstitious, this was my first MU away game so I might be banned from future bus trips.
That makes me more depressed. It was like a home game away from home with our fans and we still couldn't come through.
Ugh
Quote from: indeelaw90 on January 21, 2010, 01:07:42 PM
It's simple, Chicos said the team lacked effort, prior to even watching the game on this newfangled device called a DVR :P
Huh? I don't think that's true....I believe I said that comment it after I watched it this morning.
cutting a really smelly fart in an elevator and having a good looking woman get on at the next stop!
Definitely a gag job, but the loss to Kansas in the FF was much more embarassing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 03:19:01 PM
Huh? I don't think that's true....I believe I said that comment it after I watched it this morning.
No you said you sped through most of it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 03:19:01 PM
Huh? I don't think that's true....I believe I said that comment it after I watched it this morning.
Dear Chicos,
Congratulations, you finally have a legitimate beef with Buzz Williams and this team. You've been looking all year, and now you have your chance. Am I surprised to read most of your criticisms of Buzz and this team today? Not at all. Why don't you take your fanhood and allegiance to IU and become a fan of your real crush in life - TC. Buzz will outperform Tom Crean in the next 5 years..guaranteed...and guess what..he'll do it a poor old MU..and not at "Because IT'S Indiana..it's Indiana."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 03:19:01 PM
Huh? I don't think that's true....I believe I said that comment it after I watched it this morning.
you actually said
Quote
I'm at a restaurant for dinner and just got an alert on MU iPhone.
Is this serious? Maybe we can stop the NCAA talk now
What an embarassment
For maximum effect, next time fart just before you exit the elevator.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on January 21, 2010, 03:31:38 PM
No you said you sped through most of it.
Yes, sped through it....as in commercials, free throws, dead time....I was still able to watch much of it and get the flow of the game. They were flat, didn't seem to have the desire\effort\legs....whatever you want to call it.
Quote from: MU_B2002 on January 21, 2010, 03:34:44 PM
you actually said
Uhm, that is correct. Follow the timeline
I said LAST NIGHT it was an embarrassment...whether I watched it or not LAST NIGHT, the result was an embarrassment based on the result.
Some people, for whatever reason, believe you have to watch the game to make that statement...I find that absurd. We just lost to one of the worst teams in the nation...that's an embarrassment.
Keep following the timeline, however, and this MORNING I said I watched the second half via DVR (then later the 1st half) and that IS when I made the comment that their seemed to be a lack of effort. I only said that AFTER I watched the game action, not last night when I hadn't seen it.
Therefore, I don't see anything inconsistent at all. It was an embarrassing result, sight unseen. After watching it, not only was it embarrassing but the team appeared to show up as if the game was already decided. Lack of effort, lack etc (based on WATCHING the game). Then, when the realized at the end that their lackluster effort could actually bite them in the tush, they started their free throw syndrome again.
Entirely consistent with what I said last night and observed this morning.
Um thanks.
I know all that. I was just posting what u said last night, (which I believe was the statement that got certain folks worked up). Really just to clarify you didn't mention a lack of effort before you saw the result. But thanks for the timeline.
;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Uhm, that is correct. Follow the timeline
I said LAST NIGHT it was an embarrassment...whether I watched it or not LAST NIGHT, the result was an embarrassment based on the result.
Some people, for whatever reason, believe you have to watch the game to make that statement...I find that absurd. We just lost to one of the worst teams in the nation...that's an embarrassment.
Keep following the timeline, however, and this MORNING I said I watched the second half via DVR (then later the 1st half) and that IS when I made the comment that their seemed to be a lack of effort. I only said that AFTER I watched the game action, not last night when I hadn't seen it.
Therefore, I don't see anything inconsistent at all. It was an embarrassing result, sight unseen. After watching it, not only was it embarrassing but the team appeared to show up as if the game was already decided. Lack of effort, lack etc (based on WATCHING the game). Then, when the realized at the end that their lackluster effort could actually bite them in the tush, they started their free throw syndrome again.
Entirely consistent with what I said last night and observed this morning.
That's the thing about the internet..can't get your tone. From how I read your "sped through most of it". It sounds to me like you really didn't watch the whole second half. Just bits and pieces.
We'll agree to disagree on the "embarassing" part of the loss.
I sat in the second row. Thought we played hard but poorly. Lazar and DJO were also careless on a couple of occasions. De Paul is bad, but I was surprised that they were SO much bigger than us.
I can't believe Marquette fans were called overly sensitive the other day.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2010, 04:01:49 PM
but I was surprised that they were SO much bigger than us.
Wallace looked like a beast.
I was there and IMHO the MU fan turnout was poor. Also, since I didn't see any video, was the ref's call nullifying the basket before the end of the first half correct?
Quote from: KC2016 on January 21, 2010, 04:14:31 PM
I was there and IMHO the MU fan turnout was poor. Also, since I didn't see any video, was the ref's call nullifying the basket before the end of the first half correct?
100% correct no doubt about it
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2010, 04:02:01 PM
I can't believe Marquette fans were called overly sensitive the other day.
Haha, nice.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Keep following the timeline, however, and this MORNING I said I watched the second half via DVR (then later the 1st half) and that IS when I made the comment that their seemed to be a lack of effort. I only said that AFTER I watched the game action, not last night when I hadn't seen it.
Therefore, I don't see anything inconsistent at all. It was an embarrassing result, sight unseen. After watching it, not only was it embarrassing but the team appeared to show up as if the game was already decided. Lack of effort, lack etc (based on WATCHING the game). Then, when the realized at the end that their lackluster effort could actually bite them in the tush, they started their free throw syndrome again.
Which of the players specifically did you notice not playing hard?
Defense is almost always the first place we can see a team or players take plays off with less than full effort, yet i thought everyone on the team played very hard defensively. I guess Butler looked a bit lower on the intensity scale, but casual impressions by viewers can be misleading sometimes.
What you saw as lackluster effort i saw as confusion on how best to attack the defense DePaul switched to, frustration leading to apprehension over missing open shots they've been making in previous games, and finally choking at the line in the last minute yet again.
For all the struggles offensively, the team had held DePaul to only 46 points with 20 seconds left in the game and we also had the ball with a four point lead. Make some free throws the game is over. Hell, even with all the offensive struggles and gagged free throws, Stovall had to hit two very tough shots to get over 50 points and win the game. In the first half, we hit open shots. In the second half nothing went in. Making open shots has a great way of making an offense look more "focused". Look at the Badgers who weren't able to beat Michigan yesterday until shots started going in.
Quote from: El Duderino on January 21, 2010, 07:47:08 PM
Which of the players specifically did you notice not playing hard?
Defense is almost always the first place we can see a team or players take plays off with less than full effort, yet i thought everyone on the team played very hard defensively. I guess Butler looked a bit lower on the intensity scale, but casual impressions by viewers can be misleading sometimes.
What you saw as lackluster effort i saw as confusion on how best to attack the defense DePaul switched to, frustration leading to apprehension over missing open shots they've been making in previous games, and finally choking at the line in the last minute yet again.
For all the struggles offensively, the team had held DePaul to only 46 points with 20 seconds left in the game and we also had the ball with a four point lead. Make some free throws the game is over. Hell, even with all the offensive struggles and gagged free throws, Stovall had to hit two very tough shots to get over 50 points and win the game. In the first half, we hit open shots. In the second half nothing went in. Making open shots has a great way of making an offense look more "focused". Look at the Badgers who weren't able to beat Michigan yesterday until shots started going in.
I was at the game and concurr with your analysis. Good to see some sanity on the board.
Quote from: El Duderino on January 21, 2010, 07:47:08 PM
For all the struggles offensively, the team had held DePaul to only 46 points with 20 seconds left in the game and we also had the ball with a four point lead.
Its highly misleading to say that we "held" DePaul to 46 points as some kind of masterful defensive performance.
We didn't hold DePaul's scoring down--THEY did by running the shot clock down on nearly every possession. Holding the score into the 50's was exactly what THEY wanted to do--not our objective.
Meanwhile, the valid comparison--shooting percentage--tells a different story. We "held" a team that was shooting 39% on the season to 42%--and they were without their two highest percentage shooters!
If anyone played good defense last night it was DePaul. They held a team shooting 48% on the year six points below their season average, AND completely took away their opponent's transition game.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2010, 08:53:52 PM
I was at the game and concurr with your analysis. Good to see some sanity on the board.
+1. Same here. Thought we played hard on D. Just completely out of sync on offense and choked on the FTs at the end.
Wasn't impressed by the MU student turnout either, but I applaud those who did show. I sat opposite both student 'sections' and the DePaul students were much louder, but that was simply because they had more students there than us. Frankly, I wasn't much impressed by the noise level from MU fans in general. Seems we've gotten into a habit of sitting on our hands, drinking beer, and expecting a win instead of going nuts and taking over the building like we did during D Wade's years. The energy from the MU fans has really fallen off to me since those years.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 21, 2010, 09:38:06 PM
Its highly misleading to say that we "held" DePaul to 46 points as some kind of masterful defensive performance.
We didn't hold DePaul's scoring down--THEY did by running the shot clock down on nearly every possession. Holding the score into the 50's was exactly what THEY wanted to do--not our objective.
Meanwhile, the valid comparison--shooting percentage--tells a different story. We "held" a team that was shooting 39% on the season to 42%--and they were without their two highest percentage shooters!
If anyone played good defense last night it was DePaul. They held a team shooting 48% on the year six points below their season average, AND completely took away their opponent's transition game.
I wasn't trying to imply Marquette played a good game when obviously they didn't. I just watched the game and didn't see this lackluster and lazy effort from the players that others claimed happened.
Besides the gagged free throws and fairly lucky shots by Stovall at the end, Marquette lost because the offense fell apart in the second half. It's not like Depaul carved us up offensively. If our offense doesn't fall apart, we win with ease. Now some blame that offensive collapse on lazy effort, i just saw it differently. The players looked confused by Depaul's defense, frustrated by not being able to solve it, and they also simply missed many open shot they normally make.
Overall i think Buzz has done a great job coaching so far this year, but maybe he shares in some blame for the offensive struggles yesterday. Maybe some wisdom from him could have helped the kids attack that matchup zone better. I don't know, but the players never looked very comfortable on how to exploit what DePaul was doing defensively. That's why when they did get open looks, it hurt so much that few would drop.
It felt like many other games over the years where Marquette faced an inferior team, but Marquette just couldn't put them away. Games like that happen to a lot of teams, but they usually end up winning a close one and everyone quickly forgets how close of a call it actually was. That would have been the case yesterday also if the perfect storm of events doesn't happen with 20 seconds left, up 4 and with the ball. If either of Lazar/Coobie doesn't choke, game over. Even with their choking, if Stovall doesn't hit two fairly lucky shots, game over and a week from now nobody remembers the close call.
Quote from: El Duderino on January 21, 2010, 07:47:08 PM
Which of the players specifically did you notice not playing hard?
Defense is almost always the first place we can see a team or players take plays off with less than full effort, yet i thought everyone on the team played very hard defensively. I guess Butler looked a bit lower on the intensity scale, but casual impressions by viewers can be misleading sometimes.
What you saw as lackluster effort i saw as confusion on how best to attack the defense DePaul switched to, frustration leading to apprehension over missing open shots they've been making in previous games, and finally choking at the line in the last minute yet again.
For all the struggles offensively, the team had held DePaul to only 46 points with 20 seconds left in the game and we also had the ball with a four point lead. Make some free throws the game is over. Hell, even with all the offensive struggles and gagged free throws, Stovall had to hit two very tough shots to get over 50 points and win the game. In the first half, we hit open shots. In the second half nothing went in. Making open shots has a great way of making an offense look more "focused". Look at the Badgers who weren't able to beat Michigan yesterday until shots started going in.
Spot. On. Analysis.
Thanks.