http://marquette.scout.com/2/940298.html
Well at least Buzz admits he is playing midgets out there. (look under fouls paragraph)
Then coach, get out there and recruit a PF.
Quote from: nyg on January 23, 2010, 04:50:26 PM
Then coach, get out there and recruit a PF.
He had one in Jeronne Maymon.
He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.
He is trying to add one for next year.
Yeah, but I'm being told that it's a guard's game. ;D
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 23, 2010, 05:06:32 PM
Yeah, but I'm being told that it's a guard's game. ;D
Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 23, 2010, 05:09:43 PM
Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.
when a 5'6" pg can effectively guard a 6'8" pf on the blocks, let Buzz know.
Maybe in some games, but not today:
Rebounds Cuse 43 MU 21
Blocks Cuse 10 MU 0
Cuse's starting guards 7 points
Cuse's points in paint maybe like 60?
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 23, 2010, 05:09:43 PM
Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.
Are you taking Nova over Cuse? I'm anxious to see how Nova plays them. I was not impressed with the Cuse guards today. Rautins is a capable shooter, but he had a few turnovers and made a few decisions that were really poor. I see Nova and Cuse (as I continue to under estimate Dixon's unbelievable season) battling for the top spot in the BEAST.
If you dont realize that College Basketball is a GUARDS game...then you are truly clueless and ignorant.
If you dont have good guards, you will not succeed. Why did we have so much success in the 4 years prior to this one? Because we had a GREAT group of guards.
Why were we an embarassment in the 2nd half of 2004-05...because we didnt have ANY guards.
Look at UNC this year...they are struggling (by their standards), yet they are HUGE up front...so why are they struggling? Because their guards are not playing well, they are turning it over too much and not running the offense well. If it is a "big mans game"...they should be #1 in the nation.
Yes...our lack of size is incredibly frustrating...but that does not change the fact that good College teams are led by good guards...and if you dont have good guards, you will stuggle.
Quote from: nyg on January 23, 2010, 05:18:03 PM
Maybe in some games, but not today:
Rebounds Cuse 43 MU 21
Blocks Cuse 10 MU 0
Cuse's starting guards 7 points
Cuse's points in paint maybe like 60?
Seriously? Cuse had 22 more boards and 10 more blocks than we did and we only lost by five? Unreal.
Tired of moral victories, but WOW.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 23, 2010, 05:04:46 PM
He had one in Jeronne Maymon.
He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.
And he had another (allegedly) rape someone.
Maymon was never going to be a PF, or so his father told MU.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 23, 2010, 05:04:46 PM
He had one in Jeronne Maymon.
He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.
He is trying to add one for next year.
Hehas been recruiting for almost 3 years now, and still has not landed one. Trying does not cut it--landing them does!!
It is mandatory that we get a true big who can play next year. We cannot survive like this. It is a must. And that BIG will play and be highlighted.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 23, 2010, 05:09:43 PM
Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.
But not when almost your entire rotation is "guards"
he also has recruited otule, mcmorrow, and mbao(sic)
He's recruited and gotten to commit Otule, McMorrow, Mbao, Maymon, Monterale Clark. A lot of bad luck and all, though none of them have gotten anything close to significant minutes, and that's what ultimately counts. With at least 2 open spots still for next year, Otule and Mbao returning from injuries with at least the entire summer to prepare and improve, and a slew of depth coming into the backcourt "bad luck" won't be an excuse for Buzz to not be able to get some sort of presence inside besides guards playing the 5 and getting stuffed on offense and stuffed on on defense.
Quote from: nyg on January 23, 2010, 05:18:03 PM
Maybe in some games, but not today:
Rebounds Cuse 43 MU 21
Blocks Cuse 10 MU 0
Cuse's starting guards 7 points
Cuse's points in paint maybe like 60?
You do realize that the job of the guards isn't always to score....right? It's a guards game....ask Coach K, Coach Howland, Coach Smith, etc. Yes, if you have both guards and bigs, you're going to win. If you only have good bigs, you aren't going to win. If you only have good guards, you actually can win, but not go all the way.
College is a guards game, has been for a generation now.
Ask Boeheim. Syracuse kept their best frountcourt players, but they lost a senior and a lottery pick in the backcourt. Now they have two freshman point guards and a team that is capable of turning the ball over 22 times in a single game, and they are struggling. Oh wait.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2010, 06:55:48 PM
You do realize that the job of the guards isn't always to score....right? It's a guards game....ask Coach K, Coach Howland, Coach Smith, etc. Yes, if you have both guards and bigs, you're going to win. If you only have good bigs, you aren't going to win. If you only have good guards, you actually can win, but not go all the way.
College is a guards game, has been for a generation now.
Again, in most games yes. Not today.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 23, 2010, 07:16:59 PM
Ask Boeheim. Syracuse kept their best frountcourt players, but they lost a senior and a lottery pick in the backcourt. Now they have two freshman point guards and a team that is capable of turning the ball over 22 times in a single game, and they are struggling. Oh wait.
I think what Chicos and the "college bball is a guards game" camp are trying to say is that, all else being equal, the team with the best guards wins. I'm inclined to agree.
Now, I understand the other point of view, especially coming from Marquette, as we haven't had a legitimate big man since Robert Jackson. When we get dominated inside like we did today, it's hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction and say "Look what happened! Syracuse has great bigs! They win because of their bigs!" That may have been true today, but it's more likely a function of Marquette's complete lack of an inside presence rather than it is 'Cuse's outright dominance. Syracuse (and teams like them) are a tough matchup for us, but that doesn't mean college basketball is a big man's game. All the proof you need can be found in "point-center" Marcus Jackson.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on January 23, 2010, 07:50:22 PM
a knee-jerk reaction
Syracuse is better this year than last, even though they lost their backcourt. They didn't just beat MU because of their big men. They're a better team this year. Their biggest upgrade is Wesley Johnson-neither a guard nor a big. I do not think that Villanova will go back to the Final Four because they lost Dante Cunningham, Duane Anderson and Shane Clark from their frontcourt, even though their backcourt is better than last year, with Scotty Reynolds now a senior and the addition of Wayns. Louisville is not nearly as good as last year, even though they have all their fat little guards back because they don't have Terrence Williams or Shane Clark-- front court.
Maybe I just don't understand what it means that the NCAA is a guard's game. You don't need a dominant big man to win games? I agree with that. However, with Villanova, backcourt dominated- at #4 and Syracuse-frontcourt dominated- at #5, I would rather have Syracuse's front court than Villanova's back court, all other things being equal. That could just be because I don't like either of the Coreys.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on January 23, 2010, 07:50:22 PM
all else being equal, the team with the best guards wins. I'm inclined to agree.
This is accurate, but the key is that all else needs to be equal...to be really good, you have to have both.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 23, 2010, 08:48:20 PM
Maybe I just don't understand what it means that the NCAA is a guard's game. You don't need a dominant big man to win games? I agree with that. However, with Villanova, backcourt dominated- at #4 and Syracuse-frontcourt dominated- at #5, I would rather have Syracuse's front court than Villanova's back court, all other things being equal. That could just be because I don't like either of the Coreys.
It's simple really, it comes down to a couple of things.
First, and most basic look at who controls the offense. Big men get their touches yes, but they get them based on the decision of a guard who decided to pass the ball. If the guard chooses not to pass the ball to the big, then no matter how talented he is, the big man is ineffective.
Second, big men by and large are dependent players. They are only as good as the guys setting them up and passing them the ball allow them to be. You can have a truly great big man in terms of skills that is ineffective because the guards around him don't know how and when to get him the ball, don't understand how to let him get in position to use his skills effectively, or just flat out don't give him the ball. On the other hand, great guards are by and large independent players. They don't need the other players to feed them properly or get in proper position because they are able to create those positions themselves.
Third, look at defense. A great press and great perimeter defense can render the best big man moot because it keeps his guards from getting him the ball. You do both of those things with great guards not big men, and being good at both of them can often render a big man ineffective.
In the end, yes a team with balance or great talent at both the guard and the post will do better. But in general when you have to err on one side or the other, you'll find that most top coaches when given the choice between great guards and no big men/untalented big men or talented big men but no guards/untalented guards will always choose the team with great guards.
Its pretty simple really. If you don't have guards, you suck. If you do, you can be good, but as was demonstrated today, it s anything but a guarantee.
Quote from: bma725 on January 23, 2010, 09:13:46 PM
It's simple really, it comes down to a couple of things.
First, and most basic look at who controls the offense. Big men get their touches yes, but they get them based on the decision of a guard who decided to pass the ball. If the guard chooses not to pass the ball to the big, then no matter how talented he is, the big man is ineffective.
Second, big men by and large are dependent players. They are only as good as the guys setting them up and passing them the ball allow them to be. You can have a truly great big man in terms of skills that is ineffective because the guards around him don't know how and when to get him the ball, don't understand how to let him get in position to use his skills effectively, or just flat out don't give him the ball. On the other hand, great guards are by and large independent players. They don't need the other players to feed them properly or get in proper position because they are able to create those positions themselves.
Third, look at defense. A great press and great perimeter defense can render the best big man moot because it keeps his guards from getting him the ball. You do both of those things with great guards not big men, and being good at both of them can often render a big man ineffective.
In the end, yes a team with balance or great talent at both the guard and the post will do better. But in general when you have to err on one side or the other, you'll find that most top coaches when given the choice between great guards and no big men/untalented big men or talented big men but no guards/untalented guards will always choose the team with great guards.
This.
First, you don't even mention rebounding. Clearly that's not an important part of the game, so we can just ignore that.
Second, you can't tell me that great big men don't make a game easier for guards defensively because when you get beat, there is a second line of defense waiting to block the shot. Marquette didn't get points in the paint against Georgetown or Syracuse because when our guards got there, they couldn't shoot with the bigs in the lane. We penetrated past the guards and got there. The bigs made it near impossible to finish. If you have a guard like Dominic James, I guess he could also fill this role -- see block of Scotty Hopson.
Third, the argument that a guard can score independently seems to be an argument to me that its better to have a great guard because he has the ability to jack up shots whenever he feels like it. Seems to be a double-edged sword. There's nothing more impressive than a big who gets his own playing with a guard like that by going to the glass.
If you're saying that without any point guard, you will struggle mightily, that's fine. That seems pretty obvious, especially if you saw Marquette Diener's senior season when he was injured. I still like a 6'9" guy so big he struggles to dunk the basketball, a la Robert Jackson or Damon Key. And I hate it that Ousmane Barro played basketball at MU for 4 years and he didn't even learn how to post up. It's not just a guard's game.
I still don't see how that makes the NCAA game a guard's game.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 23, 2010, 09:56:01 PM
First, you don't even mention rebounding. Clearly that's not an important part of the game, so we can just ignore that.
Second, you can't tell me that great big men don't make a game easier for guards defensively because when you get beat, there is a second line of defense waiting to block the shot. Marquette didn't get points in the paint against Georgetown or Syracuse because when our guards got there, they couldn't shoot with the bigs in the lane. We penetrated past the guards and got there. The bigs made it near impossible to finish. If you have a guard like Dominic James, I guess he could also fill this role -- see block of Scotty Hopson.
Third, the argument that a guard can score independently seems to be an argument to me that its better to have a great guard because he has the ability to jack up shots whenever he feels like it. Seems to be a double-edged sword. There's nothing more impressive than a big who gets his own playing with a guard like that by going to the glass.
If you're saying that without any point guard, you will struggle mightily, that's fine. That seems pretty obvious, especially if you saw Marquette Diener's senior season when he was injured. I still like a 6'9" guy so big he struggles to dunk the basketball, a la Robert Jackson or Damon Key. And I hate it that Ousmane Barro played basketball at MU for 4 years and he didn't even learn how to post up. It's not just a guard's game.
I still don't see how that makes the NCAA game a guard's game.
The bold is exactly the point (no pun intended). Without a PG, you will struggle MIGHTILY (see MU, 2003-04). Without a true big, you can still be very competitive (see MU since 2004). Of course, it's ideal to have both. But if you can only have one, you take the guards.
Are people here defining a BIG MAN by position (F/C) or by height (6'6"+)?
Just wondering...
This argument is getting a little dumb. Yes guards are more important in college but that doesn't mean that you can have a team made up entirely of guards and expect to be successful. According to Pomeroy we are in the bottom 10% in terms of team height in all of division 1. Syracuse is in the top 3%. And we got beat in the paint. Wow that's a surprise. Its a miracle that the game was as close as it was. Keep in mind that The Syracuse guards aren't exactly low major players. We've simply got to find a way to get some serviceable front line players. Its true Buzz has had some very bad luck PFs and Centers but we've got to catch a break and get somebody who can at least defend down low. No other high major team has to play like this. Its getting a little old.
Generally, when people talk about who's game it is, they are talking about scoring the ball and defense, because those two things contribute directly to winning the game, and rebounding doesn't. Rebounding is nice, but you don't need to win the rebounding battle to win the game.
Scoring independently has nothing to do with jacking up shots, it has to do with who has the ball more and who can create shots on their own. At some point you're going to be faced with a situation where the offense you run isn't working, or the clock is running down and you need someone to create their own scoring opportunity. Guards can do that, big men can't. Big men need to be in proper position, and have the ball thrown at the right time, when they are in the right spot to the right catchable area. Guards don't.
Big men can't control a game without guards helping them, guards can control a game without the help of a big man. It's not just the NCAA, it's basketball in general. That's why guys like Coach K have been saying it for years...and he's had some damn good big men.
We had Ous and Burke, who were at least bigs. Novak was 6'11" and in his senior season he didn't just shoot. He rebounded.
Sizewize, having Burke, Hayward, Butler and Matthews across the front was not awful. I think this year is the best example of the struggles that a team can have without any bigs, and the struggles are beginning to become similar to those without Diener. You look at the stats today where we force 20+ turnovers and give up shooting at what? 55%, it shows that we have to play ball pressure high risk defense because we can't play inside. Look at the NC State game in which number 23 ate us alive. Just like a team without a point guard is susceptible to teams with even mediocre pressure and mediocre guards, a team without big men is susceptible to mediocre big men. The only thing saving us this year against big men are: 1. Hayward plays much bigger than his size; 2. Hayward and Butler rebound like madmen, and the team as a whole rebounds very well; 3. Buzz and his staff have done a great job of coaching and gameplanning the players to deal with the size deficiency.
I am pretty sure that Diener MU team still made the NIT. They were competitive. They were just frustrating to watch because they couldn't break a mediocre press. Just like this team couldn't contain a mediocre #23 on NC State. So I think you can play close games either way. It just makes it really hard to win.
For those who don't believe it is a guard's game, why haven't I seen a team with four big men get major minutes and just one guard starts? Because not only can a point to a few four guard offenses in major Div 1 basketball, a few of them are quite successful.
Is there a division one team today playing with the following starting lineup...
G
F
F
F
C
Maybe there is one out there. If someone can show me that team and show they are successful, I will agree it is NOT a guard's game.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 23, 2010, 10:49:23 PM
For those who don't believe it is a guard's game, why haven't I seen a team with four big men get major minutes and just one guard starts? Because not only can a point to a few four guard offenses in major Div 1 basketball, a few of them are quite successful.
Is there a division one team today playing with the following starting lineup...
G
F
F
F
C
Maybe there is one out there. If someone can show me that team and show they are successful, I will agree it is NOT a guard's game.
Yeah, West Virginia is.
Quote from: bma725 on January 23, 2010, 10:37:37 PM
Rebounding is nice, but you don't need to win the rebounding battle to win the game.
That's why guys like Coach K have been saying it for years...and he's had some damn good big men.
Coach K's top 5 Big Men:
Laetner
Boozer
Gminski?
Parks?
Zubak?
Dunleavy?
I have no idea. I hope the Coach K stuff was in jest. I respect Taylor King's opinion on Duke's emphasis on D and rebounding.
Sorry Elton Brand; Ferry?
Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 23, 2010, 11:06:36 PM
West Virginia is G-F-F-F-F
Doesn't Florida State play g-f-f-f-c?
Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 23, 2010, 11:06:36 PM
West Virginia is G-F-F-F-F
Same crap different pile. In fact, against MU they started 5 bigs - Kevin Jones, Wellington Smith, John Flowers, Devin Ebanks, and De'Shean Butler. The bottom line is they're usually playing 4 bigs on the floor at one time and sometimes even 5.
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on January 23, 2010, 11:25:36 PM
Same crap different pile. In fact, against MU they started 5 bigs - Kevin Jones, Wellington Smith, John Flowers, Devin Ebanks, and De'Shean Butler. The bottom line is they're usually playing 4 bigs on the floor at one time and sometimes even 5.
They're playing four tall guys, but not a one is a true big man. Ebanks is forward that often plays guard. Butler is forward that often plays guard. Jones, Smith and Flowers are all forwards. Calling them bigs is like calling Steve Novak a big.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 23, 2010, 11:18:29 PM
Doesn't Florida State play g-f-f-f-c?
Nope. FSU's top 5 guys in terms of minutes are Alabi, Dulkys, Singleton, Kitchen and Snaer...so G-G-G-F-C. They normally start G-G-F-F-C, but Ryan Reid's minutes have been dropping in favor of Snaer. Of their top 9 guys in minutes, meaning those that player more than 10 minutes a game, 4 are guards, 2 are centers and 3 are forwards.
Quote from: bma725 on January 23, 2010, 11:35:31 PM
They're playing four tall guys, but not a one is a true big man. Ebanks is forward that often plays guard. Butler is forward that often plays guard. Jones, Smith and Flowers are all forwards. Calling them bigs is like calling Steve Novak a big.
Have to agree with BMA on this. How is Flowers and Ebanks "bigs" at 215lbs?
Though, Doris's Thong is right that they can be succesful with only one "true" guard. However, if they had two true bigs (post up only players) with one guard they would turn it over 30 times a game. That is why I mentioned the G-F-F-F-C as this normally indicates two post players.
Make fun all you want, but Coach K has had a ton of great college big men since he got there. Laettner, Brand, McLeod, Boozer, Alarie, Sheldon Williams, Ferry...all of whom were 1st or 2nd team All Americans. And that doesn't include guys like Abdelnaby, Lang, McRoberts, and Nessley, who weren't All Americans but still had good enough careers as big men at Duke to get drafted and play in the NBA.
Is it coincidence then, that Duke continually has gone to the FF with guys like Gminski? In fact, look at the last 10 Final Fours and list the 40 teams who played in them. How many made it there without at least 1 or 2 bigmen.
Look, all 5 positions are important. That's the way the game is played. If you don't have legitimate players at each of the spots, the compromises you have to make rarely work out. Marquette will continue to get abused with a lack of height.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 23, 2010, 10:23:27 PM
Are people here defining a BIG MAN by position (F/C) or by height (6'6"+)?
Just wondering...
6'10" and 260 lbs. Robert Jackson.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on January 23, 2010, 09:30:03 PM
This.
A little help for the ignorant. Can someone explain the recent use of "this"? Is it the long-winded version of "+1"?
Used in the same context as "word."
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 24, 2010, 09:42:45 AM
Used in the same context as "word."
which is a shortened version of "word to your mother."
Quote from: SERocks on January 23, 2010, 05:41:07 PM
Seriously? Cuse had 22 more boards and 10 more blocks than we did and we only lost by five? Unreal.
Tired of moral victories, but WOW.
VERY tired, but WOW.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 24, 2010, 08:01:05 AM
Is it coincidence then, that Duke continually has gone to the FF with guys like Gminski? In fact, look at the last 10 Final Fours and list the 40 teams who played in them. How many made it there without at least 1 or 2 bigmen.
Look, all 5 positions are important. That's the way the game is played. If you don't have legitimate players at each of the spots, the compromises you have to make rarely work out. Marquette will continue to get abused with a lack of height.
No one is arguing that 4ever. Of course you need bigs to go all the way, but bigs alone cannot do it. If you don't have great guards you have NO CHANCE. If you do have great guards, you do have a chance even absent great bigs. Plus, there are very few solid bigs out there so it's a percentage game.
Let's look at it another way. David Robinson at Navy, one of the greatest centers ever. If he had guards at Navy, could have gone very far in the tournament. A dominant big man alone, is not going to get it done. But without a dominant big man, you can still be very successful and go far.
George Mason, Villanova, St. Joe's, etc, etc, etc George Mason didn't even have a center on their team. Not one kid over 6'7"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_George_Mason_Patriots_men%27s_basketball_team#2005-2006_roster
I don't think anyone is arguing against Buzz landing as many quality big men as he can, of course we all want that. But the fact of the matter is, there are few of them out there and everyone wants them. You can without them. You CANNOT win without great guards. That is why college basketball coaches continuously say it's a guards game....because it is.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 23, 2010, 06:13:40 PM
Hehas been recruiting for almost 3 years now, and still has not landed one. Trying does not cut it--landing them does!!
Actually, he has gotten several. They were injured, had legal trouble, or left.
Like I said, he has not landed one. Injuries, legal troubles and one left are excuses.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 24, 2010, 03:52:21 PM
Like I said, he has not landed one. Injuries, legal troubles and one left are excuses.
That's a stupid comment even for a board filled with stupid comments. Players have gotten hurt, so in your odd basketball world that means that he hasn't landed them? So who were those guys in suits or warmups on the MU bench during games? Greg Oden left school after only one year....did he ever actually go to Ohio State?
Quote from: willie warrior on January 24, 2010, 03:52:21 PM
Like I said, he has not landed one. Injuries, legal troubles and one left are excuses.
You dont get it. He has landed size, but things have happened, like:
-A life threatening heart issue
-2 broken feet in 2 years
-A mid season transfer
What about that dont you get?
He's willie warrior. Ergo, everything sucks.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 24, 2010, 04:02:31 PM
You dont get it. He has landed size, but things have happened, like:
-A life threatening heart issue
-2 broken feet in 2 years
-A mid season transfer
What about that dont you get?
Buzz knew before the spring signing period that McMorrow wasn't going to play. Here's what Buzz was facing:
--Our projected starting center was never going to play because of health issues.
--The next biggest returning player with size played in just 9 games the previous year and averaged 1.3 ppg.
--The third biggest returning inside player just announced his transfer.
--We have two other players who
could play up front--one of them is a star player and class guy who really deserves not to be forced to play out of position again. The other has a head case for a father who may well go postal if he perceives that his son is forced to play inside.
--A 6'9" player we signed in the fall who spent his senior season proving that he is not a D1 talent.
--A verbal from solid 6'10" player (albeit with baggage), but won't be eligible until 2010-11
Even putting aside that Otule hadn't been injured yet, Buzz had to know going into to the spring signing period that he had HUGE gaps up front.
What does he do?
He signs DJO (a guard) and Mbao (a project).
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 24, 2010, 07:30:41 PM
What does he do?
He signs DJO (a guard) and Mbao (a project).
And his alternatives were....?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 24, 2010, 07:33:33 PM
And his alternatives were....?
For each of the two scholarships available, I see five options:
A. A ready to contribute guard
B. A ready to contribute wing
C. A ready to contribute big
D. A project at any position
E. Banking the scholarship
The only thing we really needed this past spring was B.
Buzz picked A and C.
Going into last spring Buzz also knew that there was a very high probability that Acker would not be back given what was going on behind the scenes. That would have left him with only 3 guards on the roster, none of whom are scoring guards. He needed to use one of those scholarships on a guard, and he did.
MU84...so do you not like the DJO signing?
At the time, Buzz was ready to go into battle with Maymon and Otule down low. We would have been able to survive if those to would have been available.
What an asinine post! DJO is probably the 2nd best player we have.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 24, 2010, 08:08:37 PM
MU84...so do you not like the DJO signing?
He's a nice player and I'm happy to have him. But he wasn't what we needed most at the time. There was a much bigger and more obvious hole in the lineup.
That having been said, I would have been happy using the two scholarships on DJO and a big who could come in and give some minutes right away.
If we wanted to take a chance on Mbao, then I would suggest the other scholarship should have been used on that ready-to-play big.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 24, 2010, 08:08:37 PM
At the time, Buzz was ready to go into battle with Maymon and Otule down low. We would have been able to survive if those to would have been available.
I think you're guilty of 20/20 hindsight.
At the time, Otule looked completely lost a full 3 1/2 months after he returned from his injury. Don't forget, he had the benefit of all of the preseason practices--he wasn't injured until 11/14.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/11/chris-otule-out-one-month-with-foot.html
And he returned to action about a month later--by 12/19
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/12/mu-blasts-wcu-otule-and-fulce-see-first.html
He didn't miss that much time or practice. And looked completely unready at the end of the season.
Quote from: bma725 on January 24, 2010, 08:07:23 PM
Going into last spring Buzz also knew that there was a very high probability that Acker would not be back given what was going on behind the scenes. That would have left him with only 3 guards on the roster, none of whom are scoring guards. He needed to use one of those scholarships on a guard, and he did.
That's a bit misleading as the wings tend to be more or less interchangeable in Buzz's offense. Going into spring, he thought he had Cadougan and Cubillan--both pure point guards. With Roseboro, Buycks, Butler, Hayward, Fulce, Mamon & Willams available to play 2/3/4, what we really needed was someone to share time with OTule at the 5.
Even at that, its probably fair to suggest that one of the two scholarships should have been used on a guard--its whether we needed to use the other on a project.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 24, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
That having been said, I would have been happy using the two scholarships on DJO and a big who could come in and give some minutes right away.
If we wanted to take a chance on Mbao, then I would suggest the other scholarship should have been used on that ready-to-play big.
Where exactly was this Big East ready big man supposed to come from, Costco? You make it sound as if Buzz chose between the two, and chose DJO.
Cubillan is not and has never been a pure point guard. Anyone who's watched him the last four years knows that, and both Crean and Buzz have said that repeatedly. He's a shooting guard in a PG's body.
When did Cubillian become a pure PG? Joanie...you are embarrassing yourself. Quit while you are behind.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 24, 2010, 09:23:24 PM
When did Cubillian become a pure PG? Joanie...you are embarrassing yourself. Quit while you are behind.
Agreed. SJS has come up with some doosies over the years, but that one ranks right up there (for the sake of his typically flawed argument).
The only thing where I think people are getting ahead of themselves is that none of us know if any of the bigs that were signed were going to do anything. I think some of you believe they would have stepped in and given us 10 and 10 out of the box. Maybe they would of, but I don't know. Big men are a bit of a stretch in terms of reaching solid level of play early on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2010, 09:33:24 PM
The only thing where I think people are getting ahead of themselves is that none of us know if any of the bigs that were signed were going to do anything. I think some of you believe they would have stepped in and given us 10 and 10 out of the box. Maybe they would of, but I don't know. Big men are a bit of a stretch in terms of reaching solid level of play early on.
Whether they do/would have or not is completely irrelevant. It (almost) necessarily prevented them from signing others...most recruits can count, and there are only so many scholarships and so many minutes to go around.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 24, 2010, 09:36:26 PM
Whether they do/would have or not is completely irrelevant. It (almost) necessarily prevented them from signing others...most recruits can count, and there are only so many scholarships and so many minutes to go around.
I concur with you on that front, it's the other posts suggesting these guys were going to light it up that I think are reaching. They may have, but they just as easily could not have as well.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 24, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Where exactly was this Big East ready big man supposed to come from, Costco? You make it sound as if Buzz chose between the two, and chose DJO.
+1....Did I miss on a blue light special on BEAST ready big men???
Quote from: avid1010 on January 24, 2010, 09:52:19 PM
+1....Did I miss on a blue light special on BEAST ready big men???
In SJS's odd little basketball world, anything is possible.
Quote from: bma725 on January 24, 2010, 09:18:54 PM
Cubillan is not and has never been a pure point guard. Anyone who's watched him the last four years knows that, and both Crean and Buzz have said that repeatedly. He's a shooting guard in a PG's body.
+1. Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball.
That said, I think it's time for Buzz to bench Cooby and start either Buycks or DJO at the 2. The Acker and Cooby backcourt is doomed from the start and need not be revisited. Ever.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2010, 10:07:50 PM
+1. Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 24, 2010, 09:31:00 PM
Agreed. SJS has come up with some doosies over the years, but that one ranks right up there (for the sake of his typically flawed argument).
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 24, 2010, 09:23:24 PM
When did Cubillian become a pure PG? Joanie...you are embarrassing yourself. Quit while you are behind.
Quote from: bma725 on January 24, 2010, 09:18:54 PM
Cubillan is not and has never been a pure point guard. Anyone who's watched him the last four years knows that, and both Crean and Buzz have said that repeatedly. He's a shooting guard in a PG's body.
Nice job, guys. You do a fantastic job taking something completely out of context, and returning with nothing but personal attacks.
With Acker dismissed, Cadougan slotted to start, (and I think would have played 32 to 35 minutes at the point), Cubillan absolutely, positively been his backup for those 5 to 8 minutes a game.
Is there anyone who is going to offer any type of rational argument or disagreement with that? No--you guys don't know how to respond with anything rational. Name calling and insults--thats all you guy know how to offer.
What were the other options? Serously. What options were there? Do you think that DJO or Buycks would have played the point? Hell, they can't beat out Cuby or Acker NOW
without Cadougan playing big minutes! You think they would have a chance with even fewer minutes to go around.
I'll repeat to give you a chance to respond with something that makes sense: I described was the plan for the point for this year. In Buzz's offense, with the roster we had coming back, Cadougan and Cuby were the pure point guards--nobody else on the roster was going to play that role. If you disagree, then make the case that somebody else is more qualified for that role.
If you can't, then shut up.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 24, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Where exactly was this Big East ready big man supposed to come from, Costco? You make it sound as if Buzz chose between the two, and chose DJO.
So are you making the absolute argument that there were no bigs better than Mbao in the spring signing period? Garbage. Absolute Garbage
It doesn't take much searching to find players who signed in the spring with mid- to high-major teams that would have made an impact
- How about Cliff Dixon--juco signed 4/27 with WKU--15 mintues with 5 points 5 boards.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/western-kentucky/cliff-dixon - How about Jarrid Famous--juco signed with USF on 4/20--31 mpg, 11 points, 8 boards
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/south-florida/jarrid-famous - How about Charles Garcia - verbaled 6/30 to Seattle when he wasn't admitted to Washington
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/seattle/charles-garcia - How about Kyryl Natyazhko - verballed 4/11 to Arizona
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/arizona/kyryl-natyazhko - How about Jared Cunningham of Cleveland State - verbaled 3/30 to Cleveland state 16 mpt, 7 ppg, 4 rpg
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/cleveland-state/jared-cunningham - How about Maurice McNeil of Houston - verballed 4/21 - 24 mpg, 8 ppg, 8rpg
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/houston/maurice-mcneil
You think maybe of Buzz and Marquette expressed interest in someone like McNeil or Cunningham or Dixon, that maybe they would have held off signing with Houston or Cleveland State or Western Kentucky?
Yeah, chances are they won't become all-conference players, but any of them would be better than what we have now--which is NOTHING.
I'm not suggesting that we would have found the 2nd coming of Greg Monroe or Luke Harangody. But players who could have filled up space, put a body on someone, outreach someone for a board, alter a shot--they certainly are are out there--your jokes about Costo or the Mens Store at Mayfair nothwithstanding.
You're right it doesn't take much effort to look up some dates and some stats, but it does take some effort to look up what was going on in their recruiting, which you clearly didn't do.
QuoteHow about Cliff Dixon--juco signed 4/27 with WKU--15 mintues with 5 points 5 boards.
Dixon was dismissed from his first JUCO and suspended twice last season for conduct detrimental to the team at his second JUCO before committing and then reneging on Seton Hall. He went to Hutchinson CC, same place as DJO, and Buzz watched him play and practice. After talking with the coaches and the players on his team, he wasn't a guy Buzz wanted around MU's locker room.
QuoteHow about Jarrid Famous--juco signed with USF on 4/20--31 mpg, 11 points, 8 boards
MU recruited and offered Famous. He turned them down.
QuoteHow about Charles Garcia - verbaled 6/30 to Seattle when he wasn't admitted to Washington
Convenient how you don't mention when his admittance was denied. Garcia signed a valid LOI in the fall period. That agreement was still binding during the spring period, which would mean any recruiting of him by another institution would be a NCAA violation. He wasn't denied admittance and released from his LOI until June 25th, after MU had already filled the roster. I hope you're not suggesting that Buzz keep a scholarship open through the spring period on the off chance that someone they don't yet know about might get denied admittance to their original university yet still be able to qualify at MU.
QuoteHow about Kyryl Natyazhko - verballed 4/11 to Arizona
MU recruited him, very hard. Offered him a scholarship back in 2008 right after Buzz took over, tried to set up visits multiple times, each time he canceled on MU before eventually eliminating them from consideration.
QuoteHow about Jared Cunningham of Cleveland State - verbaled 3/30 to Cleveland state 16 mpt, 7 ppg, 4 rpg
Actually he committed on 3/5, not 3/30, a full two weeks before McMorrow's condition was discovered and at a time MU still had McMorrow, Otule and Roseboro as the expected bigs.
QuoteHow about Maurice McNeil of Houston - verballed 4/21 - 24 mpg, 8 ppg, 8rpg
The only one you might have an argument on in terms of availability, though that is not the date he verballed, that's the date he signed. They knew all about him. He played against Fulce and Butler when they were at Tyler. Buzz and Monarch had seen him play on more than one occasion and felt it wasn't worth it.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2010, 12:14:17 AM
I'll repeat to give you a chance to respond with something that makes sense: I described was the plan for the point for this year. In Buzz's offense, with the roster we had coming back, Cadougan and Cuby were the pure point guards--nobody else on the roster was going to play that role. If you disagree, then make the case that somebody else is more qualified for that role.
The problem is, you are using a definition of "pure point guard" that no one else is using. Pure point guard means that their game is naturally suited to the position. That is entire accurate when it comes to Junior...not so when it comes to Cubillan. No one doubts that Buzz's plan for this year was to have Cubillan serve in that role when Junior got hurt, it is just a role that he is ill-suited to play...and that is hurting us right now.
MU84...every point you have tried to make so far, has been refuted. Again, quit while you are behind.
Doesn't rebounding count for anything?
84 tees them up, BMA smashes them. Again
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 25, 2010, 08:44:55 AM
The problem is, you are using a definition of "pure point guard" that no one else is using. Pure point guard means that their game is naturally suited to the position. That is entire accurate when it comes to Junior...not so when it comes to Cubillan. No one doubts that Buzz's plan for this year was to have Cubillan serve in that role when Junior got hurt, it is just a role that he is ill-suited to play...and that is hurting us right now.
So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?
What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?
Quote from: bma725 on January 25, 2010, 01:27:51 AM
You're right it doesn't take much effort to look up some dates and some stats, but it does take some effort to look up what was going on in their recruiting, which you clearly didn't do.
You're right--I didn't go to that level of detail.
Navin's initial point was that bigs simply weren't available at all during the spring singing period. He joked about trying to find them at Costco or the Mens Store at Mayfair.
My point was to show that there were bigs available--not to suggest that all of these guys were sure things for MU.
I'm sorry that I didn't explain that well enough.
I agree with you that there may have been some reasons we wanted to take a pass on some of these players--and that some wanted to take a pass on us.
In any event, it refutes the contention that nobody is available in the spring.
MU84...You called Cubillian a "pure point guard." What are we supposed to think? Had you thought it out and explained it in a different way, we may have been able to respect your point.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2010, 11:23:15 AM
So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?
What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?
You're the one that initially misused the phrase...and outside of "Joanie," nobody called you anything. Seriously, if you are going to post to a public forum, don't get your panties in a wad if someone calls you out on what you say.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2010, 11:23:15 AM
So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?
What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?
You're right--I didn't go to that level of detail.
Navin's initial point was that bigs simply weren't available at all during the spring singing period. He joked about trying to find them at Costco or the Mens Store at Mayfair.
My point was to show that there were bigs available--not to suggest that all of these guys were sure things for MU.
I'm sorry that I didn't explain that well enough.
I agree with you that there may have been some reasons we wanted to take a pass on some of these players--and that some wanted to take a pass on us.
In any event, it refutes the contention that nobody is available in the spring.
The problem is that it took you umpteen posts to accept that you were wrong. In the interim, you back pedaled, and tried to change criteria.
Its okay to be wrong once in a while... I'm wrong more than once in a while... but I admit when I am and people are more accepting because of it.
84 - you say "So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?
What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?"
1. I disagree with the actual substance of the post. It was originally thought (and stated) by Buzz that both Buycks and DJO were capable of playing the point. Nobody suggested they were "pure point guards" but the hope was they could provide minutes at the position.
2. You didn't use a "phrase that can be misinterpreted". You made a statement that was patently false to anyone who had ever seen David Cubillan play.
3. When you are called out after making outrageous or factually incorrect claims you often respond by seeing "personal insults" and "name calling" that is non existant or mild by message board standards. Trying to seize some "high moral ground" by contending your critics lack your Jesuit values is as weak as it is false.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
1. I disagree with the actual substance of the post. It was originally thought (and stated) by Buzz that both Buycks and DJO were capable of playing the point. Nobody suggested they were "pure point guards" but the hope was they could provide minutes at the position.
But for all his warts, Cubillan has proven more capable than either Buycks or DJO--hence the fact that he's winning the minutes over each of them on this years team. I stand by the original statement--neither Buycks nor DJO were brought in to serve as the backup PG. Cubillan was expected to serve that role.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
2. You didn't use a "phrase that can be misinterpreted". You made a statement that was patently false to anyone who had ever seen David Cubillan play.
Is it patently false to Buzz Williams as well?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
3. When you are called out after making outrageous or factually incorrect claims you often respond by seeing "personal insults" and "name calling" that is non existant or mild by message board standards.
So that excuses it? "My personal attacks aren't as bad as others I've seen, so they're okay . . ."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
Trying to seize some "high moral ground" by contending your critics lack your Jesuit values is as weak as it is false.
More personal attacks.
Sorry--not false. Name calling and personal attacks against someone you disagree with are simply not consistent with Jesuit values.
And what could be weaker than name calling and personal attacks to reply to something you disagree with?
If you don't want to be called out such name calling or personal attacks, don't make them.
Buzz should adopt a "pure point guard" so we won't have to use up a scholarship.
Wow MU84 is sensitive. Heres an idea:
Dont say stupid stuff, and you wont be subject to such harsh personal attacks
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
Is it patently false to Buzz Williams as well?
Arguing that because Buzz Williams planned to use Cubillan as a backup point guard means he believes David Cubillan
is "a pure point guard" is, well, lame. Buzz intended to use Cubie as a backup point because he, at the time, was the best option.
Apparently Tom Crean had Dameon Mason and Joe Chapman at the point in 2005 because he believed they were pure point guards.
p.s. Unless you believe your argument is a person, this is not a personal attack.
QuoteAnd what could be weaker than name calling and personal attacks to reply to something you disagree with?
If you don't want to be called out such name calling or personal attacks, don't make them.
Hmmm ... implying that another poster is "weak" or doing something "weak" ... sounds like a personal attack to me.
And then "calling out" someone for their possible violation of Jesuit ethics? Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?
How very un-Jesuit of you.
Tsk, tsk.
Shouldn't this debate be going on over in the "MU is to sensitive" thread?
Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2010, 02:16:24 PM
Arguing that because Buzz Williams planned to use Cubillan as a backup point guard means he believes David Cubillan is "a pure point guard" is, well, lame. Buzz intended to use Cubie as a backup point because he, at the time, was the best option.
Thank you--I'm glad that you and I agree 100% with me on the substance of my post. Buzz planned to use Cuillan as a backup point guard. He might not have been the best backup in the league, but, at the time, he was, as you say, the best option.
Also thank you for reminding me that I should not have used the term "pure point guard." I'm sure you are brining it up only because the other 10 or 15 or so posts that raised that very point were difficult to find and I may have missed them.
Bottom line, looking ahead at this season, Buzz planned on using Cadougan as the primary point, and Cuibillan as the backup.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2010, 02:16:24 PM
Apparently Tom Crean had Dameon Mason and Joe Chapman at the point in 2005 because he believed they were pure point guards.
A word of advice . . . I strongly suggest that you not use the words "pure point guard" in your post.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2010, 02:16:24 PM
p.s. Unless you believe your argument is a person, this is not a personal attack.
I'm glad you recognize this.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2010, 02:16:24 PM
Hmmm ... implying that another poster is "weak" or doing something "weak" ... sounds like a personal attack to me.
Unless you believe "name calling and personal attacks" are a person, its not a personal attack.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
Thank you--I'm glad that you and I agree 100% with me on the substance of my post. Buzz planned to use Cuillan as a backup point guard. He might not have been the best backup in the league, but, at the time, he was, as you say, the best option.
Also thank you for reminding me that I should not have used the term "pure point guard." I'm sure you are brining it up only because the other 10 or 15 or so posts that raised that very point were difficult to find and I may have missed them.
Bottom line, looking ahead at this season, Buzz planned on using Cadougan as the primary point, and Cuibillan as the backup.
A word of advice . . . I strongly suggest that you not use the words "pure point guard" in your post.
I'm glad you recognize this.
Unless you believe "name calling and personal attacks" are a person, its not a personal attack.
84 - Other than one poster calling you "Joanie" please cite other examples of "name calling". Certainly nothing compared with calling people out for "lacking Jesuit values" because they pointed out your misstatement of facts. Initially you were only guilty of saying something stupid (not being stupid, saying something stupid) - which everyone on this board has done from time to time. Your inability to own up to your error and your outrage towards those who pointed it out says nothing about us. Perhaps you should ponder what it says about you. Please note that nowhere in this post do I call you any names so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from accusing me of such. Thanks.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2010, 10:08:48 PM
84 - Other than one poster calling you "Joanie" please cite other examples of "name calling". Certainly nothing compared with calling people out for "lacking Jesuit values" because they pointed out your misstatement of facts. Initially you were only guilty of saying something stupid (not being stupid, saying something stupid) - which everyone on this board has done from time to time. Your inability to own up to your error and your outrage towards those who pointed it out says nothing about us. Perhaps you should ponder what it says about you. Please note that nowhere in this post do I call you any names so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from accusing me of such. Thanks.
Did you forget that you posted this:
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2010, 10:07:50 PM
Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball.
That's not merely pointing out a misstatement--you made it personal. I responded in kind--probably a mistake, but understandable given your comments when combined with those of others.
If you'd like to apologize for making this personal, I'll accept it and in turn apologize for escalating things. If you're going to argue you're completely innocent, I'm going to disagree with your statement and cite the quote above as evidence.
You know what the irony about this whole thread is?
Nobody (except you) actually disagreed with the underlying comment. Nobody debates the fact that Buzz planned to start Cadougan and give him the lions share of the minutes, and use Cuby as the backup PG. It was a throwaway point--BMA tried to suggest that we
needed another guard. I disagreed, replying that that in Buzz's offense, there is a blurring of the 2/3/4, and that the only true position guard is the point, and that Cadougan and Cubillan were the two players planned to split minutes in that role. I said what we really needed was another inside player.
And even your objection isn't really that strong--suggesting that we could use Bucyks or DJO at the point--something which subsequent play has proven to be unworkable.
And lets not forget the other point I tried to make--refuting Navin's suggestion that nobody could land a big during the spring signing period. He demanded I provide names, so I provided him some names that other teams were able to find and sign. If they could find a big, it reasons that we could have done so as well. That should have been the end of it. Navin should have replied with "I guess I was wrong--there are bigs available during the spring signing period."
Instead, BMA jumps in and tries to suggest I'm wrong by providing the reasons why we didn't want or couldn't land each of those players.
But in reality, that proved my point--If the players are out there and we tried (and failed) to land them--then you can't argue the players weren't there. You have to accept hat it was a shortcoming in recruiting.
Navin claimed no players were available. I listed some that were, and BMA confirmed that we tried--and failed--to land some of them.
Which brings us back to the main point of the thread: We have no serviceable bigs on the roster. Some would attribute that to nothing more than a run of bad luck. I feel that some of the blame should be placed on recruiting. I believe that our current situation was foreseeable as early as March, and that at that point there were serviceable bigs that could have been recruited in the spring, as other teams were able to do.
congrats, you've done your best to make an ass of yourself, and you've succeeded.
and that isn't personal.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 26, 2010, 02:32:31 AM
Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball
Did you forget that you posted this:
That's not merely pointing out a misstatement--you made it personal. I responded in kind--probably a mistake, but understandable given your comments when combined with those of others.
84, man are you touchy. That is the least offensive way of telling someone he's an idiot I've seen.
March 2009 projected bigs, Liam, Otule, Roseboro, Jeronne. Projected Bigs April 2009, Otule, Roseboro, Yous, Jeronne. Clark coming in a year. Projected guards, prior to DJO' signing, Cubi, Acker, Cadougan, Buycks. Clearly, based on projections, we needed another guard more. Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently? Yup, our bigs are like Spinal Tap drummers, Detroit Lion defensive backs, or any Cubs team in October. Hindsight is wonderful.
Quote from: tower912 on January 26, 2010, 09:26:55 AM
March 2009 projected bigs, Liam, Otule, Roseboro, Jeronne. Projected Bigs April 2009, Otule, Roseboro, Yous, Jeronne. Clark coming in a year. Projected guards, prior to DJO' signing, Cubi, Acker, Cadougan, Buycks. Clearly, based on projections, we needed another guard more. Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently? Yup, our bigs are like Spinal Tap drummers, Detroit Lion defensive backs, or any Cubs team in October. Hindsight is wonderful.
Finally, a discussion on basketball. Thank you. Seriously.
You ask "Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently?" I'd be happy to explain. I use
the start of the 2009 spring recruiting window as the basis:
--Yous--Was not recruited yet
--Clark--Was not available until the 2010-11 season
--Liam--His career was over
--Roseboro--He was not projected to be an inside player--a Novak like wing.
--Jeronne--undersized as a big--only 6'6" or 6'7"--thought he was coming in to play 2/3/4
--Otule--only projected inside player, didn't demonstrate Big East potential in first year
Let me now map out the players by role on the team:
Here's how I saw the lineup going into the spring signing period:
- Projected PGs: Cadougan, Cubillan, Acker (potentially leaving)
- Projected Wings: Butler, Hayward, EWilliams, Roseoboro, Maymon, Buycks, Fulce, Hazel (leaving)
- Projected Cs: Otule
We were good at PG. We were good with wings. But We had zero margin for error up front.
This is how I looked at the situation. Its not hindsight--its a projection of looking forward from where we were at the conclusion of the Final Four--when recruiting could begin in earnest.
With that context, our #1 priority should have been a 6'9"+ player who was servicable. Not a potential All American. Not a budding superstar. Not a project that could develop down the road.
What we needed
most was someone who was ready to come in and split minutes with Otule.
As for DJO. He's a nice player--but he he didn't fill our greatest need. It would be fine to take him if the plan was to use the OTHER available scholarship to fill that need. But we didn't do that. We took a risk on a player that might pay off in future years, but wasn't in anybody's imagination going to contribute this year.
Before Liam's career ended, he was projected to start at the 5, Otule backing him up, with Roseboro a 4-5 (possibly redshirting), Jeronne a 3-4 and Clark a year out. After Liam's career ended, Yous was signed about a month later (don't quibble, I'm not looking up dates and you know what I mean) Otule projected as starter, Yous either backing him up or red-shirting, Roseboro still a combo 4-5, with a 6-10 athlete already in the pipeline a year away. You and I have different recollections about how Roseboro projected. I remember 6'10, ability to guard the 5, able to spot up out to the 3 point line. More Bill Laimbeer/Jack Sikma than Novak. Anyway you slice it, 3 guys 6'10 or more, with a 4th on the way. Cubi and MO have WAAAYYYY overperformed what anybody projected for them a year ago. JC and DB starting with those two guys getting spot minutes was the conventional wisdom. DJO was a gift that Buzz outhustled everyone to get. Our bigs turned out poorly. No way that could have been predicted. Buzz recruited size and numbers and it still went awry. Sometimes, the great putt lips out.
First off, Roseboro and Ewill were not seen as wings. Buzz uses the term "dribble guys" and "non dribble guys"...both were (and still are) "non dribble guys."
At the point in time you reference, it was expected that Maymon (and to an extent Roseboro and Ewill) would have provided something down low. Turns out Roseboro wasnt who they thought he was, Maymon left, and Ewill just isnt ready yet. But at the time of the year you are referencing, the were expecting more out of those 3.
Buzz had the chance to add a really good player in DJO, and took advantage of it...the way he is supposed to.
Would you rather have had a DJO, or a signing like Jamil Lott?
Thanks. I forgot that EWill projected as a 4. But it helps my argument. Based on what we had and thought we had, we needed DJO more.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
First off, Roseboro and Ewill were not seen as wings. Buzz uses the term "dribble guys" and "non dribble guys"...both were (and still are) "non dribble guys."
At the point in time you reference, it was expected that Maymon (and to an extent Roseboro and Ewill) would have provided something down low. Turns out Roseboro wasnt who they thought he was, Maymon left, and Ewill just isnt ready yet. But at the time of the year you are referencing, the were expecting more out of those 3.
Buzz had the chance to add a really good player in DJO, and took advantage of it...the way he is supposed to.
Would you rather have had a DJO, or a signing like Jamil Lott?
But that is what Marq84 does... he just changes the criteria so the outcome is most favorable to his argument.
Also...dont forget that Buzz really didnt care too much for Acker and Cubillian last year. He wanted to bring in his own guys...Like Buycks, Cadougan, and DJO.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 26, 2010, 11:40:05 AM
What we needed most was someone who was ready to come in and split minutes with Otule.
Who is that guy? This is not the MAC remember...who is that guy that was...
1) uncommitted
2) willing to give MU a look even though they may not have been recruiting him to that point
3) Academically qualified
4) (most importantly by your own standard), ready to come in, play regular minutes and contibute at C/PF in the Big East?
I know you listed some guys earlier, but which of them meet all of the above criteria?
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
First off, Roseboro and Ewill were not seen as wings. Buzz uses the term "dribble guys" and "non dribble guys"...both were (and still are) "non dribble guys."
At the point in time you reference, it was expected that Maymon (and to an extent Roseboro and Ewill) would have provided something down low.
I think there is a fair amount of disagreement on this.
After re-reading the news coverage on Roseboro at the time of his commitment his cited strengths were versitlity, mid-range jumper, and range to the 3 point line.
What are his strengths and weaknesses as a player at this point? His strength obviously is his versatility. Obviously as a high-school kid, we love him on the block. He's got the left hand, which coaches love because he goes back to his left. But he uses his right hand, too. He can step out and shoot the 15-footer, and like I said, he's stepping out and knocking down some threes. To me, that reads like a guy with size who can't play low. I don't see him as an inside player in the mold of Barro or Grimm.
As for Erik Williams, he is just as undersized as Hayward and Butler for the role.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
Turns out Roseboro wasnt who they thought he was, Maymon left, and Ewill just isnt ready yet. But at the time of the year you are referencing, the were expecting more out of those 3.
Yes, we expected more, but not at the 5--those players weren't interchangeable with Liam or Otule.
Say the projection was that Liam gets 30 mpg and Otule 10 mpg. EWill, Roseboro and Maymon were in addition to that--not sharing in that pool.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
Buzz had the chance to add a really good player in DJO, and took advantage of it...the way he is supposed to.
That's fine--as long as you keep in mind the needs of your team.
You don't want to be caught without a position player--as Buzz has this year and Crean did in 2004-05 without a PG.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
Would you rather have had a DJO, or a signing like Jamil Lott?
Wrong comparison.
This year I'd almost rather have Jamil Lott than Yous. But I'd rather have a 6'9 or 6'10 inside player than Jamil Lott.
[quote author=Marquette84 link=topic=17520.msg173964#msg173964 date=1264542250
[To me, that reads like a guy with size who can't play low. I don't see him as an inside player in the mold of Barro or Grimm.
So, a Sikma/Laimbeer type.
As for Erik Williams, he is just as undersized as Hayward and Butler for the role.
A little bigger with a reputation of being a leaper. Terry Sanders
Yes, we expected more, but not at the 5--those players weren't interchangeable with Liam or Otule.
Say the projection was that Liam gets 30 mpg and Otule 10 mpg. EWill, Roseboro and Maymon were in addition to that--not sharing in that pool.
You don't want to be caught without a position player--as Buzz has this year and Crean did in 2004-05 without a PG.
I've thought about the 04-05 comparison. Crean had Bell, Bradley and Berkowtz in the pipeline, or so he thought. This goes back to the guards v. bigs argument. That team sans Diener got rolled by Western Michigan. If this team had Liam, Otule, J-May and Yous, but no Mo, Cubi, DJO or now Cadougan, and our only guard was Buycks, would we better than we are now. Uhhhhhhhhhhh, no. When in doubt, have too many guards.
[/quote]
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 26, 2010, 12:29:24 PM
Who is that guy? This is not the MAC remember...who is that guy that was...
1) uncommitted
2) willing to give MU a look even though they may not have been recruiting him to that point
3) Academically qualified
4) (most importantly by your own standard), ready to come in, play regular minutes and contibute at C/PF in the Big East?
I know you listed some guys earlier, but which of them meet all of the above criteria?
The guys I listed above were intended to demonstrate that players with size are available. You tried to imply that player didn't exist.
As BMA pointed out, some of those guys we tried to get (not sure how hard). Some we chose not to pursue for whatever reason. But they are out there.
Frankly, even a MAC-level guy would be a tremendous asset to the team
right now. No, we wouldn't make the final four or win a Big East championship with him. And no, I'm not saying that a MAC-level guy should be our long-term answer.
But we did okay with guys like Ousmane Barro and Dwight Burke--who themselves have been called MAC-level or worse. Top 5 in conference, NCAA tournament. 2nd round--a basket or two away from a Sweet 16.
I'd take that right now, wouldn't you?
Would I prefer someone like Harangody or Monroe or Onuaku? Sure.
But if I can't get a player like that, I'd rather have a guy like Barro. With a player like that we would be a top-5 Big East team this year.
MU84...Your issue then should be more with the signing of Yous, than with the signing of DJO. We needed another guard coming into this year, and DJO was a great fit.
If you want to complain about something, complain that Buzz could have added a more effective inside presense, instead of Yous. Your questioning of the DJO signing is pretty out of line.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 26, 2010, 05:04:29 PM
MU84...Your issue then should be more with the signing of Yous, than with the signing of DJO. We needed another guard coming into this year, and DJO was a great fit.
If you want to complain about something, complain that Buzz could have added a more effective inside presense, instead of Yous. Your questioning of the DJO signing is pretty out of line.
In all fairness, my initial post on the topic did not single out DJO. I simply pointed out that our biggest need was not met by either of the spring signings:
"Even putting aside that Otule hadn't been injured yet, Buzz had to know going into to the spring signing period that he had HUGE gaps up front.
What does he do?
He signs DJO (a guard) and Mbao (a project)."
I wouldn't necessarily disagree that another guard was our 2nd biggest need at the time.
But I wouldn't say the additional guard was as critical to success as finding a serviceable replacement for Liam.
like looking for an icicle in hell?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 26, 2010, 06:36:03 PM
like looking for an icicle in hell?
Happens all the time
(http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/hell-frozen-over.jpg)
Hell, Michigan