I know none of you care about this game but I think the outcome illustrates a good point. Maryland won the game 92-71 against a team which has two of the most talented big men in the country (Deon Thompson 6' 9", Ed Davis 6' 10") as well as bench players David and Travis Ware (both 6' 10"), John Henson (6' 10") and they were playing without Tyler Zeller (7' 0"). I will give you Maryland has a talented center Jordan Williams but the kid is a freshman and had a solid but not exceptional game (8 points, 6 boards). NC only managed to outrebound Maryland by 5 and still lost the game by 21 points. This game, to me, epitomizes what a team with good guard play can do to a bigger team. They pressed on defense, forced turnovers, got out for easy transition baskets, etc. All the things we can do with the players we have recruited, especially with how deep and talented we will be next year. Would I like to have a couple big dudes, sure. But what I'm saying is we can definitely win without one and it will be fun as hell to watch.
The argument for the ages. I agree completely but people will not.
I know but one thing. If you could theoretically have two good guards or two good post players on a team and the rest were barely serviceable, I would pick the guards every time.
Many around here would pick the post players and the guard team would have more wins at the end of the season every time.
Their guards suck and that's why they are playing so poorly. UCLA is in much the same situation. If you don't have good guards, you can't win. You can win, however, without good post up players.
How do UConn's struggles fit with this theory? 2 of the most talented guards in the Big East, and they are 4 and 7.
Quote from: karavotsos on February 07, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
How do UConn's struggles fit with this theory? 2 of the most talented guards in the Big East, and they are 4 and 7.
How does MU's success fit with this theory? No bigs and yet here we are.
You have to have very good guards to make it a go. Wisconsin, always has bigs, but this may be their best team in quite some time because of the play of Hughes at guard.
I think UCONN's problem is that they play dumb. They just don't play smart basketball.
Quote from: karavotsos on February 07, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
How do UConn's struggles fit with this theory? 2 of the most talented guards in the Big East, and they are 4 and 7.
I think you're giving their guards too much credit.
What really gets me thinking is to see teams like UNC and UCLA struggle this year. It truly makes you realize how the competitive the game is, and how well Buzz has reloaded and coached a team that lost so much.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2010, 06:12:37 PM
How does MU's success fit with this theory? No bigs and yet here we are.
You have to have very good guards to make it a go. Wisconsin, always has bigs, but this may be their best team in quite some time because of the play of Hughes at guard.
I think UCONN's problem is that they play dumb. They just don't play smart basketball.
As well as Bohannon. Bucky is going to miss those guys next year. Jordan Taylor is going to be on an island at guard (with all those big guys).
Quote from: karavotsos on February 07, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
How do UConn's struggles fit with this theory? 2 of the most talented guards in the Big East, and they are 4 and 7.
Simply put, they are bricklayers from the field. Neither one is above 34% for the year from 3. Neither one is over 42% overall from the field
To boot, Kemba Walker is also 2nd in the conference in number of turnovers per game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2010, 06:12:37 PM
How does MU's success fit with this theory? No bigs and yet here we are.
You have to have very good guards to make it a go. Wisconsin, always has bigs, but this may be their best team in quite some time because of the play of Hughes at guard.
We win because our starting backcourt of Acker, Cubillan and DJO dominates every game, just as they dominated UConn's backcourt of Dyson and Walker, who apparently aren't very good. And Zar doesn't count as a big, I guess, because he's either not tall enough or doesn't play exclusively in the post. Whatever he counts as, I'd say that's pretty important to have on a winning team.
Not getting into this argument again. Just want to say two things.
1) I understand that guard play is extremely important, but the team that gets the best guard play does not win every game.
2) I see a guy like Bilal Dixon, and I think it would be nice to have one guy like that. Just one. I don't need LSU 1989-90, or the Lopez brothers. Just a big oafy guy who can plug the middle on defense, rebounds, and plays hard. It would be nice. It would just be nice to have Otule healthy. That's all. I think that would have value.
And I don't know how you can post a comment on Wisconsin's awesome guard play making them awesome and not mention JBo. I hope they lose the rest of their games, or they have their first round NCAA tourney game here and lose.
No one here has ever said the team that gets the best guard play wins every game. All we've said (and NCAA coaches have said also) is that if you don't have very good guards, you aren't going anywhere. You can have stud big men but without guards, you're finished. Yet without stud big men, you can still win a ton with stud guards.
Guards are the key and always will be in college basketball. You simply can't win without them, but you can win without stud big guys.
Is Zar a stud big guy in this view of the world?
should be
Quote from: karavotsos on February 07, 2010, 11:01:43 PM
Is Zar a stud big guy in this view of the world?
No, he's a stud wing player, playing out of position.... Did you watch the Cuse game?
I'd classify Lazar as a stud player who is not a big but because he plays in a "big position" it is both advantageous and disadvantageous.
On offense, with his range, he takes slower guys out on the perimeter who cannot guard him. Advantage Lazar. On defense, he has his hands full with talented interior players.
Last year we were talking highly of jerel. This year its lazar. Will next year be jimmy? Will he be as good as lazar is as a senior? He shoots 50%, has improved shooting (basically everywhere from last year), and finds everyway to get to the line. I kind of wish jimmy would shoot more, but maybe that's his role as a senior? Tell me what you think.
My personal opinion is Jimmy made a huge leap from last year to this year and I doubt we will see such a huge jump from this year to next. Lazar is pretty much the man this year because he is one hell of a player but also because we aren't very deep and our consistent scoring options (Zar, DJO, Butler) are limited. Next year I think more offense will run through Jimmy but probably only if he plays a guard or SF which I think he will. Biggest thing is we will be deeper and I see many of our guys sharing the scoring load, especially Vander.
Makes sense. Now, you figure DJO is only going to get better, so is Vander going to average more ppg the DJ?
Due to the makeup of our roster next year, I will be surprised if JB isn't taking Lazar's role of this year (power forward). JC, DJO, Blue, Butler, and Otule will start. No other PF on the roster.
Quote from: jwalsh on February 08, 2010, 04:38:15 PM
Makes sense. Now, you figure DJO is only going to get better, so is Vander going to average more ppg the DJ?
I think the two of them will average around 15 ppg each.