http://www.mywesttexas.com/articles/2010/02/16/sports/top_stories/doc4b7a376a3bb88241259243.txt
Howard handed #1 Midland their first loss last night.
Nice to see he knocked down 4-4 from deep and 6-8 from the line.
I'll take Crowder at 6'6 anyday if he plays with the intensity and passion that I think he will. Sounds like a beast and the fact that he has dreads makes him even cooler!
It's cool the opposing coach considers Crowder the best player in junior college:
Hodge, who considers Crowder as the best player in the NJCAA, said this was just a typical night for him.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on February 16, 2010, 07:51:39 AM
Nice to see he knocked down 4-4 from deep and 6-8 from the line.
Hitting threes and 14 boards...sounds a lot like a Lazar stat line.
I don't know why there was such a backlash regarding this signing anyway. There is no reason to doubt Buzz when it comes to high level JUCO recruits. Until he signs one that completely flops like a Blackledge or Lott, he has my trust. I'm not expecting the world of Crowder next year, but if he can provide 20-25 mpg and average somewhere along the lines of 8 & 5, with added contributions from Erik Williams at the position, his presence will significantly soften the blow of Hayward's departure.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on February 16, 2010, 08:53:02 AM
I don't know why there was such a backlash regarding this signing anyway. There is no reason to doubt Buzz when it comes to high level JUCO recruits. Until he signs one that completely flops like a Blackledge or Lott, he has my trust. I'm not expecting the world of Crowder next year, but if he can provide 20-25 mpg and average somewhere along the lines of 8 & 5, with added contributions from Erik Williams at the position, his presence will significantly soften the blow of Hayward's departure.
The backlash wasn't so much because of Crowder specifically, it was because of how the last two scholarships were used. With a need for legit size inside, Buzz got a 2 and an undersized 3/4. That makes a lot of people very upset.
If Crowder committed and the other scholarship was still open allowing it to go to a legit big man, then there would have been no backlash other than from the JUCO hating contigent.
Quote from: bma725 on February 16, 2010, 09:12:01 AM
The backlash wasn't so much because of Crowder specifically, it was because of how the last two scholarships were used. With a need for legit size inside, Buzz got a 2 and an undersized 3/4. That makes a lot of people very upset.
If Crowder committed and the other scholarship was still open allowing it to go to a legit big man, then there would have been no backlash other than from the JUCO hating contigent.
- Who would you have liked to seen MU land with these last 2 scholarships - as far as non-project big men that were available? There is no denying MU needs size, but...if you can land 2 players (Newbill and Crowder) who appear to have definite immediate impact (at least Crowder anyway) and also have Otule with 3 years of availability left - should we have passed on either Crowder or Newbill? Both sound like really good "gets," and after we didn't land Tarik Black, did/do we really stand a chance with any other skilled big man that would be any less of a project than Otule or Mbao?
Are we really that small next year? We get Otule and Yous back and hopefully both are improved. Butler has good length that can go after a 3/4. Crowder at 6"6" sounds like he can bang a little inside and get on the boards. Jones, Blue and Smith all bring more length and athleticism at the guard positions when compared to Acker and Cooby. EWill is 6'8" and will get playing time next year at the 4. Jr and Fulce have good size for their positions. Overall, we may be a tad small but if Crowder and Ewill can step next year, I don't think height will be a problem.
I think if Buzz would have landed Tarik Black, everyone would have been thrilled but I believe short-term, if you compared Crowder to Black, Crowder would have the bigger impact next year and that's ok because it gives Buzz another year to find a hopefully better version of Tarik Black that can step in and make an impact right away.
Ray Turner looked real good for A&M last night. Unfortunate we missed on him.
Quote from: Ners on February 16, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
- Who would you have liked to seen MU land with these last 2 scholarships - as far as non-project big men that were available? There is no denying MU needs size, but...if you can land 2 players (Newbill and Crowder) who appear to have definite immediate impact (at least Crowder anyway) and also have Otule with 3 years of availability left - should we have passed on either Crowder or Newbill?
At this point, I don't think you can count on Otule to stay healthy for the next three years after not having been healthy the previous two. They may have been freak injuries, but regardless of how they occur when big men start to get foot issues they almost never go away...see Kinsella, Mike. You've got to have another body to throw in there besides Mbao who will still have be thin and a project next year as well.
QuoteBoth sound like really good "gets," and after we didn't land Tarik Black, did/do we really stand a chance with any other skilled big man that would be any less of a project than Otule or Mbao?
Plenty of guys out there that aren't as much a prospect as those guys that we have recruited/are recruiting and have a chance at getting Aziz N'Diaye, Davante Gardner, etc. Even Reggie Murphy is less of a project than Mbao.
There's guys that we've been mentioned with but would take some work to get them, Maurice Walker, Kadeem Jack etc.
Plenty that we haven't been mentioned with but could get involved with: Eloy Vargas, Beas Hamga, Andre Clark etc.
Hopefully, if/when Buzz lands a big man, it will be a high schooler, not a juco. It is simply my preference that Buzz recruit high school kids, develop them and turn them into great players that can win games. I honestly think some things are lost when Buzz goes the juco route: 1) who was the last juco that captivated the BE conference? the nation? 2) freshmen help give the school more of an identity than jucos do (years later, everyone knows where Durant, Melo and Oden went to school. Ten years from now, a lot of people will still remember).
I understand jucos are better prepared than 95% of all freshmen, but that's the decision you have to make; do you want to continue to be competitive and live year by year or do you want to "build?" In 5 years, I dont think any sophomore in h.s. will be talking about any of Buzz's jucos and saying to his h.s. coach "I want to go to MU because he went there and everything else seems to fit." Just not gonna happen. Vander Blue will do 10x more for the program than any of the jucos will do combined so long as Vander can be one of the top 5 frshmen in the BE next year.
Quote from: mufanatic on February 16, 2010, 10:10:44 AM
Are we really that small next year? We get Otule and Yous back and hopefully both are improved. Butler has good length that can go after a 3/4. Crowder at 6"6" sounds like he can bang a little inside and get on the boards. Jones, Blue and Smith all bring more length and athleticism at the guard positions when compared to Acker and Cooby. EWill is 6'8" and will get playing time next year at the 4. Jr and Fulce have good size for their positions. Overall, we may be a tad small but if Crowder and Ewill can step next year, I don't think height will be a problem.
I think if Buzz would have landed Tarik Black, everyone would have been thrilled but I believe short-term, if you compared Crowder to Black, Crowder would have the bigger impact next year and that's ok because it gives Buzz another year to find a hopefully better version of Tarik Black that can step in and make an impact right away.
I worry most about rebounding. I know a lot of us believe that not turning the ball over has helped us overcome the huge rebounding deficits we've seen lately. I would expect the next-to-nothing turnover number to increase with the two senior guards leaving. Are Otule/Yous/EWill/Crowder going to be able to step in and not only fill Lazar's shoes from a rebounding standpoint, but more than make up for it? It's worrysome, expecially with Lazar the only one I really trust night in and night out to grab a good number of rebounds.
Quote from: wiscoave on February 16, 2010, 10:33:28 AM
Hopefully, if/when Buzz lands a big man, it will be a high schooler, not a juco. It is simply my preference that Buzz recruit high school kids, develop them and turn them into great players that can win games. I honestly think some things are lost when Buzz goes the juco route: 1) who was the last juco that captivated the BE conference? the nation? 2) freshmen help give the school more of an identity than jucos do (years later, everyone knows where Durant, Melo and Oden went to school. Ten years from now, a lot of people will still remember).
I think many agree that four year players are preferred to JUCO's. What also many have stated already here is that Buzz made it a major point to balance the classes, and that can only be done with redshirting, transfers, or JUCO's. I don't think we were in the position to redshirt non-injured players so the options were limited.
Now that the classes are balanced, hopefully we will see less JUCO's. Though, a transfer or injury may make Buzz go to the same well in the future.
Quote from: wiscoave on February 16, 2010, 10:33:28 AM
Hopefully, if/when Buzz lands a big man, it will be a high schooler, not a juco. It is simply my preference that Buzz recruit high school kids, develop them and turn them into great players that can win games. I honestly think some things are lost when Buzz goes the juco route: 1) who was the last juco that captivated the BE conference? the nation? 2) freshmen help give the school more of an identity than jucos do (years later, everyone knows where Durant, Melo and Oden went to school. Ten years from now, a lot of people will still remember).
People remember where those players went to school because they were exceptional, rare talents, not because they were freshman.
Good for Crowder. It sounds like he can come in next year and contribute right a way. Hats off to buzz for finding another diamond in the ruff.
Quote from: Ners on February 16, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
- Who would you have liked to seen MU land with these last 2 scholarships - as far as non-project big men that were available? There is no denying MU needs size, but...if you can land 2 players (Newbill and Crowder) who appear to have definite immediate impact (at least Crowder anyway) and also have Otule with 3 years of availability left - should we have passed on either Crowder or Newbill? Both sound like really good "gets," and after we didn't land Tarik Black, did/do we really stand a chance with any other skilled big man that would be any less of a project than Otule or Mbao?
Dollars to doughnuts, by this time next year, it will be glaringly obvious to all that there
were quality bigs that remained on the table as of early February 2010.
Waving it off under the premise that "all remaining bigs are projects" will be proven incorrect--just as it was last year. Based on history there are decent bigs that sign in the spring every year. I expect this year to be no different.
The issue isn't whether or not they exist. Its a matter of finding them and then convincing one to come to your school.
By mid season 2010-11, some 6'10" frosh or Juco transfer that committed to another program
after Crowder and Newbill committed to MU will be lighting it up for another team--perhaps even one of our opponents. My guess is that there will be at least a half-dozen such players who will put up 20+ mpg, 10+ ppg and 8+ rpg.
Clearly we had a need for one of those players. The MU staff either chose not to pursue them for whatever reason (too risky, bad/wrong evaluation, don't want a big in the lineup, etc.), or they did try to land one (or more) and failed.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 16, 2010, 12:58:35 PM
People remember where those players went to school because they were exceptional, rare talents, not because they were freshman.
Agreed, and these type of players were pretty much 1 and done or 2 and done players (the same amount of time a JUCO would be at MU), furthermore most of those type of talents did get there teams to an Elite 8, Final Four, etc..which increased exposure. If somehow our 2012 team (which would feature Crowder and DJO) were able to get to a Final Four, with those 2 players leading MU - we'd be remembered and attractive to both high-school recruits and JUCO's - the best of both worlds.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on February 16, 2010, 08:53:02 AM
I don't know why there was such a backlash regarding this signing anyway. There is no reason to doubt Buzz when it comes to high level JUCO recruits. Until he signs one that completely flops like a Blackledge or Lott, he has my trust. I'm not expecting the world of Crowder next year, but if he can provide 20-25 mpg and average somewhere along the lines of 8 & 5, with added contributions from Erik Williams at the position, his presence will significantly soften the blow of Hayward's departure.
because 6'6 < 6'8 and thus scoopers = >:(
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 16, 2010, 01:05:04 PM
Dollars to doughnuts, by this time next year, it will be glaringly obvious to all that there were quality bigs that remained on the table as of early February 2010.
Waving it off under the premise that "all remaining bigs are projects" will be proven incorrect--just as it was last year. Based on history there are decent bigs that sign in the spring every year. I expect this year to be no different.
The issue isn't whether or not they exist. Its a matter of finding them and then convincing one to come to your school.
By mid season 2010-11, some 6'10" frosh or Juco transfer that committed to another program after Crowder and Newbill committed to MU will be lighting it up for another team--perhaps even one of our opponents. My guess is that there will be at least a half-dozen such players who will put up 20+ mpg, 10+ ppg and 8+ rpg.
Clearly we had a need for one of those players. The MU staff either chose not to pursue them for whatever reason (too risky, bad/wrong evaluation, don't want a big in the lineup, etc.), or they did try to land one (or more) and failed.
For the purposes of tracking, let's use the below big-men BMA (who seems to be most knowledgeable about MU basketball recruiting) mentioned as MU possibly being in on, or others who were available after the Crowder and Newbill signings. Lastly, sometimes in life we don't always get what we want or try for..we just do our best - and I'm sure this coaching staff did its best to get a quality big, but ultimately chose to go the Newbill/Crowder route as they saw that as the best move. Let's let it play out and see how it works out..I have a feeling Buzz has assembled the most talented MU roster for next year that I've ever seen in my 27 years of being a fan. We'll see what these below guys do, and then we can also contrast their numbers with Otule's and Crowders.
Aziz N'Diaye,
Davante Gardner,
Reggie Murphy
There's guys that we've been mentioned with but would take some work to get them, Maurice Walker, Kadeem Jack etc.
Plenty that we haven't been mentioned with but could get involved with: Eloy Vargas, Beas Hamga, Andre Clark etc.
I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree.
It's essentially the media that chooses which players on great teams they want to build up the most. Im not sure a juco would work really well as a "media darling" because he isnt going to be 18 years old and schooling 21/22 year olds on the court.
Furthermore, my hope is that the juco thing is just temporary. And to be completely honest, i would FAR prefer a final four trip without jucos than with (but that's just me).
And regarding big men and people on here that post about the recruiting of them: It's amusing to read comments about big men we missed out on. I think the last one was DeShontey Riley. After he dropped us, so many people here said that he was "lazy," "had no work ethic" and will "end up at Detroit-Mercy in a year or two." Im sorry, but I didnt know the program was at the point of picking and choosing their 7 footers. I would think that if he was good enough for Syracuse, he was good enough for us. Apparently most here disagree.
Quote from: bma725 on February 16, 2010, 09:12:01 AM
The backlash wasn't so much because of Crowder specifically, it was because of how the last two scholarships were used. With a need for legit size inside, Buzz got a 2 and an undersized 3/4. That makes a lot of people very upset.
If Crowder committed and the other scholarship was still open allowing it to go to a legit big man, then there would have been no backlash other than from the JUCO hating contigent.
I didn't see the backlash that I thought I would. I believe you even stated, probably in jest, that this board would need to be closed down if we went with Crowder. Buzz has us competitive this year with a very small line-up, and I think that helps him justify what he's doing. I won't deny that I would have liked to have seen more height in the class.
Out of curiosity, what MU recruit would you take off the current list if forced to do so? Having no real prior knowledge of these recruits, and the build-up that comes with every commitment, they all seem like good prospects.
Quote from: wiscoave on February 16, 2010, 01:19:09 PM
And regarding big men and people on here that post about the recruiting of them: It's amusing to read comments about big men we missed out on. I think the last one was DeShontey Riley. After he dropped us, so many people here said that he was "lazy," "had no work ethic" and will "end up at Detroit-Mercy in a year or two." Im sorry, but I didnt know the program was at the point of picking and choosing their 7 footers. I would think that if he was good enough for Syracuse, he was good enough for us. Apparently most here disagree.
Well, he is averaging 2.2 points per game for Syracuse this year - but as has been mentioned by MU84 - many of the bigs in last year's late signing period have allegedly put up decent numbers (10 pts/8 boards a game) this year as first year players - whether freshman or juco transfers. That brings me to an interesting point -would we rather have DJO ( our late signing in last year's class) on this team and his playmaking and 12.5 points per game - or a big averging 10 points and 8 boards?
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 16, 2010, 01:05:04 PM
By mid season 2010-11, some 6'10" frosh or Juco transfer that committed to another program after Crowder and Newbill committed to MU will be lighting it up for another team--perhaps even one of our opponents. My guess is that there will be at least a half-dozen such players who will put up 20+ mpg, 10+ ppg and 8+ rpg.
That is just BS. 6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season? You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.). And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater. So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring? Dream on, man.
Quote from: wiscoave on February 16, 2010, 01:19:09 PM
And regarding big men and people on here that post about the recruiting of them: It's amusing to read comments about big men we missed out on. I think the last one was DeShontey Riley. After he dropped us, so many people here said that he was "lazy," "had no work ethic" and will "end up at Detroit-Mercy in a year or two." Im sorry, but I didnt know the program was at the point of picking and choosing their 7 footers. I would think that if he was good enough for Syracuse, he was good enough for us. Apparently most here disagree.
To be fair, those comments were being said before he ever committed to Syracuse, and MU fans weren't the only ones making them. National recruiting services and talent evaluators mentioned in pretty much every evaluation of the kid since he was 16 that he was lazy and played without passion.
Time will tell. I don tthink they had any need for him this year because of Onuaku and Jackson. Next year, they have an All-American center coming in so we'll see how much playing time he'll get. I'm sure we'll get a dose of him during his jr and sr years.
In regard to Crowder, Midland has 2 player's rated in the top 20 in Rivals Juco ranks 6-5 swingman in Simmons and 6-8 PF in Williams (OK ST commit). It sounds like Crowder was clearly the best player on the floor. He had about 50% of all the points and rebounds for His teams, while shooting 50% from the floor and 75% from the Line.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 16, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
That is just BS. 6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season? You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.). And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater. So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring? Dream on, man.
+1 Dwade - Thanks. I think you pretty much just owned MU84. I didn't have the data, but thought his claims were pretty ludicrous.
Two quick things I'd like to add. It appears that many feel that the juco kids are bad kids. While many of these kids have had academic challenges and many are from difficult backgrounds, not all of them, or even the majority of them are bad kids. Are there increased risks? Absolutely, and so it is MU's responsibility to do their homework just like they must do with the high school players they are recruiting. I think we all agree that it is unacceptable to compromise our integrity for the sake of more wins.
Every recruiting site that I have visited has our recruiting class in the top 25 in the country, with some rating us a lot higher. Because we play in the Big East, we must have talented players to have any chance of competing. There are far too many big kids out there who have no chance of competing in the Big East, and to get one just for the sake of having one is a waste of a scholarship. There are many reasons why kids pick particular schools, and I'm sure Buzz and his staff are more in tune to these issues than we are. I predict they will sign a big or two in the next few years. In the meantime, signing the best players regardless of height is the right thing to do.
Quote from: MU83 on February 16, 2010, 04:25:02 PM
Two quick things I'd like to add. It appears that many feel that the juco kids are bad kids. While many of these kids have had academic challenges and many are from difficult backgrounds, not all of them, or even the majority of them are bad kids. Are there increased risks? Absolutely, and so it is MU's responsibility to do their homework just like they must do with the high school players they are recruiting. I think we all agree that it is unacceptable to compromise our integrity for the sake of more wins.
Every recruiting site that I have visited has our recruiting class in the top 25 in the country, with some rating us a lot higher. Because we play in the Big East, we must have talented players to have any chance of competing. There are far too many big kids out there who have no chance of competing in the Big East, and to get one just for the sake of having one is a waste of a scholarship. There are many reasons why kids pick particular schools, and I'm sure Buzz and his staff are more in tune to these issues than we are. I predict they will sign a big or two in the next few years. In the meantime, signing the best players regardless of height is the right thing to do.
+1, very well said. I'm convinced Buzz will sign a Top 100 Big Man (someone 6'8" and 220lbs+ in the 2011 class, possibly even 2)
Quote from: wiscoave on February 16, 2010, 10:33:28 AM
Hopefully, if/when Buzz lands a big man, it will be a high schooler, not a juco. It is simply my preference that Buzz recruit high school kids, develop them and turn them into great players that can win games. I honestly think some things are lost when Buzz goes the juco route: 1) who was the last juco that captivated the BE conference? the nation? 2) freshmen help give the school more of an identity than jucos do (years later, everyone knows where Durant, Melo and Oden went to school. Ten years from now, a lot of people will still remember).
I understand jucos are better prepared than 95% of all freshmen, but that's the decision you have to make; do you want to continue to be competitive and live year by year or do you want to "build?" In 5 years, I dont think any sophomore in h.s. will be talking about any of Buzz's jucos and saying to his h.s. coach "I want to go to MU because he went there and everything else seems to fit." Just not gonna happen. Vander Blue will do 10x more for the program than any of the jucos will do combined so long as Vander can be one of the top 5 frshmen in the BE next year.
Just don't see the argument. So far two highschoolers have whifted in Maymon and Roseboro. JUCOs seem to be already adjusted to change. When Buzz's JUCOs start making the NBA I think your arguments will be proved wrong and weak.
I'd also point out that if MU hadn't taken a chance with a certain player who struggled with academic qualifying (wade), there is a good chance we would still be a middle of the road C-USA team.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 16, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
That is just BS. 6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season? You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.). And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater. So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring? Dream on, man.
+1
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 16, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
That is just BS. 6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season? You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.). And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater. So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring? Dream on, man.
Before I accuse you of twisting the argument, did you not notice that I mentioned both frosh and Jucos? I note you focused only on frosh, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
And while I probably exaggerated a bit on the criteria, the underlying point remains valid--there are big men that are better than projects that are still available in the spring signing period.
So starting with your list, let's take a look at a few spring signees that transcend the "project" tag:
1. Cousins to UK
2. Favours to GT
3. Famous to USF
4. Garcia to Seattle
That's four that meet all four criteria--6'10"/20/10/8
5. McNeil to Houston -- "only" 6'9"
6. Diarra to San Francisco -- 6'11"/15 mpg/4/4
7. Cunningham to Cleveland State -- 6'9"/15/6/3
8. Dixon to WKU 6"10/15/5/4
Probably more out there, but that gets past six.
As BMA pointed out in a previous post, some of these guys we tried to land but couldn't. Some we probably didn't even try to land. Some we didn't want. Some might not have been available until after we gave out all our scholarships. None fit the description of a "project" and all are playing in every game for their teams--most starting.
My point isn't to say that there are a ton of these guys and any mediocre recruiter could land two or three. My point is to dispute Ners contention that all bigs that sign in the spring are projects. That isn't the case.
I predict this year will be no different. A half-dozen or more quality bigs will sign this spring and (avoiding any specific numeric minimums) will become contributors for their teams next year.
Accuse me of twisting the argument? exaggerated a little bit on the criteria? the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter). You have managed to find one in Garcia. YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT. Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers. I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year. And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season. Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything. You were wrong. Just admit it.
Everybody look at your pinky. That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria. If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.
Quote from: tower912 on February 17, 2010, 08:28:04 AM
Everybody look at your pinky. That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria. If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.
Amen +1. Perfectly said. A pinky length more of height and we would have been heralding his signing. 2 inches of height isn't going to make a difference in rebounding..2x more heart will. See Lazar Hayward.
I see some of 84's points, but I think we are splitting hairs and obsessing about the big man thing. We'll get one soon..I suspect the real issue 84 and other MU fans have is with the Newbill signing (not so much Crowder), and the Newbill schollie not going to a semi-skilled Big Man. That said, Buzz must have felt Newbill was a significant enough talent that to earmark that scholarship for a marginal big, wasn't as valuable as what he projects Newbill can bring to this team.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 16, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
6. Diarra to San Francisco -- 6'11"/15 mpg/4/4
7. Cunningham to Cleveland State -- 6'9"/15/6/3
8. Dixon to WKU 6"10/15/5/4
Probably more out there, but that gets past six.
Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?
Hmmm.
I'd suggest that a kid who can only average that in the Horizon or Sun Belt very much would fit the description of a project in a power conference. Heck, if you're 6'11" and only mustering 4/4 at San Francisco, you're a project anywhere.
By the way, including Favours and Cousins in the discussion as if they were players out there for the taking is more than a tad misleading. MU had no chance at either and Favours was, for all intents, locked up with Georgia Tech months before he signed.
The problem with MU84 using the players he did is because he is not using the correct frame of reference. He is at two ends of the spectrum...He refers to two HS All Americans (Cousins and Favors) and then at the same time, uses players in mid major conferences. I will concede Famous, as he is obviously having success at USF.
However MU84, instead of looking at players putting up #s in mid-major leagues, lets look at what late signing big men in the 2009 class are doing in the Big East...
Jerelle Benimon - Georgetown (6'7", 240, commited April 1st)
-10.8 mpg, 1.4 ppg, 1.7 rpg
Rakeem Buckles - Louisville (6'8", 215, #54 RSCI, Committed Feb 25)
-11.5 mpg, 3.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg
Youssoupha Mbao - Marquette (7'2", 215, committed April 26)
-We know the deal
Russ Permenter - Providence - via UT- San Antonio and Temple Junior College (6'9", 230, committed Feb 16)
-7.5 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.8 rpg
Brian Okam - Rutgers (6'11", 245, committed March 11)
-4.9 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 1.2 rpg
Jarrid Famous - USF via Westchester CC (6'11", 240, committed April 23)
-31.5 mpg, 11.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg
Dashonte Riley - Syracuse (7'0", 233, #85 RSCI, committed March 5)
-10.6 mpg, 2.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg
Quote from: tower912 on February 17, 2010, 08:28:04 AM
Everybody look at your pinky. That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria. If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.
(http://laidoffinnyc.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/03-ps36-5perspective-posters.jpg)
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?
No he's not suggesting they would be "significant contributiors." he's now changed his argument that there will be 6 players that will be merely "contributors." Hell, frozena has given us some points this year...he's a contributor!
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 17, 2010, 07:58:16 AM
Accuse me of twisting the argument? exaggerated a little bit on the criteria? the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter). You have managed to find one in Garcia. YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT. Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers. I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year. And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season. Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything. You were wrong. Just admit it.
84 was just "exaggerating a bit". After all, what's the difference between 20/10/8 and 15/4/4? Actually it's the same as the difference between 20/10/8 and 27/25/16. One is a superstar, one is solid and the other can tie his shoelaces (at least at a mid major). Good luck on getting 84 to admit he's wrong but don't hold your breath.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 17, 2010, 07:58:16 AM
Accuse me of twisting the argument? exaggerated a little bit on the criteria? the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter). You have managed to find one in Garcia. YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT. Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers. I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year. And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season. Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything. You were wrong. Just admit it.
Yes, you twisted the argument. You admit you didn't include jucos because you didn't know how to do the research. Ergo you twisted the argument. Don't defend yourself. You were wrong. You are now guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.
Second, yes, I already admitted that I exaggerated on the specific numbers. I was wrong. I admitted it the last post.
You're still harping on it. Why? This is a problem on this board--instead of allowing someone to admit a mistake and re-frame the argument, you're still trying argue a point I've abandoned.
Third. Yes, I changed my argument. I didn't try to hide that fact. By removing the arbitrary numerical minimums (which I created in the first place), I now have a more unassailable argument that Ners is completely wrong when he says the only bigs left in the spring signing period were projects.
I note that you are not arguing that the players I listed are projects.
Fourth, Maymon numbers are a
hell of a lot better than, say, Mbao numbers. Maymon is not a project. Mbao is. Ners made the incorrect statement that all bigs who sign in spring are projects. That is not true.
Frankly, I would GLADLY accept a 6'10" player on next year's team who could give us 16 mpg, 4 points and 4 boards. Wouldn't you? How abouy one that gives us 15/5/5? Or 18/6/4? Or are you going to stick with Ners argument that its better for us to have a player who will likely play behind Blue, DJO and Buycks?
Fifth, while Newbill and Crowder may be contributors, neither will play the position that represent the greatest need.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 17, 2010, 03:27:27 PM
84 was just "exaggerating a bit". After all, what's the difference between 20/10/8 and 15/4/4? Actually it's the same as the difference between 20/10/8 and 27/25/16. One is a superstar, one is solid and the other can tie his shoelaces (at least at a mid major). Good luck on getting 84 to admit he's wrong but don't hold your breath.
Sorry to disappoint you Lenny. I already admitted I was wrong on this one. So I reframed the argument to better support the same point.
In addition to my look at late signing 2009 big men in the Big East...I just glanced through the late signing big men in the ACC (Other than Derrick Favours). Pretty much nothing, other than Deshawn Painter at NC State...who MU went after pretty hard. Here is his line so far this year:
6'9", 220, #80 RSCI
7 mpg
1.9 ppg
.9 ppg
What did he do against MU? 4 minutes, 2 rebounds.
What was the original intent of this thread?
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?
Hmmm.
You make a vaild argument, and it warrants some investigation.
The good news is that those low-major teams typically face high major competition in non-conference play. Its not the big east exactly, but serves as a proxy for how a player might fare against similar level competition.
For example, Cleveland State's Cunningham put up 29 points (5.8/game) and 16 boards (3.2/game) in five non-conference games against high majors (UK, Ohio State, UVa, WVU and Kansas State). Essentially his season average. Actually, slightly better.
Diarra has been inconsistent, but I think its interesting that his best game of the season was against Pac10 Washington (14 points/12 boards). He also had an 11 point/1 board showing versus Gonzaga.
Certainly some inconsistency in both their play--but your argument that these players only piled up their numbers against no-name competition falls flat. They've held their own against the high-major competition they played. Would these do the same at MU against Big East competition night in and night out? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
One thing I think you discount is the superior facilities, coaching, conditioning and support those players would receive at MU compared to Cleveland State or SanFran. Yes, the competition is tougher--but it would be offset somewhat by what MU would offer.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
By the way, including Favours and Cousins in the discussion as if they were players out there for the taking is more than a tad misleading. MU had no chance at either and Favours was, for all intents, locked up with Georgia Tech months before he signed.
You might have missed the comment where I said "
some of these guys we tried to land but couldn't. Some we probably didn't even try to land. Some we didn't want. Some might not have been available until after we gave out all our scholarships."
If you interpreted my statement to read "they were there for the taking", then I take the blame for not explaining clearly enough for you.
Let's simplify it this way: Do you think Favours and Cousins were projects?
If your answer is Yes, then you agree with Ners.
If your answer is No, then you agree with me.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on February 17, 2010, 08:20:55 PM
In addition to my look at late signing 2009 big men in the Big East...I just glanced through the late signing big men in the ACC (Other than Derrick Favours). Pretty much nothing, other than Deshawn Painter at NC State...who MU went after pretty hard. Here is his line so far this year:
6'9", 220, #80 RSCI
7 mpg
1.9 ppg
.9 ppg
Let me restate the argument for you:
"My point isn't to say that there are a ton of these guys and any mediocre recruiter could land two or three. My point is to dispute Ners contention that all bigs that sign in the spring are projects."I'm sure you can find plenty of underperforming bigs. Save you your investigation of the Big 10, SEC, Pac10, A10, CUSA or any other conference. I am certain you'll find some minimally contributing bigs. In fact, I'd agree that MOST are probably not significant contributors.
What you won't be able to do is deny the fact that there are at least SOME bigs who are NOT projects.
My point is that there
are a few good ones out there.
Yes, I agree they are few and far between.
Yes, I agree it is very hard work to land them.
Yes, I agree there is a lot of competition for those players.
I agree there is no guarantee that you'll be successful if you try.
I agree you might lose a good player at another position if you hold out for one of those handful of bigs.
But if you really really really need a particular position player (as MU does at the 5), taking a different player in early February--especially a 2G who will be 4th on the depth chart--opens one to the argument that you stopped looking for what you need a bit too soon.
I am simply brining some balance. You tried to prove your point by looking at mid-major players...instead of looking at guys playing in high major leagues.
Here is a look at the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 (If I missed anyone, sorry)
Sasa Boronjvak - Penn State (6'9", 235, Commited 2-12-09)
Played in 13 games...6.6 mpg, 1.6 ppg, .9 rpg
Ty Armstrong - Auburn (6'9", 220, Committed 5-1-09)
5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg, 1.6 rpg
DeAngelo Riley - Ole Miss via SW Tennessee JUCO (6'9", 245, Committed 4-23-09)
6.5 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.4 rpg
John Riek - Miss State via University of Cincinnati (7'1", 242, Committed 4-23-09)
Played in 8 games...4.0 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 1.8 rpg
Reynardo Sidney - Miss State (6'11", 255, Committed 4-30-09, #7 RSCI)
Has not played this season due to NCAA investigation
Wendell Lewis - Miss State (6'8", 240, Committed 4-22-09)
6.0 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 1.5 rpg
Johndre Jefferson - South Carolina via Okaloosa-Walton Junior College (6'9", 205, Committed 3-5-09)
13.5 mpg, 2.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg
Tyler Stone - Missouri (6'7", 225, Committed 5-4-09)
Played in 10 games...4.1 mpg, 2.2 ppg, .9 rpg
John Underwood - Missouri (6'9", 190, Committed on 5-3-09)
Played in 11 games...4.4 mpg, .8 ppg, 1.9 rpg
Quincy Hawkins - Nebraska via Polk CC (6'8", 240, Committed on 3-31-09)
10.8 mpg, 4.6 ppg, 2.9 rpg
Jared Shaw - Oklahoma State (6'10", 230, Committed on 1-12-09)
Played in 11 games...3.5 mpg, .2 ppg, .7 rpg
Derrick Williams - Arizona (6'8", 235, Committed on 6-29-09, #100 RSCI)
27.2 mpg, 15.4 ppg, 6.9 rpg
-I think MU was after him at one point
Kyryl Natyazhko - Arizona (6'10", 255, Committed on 4-13-09)
11.6 mpg, 2.2 ppg, 2.3 rpg
Angus Brandt - Oregon State (6'10", 240, Committed on 2-19-09)
9.2 mpg, .9 ppg, 1.1 rpg
Evan Smith - USC (6'7", 210, Committed on 4-20-09)
Played in 7 games...17.1 mpg, 1.1 ppg, 1.9 rpg
Steven Bjornstadt - Washington State (6'10" 225, Committed on 7-02-09)
Played in 9 games...2.9 mpg, .8 ppg, .2 rpg
Now look at all these guys numbers - the late signing big men from last year. Would you really rather have had one of them because they "filled a position of greatest need," or had DJO?? I suspect that our team this year would not be even close to sniffing the NCAA if we had one of these big stiffs instead of DJO. Ultimately, if MU would have followed 84's desire and signed one of these bigs, it is highly unlikely this team would be having as good of year this year. DJO is a critical piece of this year's team.
As I said earlier, Buzz must have felt Newbill's upside/ability to help the program in the short and long run was greater than any available big at this time. Keep in mind we Otule for 3 more years, and he did show a ton of improvement early this year when he did play, over where he was a year ago. Hopefully he can remain healthy. Crowder is going to be a baller too..he should be about the closest thing to a Lazar replacement as you could possibly find - so essentially we should be about the same team next year, just minus Mo and Cubi +Vander, Newbill, Reggie, Jones, Cadougan + Otule. That backcourt definitely will provide more size than we had this year.
Quote from: muarmy81 on February 17, 2010, 08:28:26 PM
What was the original intent of this thread?
I think it may have been that Crowder seems to be a good player, and a nice "late" signing by Buzz. But perhaps I missed the point. Too much text to keep up with it all.
Yep - I am sure looking forward to seeing Crowder play. The guy sounds promising. :)
That was what this tread was about, anyway.....
Quote from: Ners on February 17, 2010, 11:17:09 PM
Now look at all these guys numbers - the late signing big men from last year. Would you really rather have had one of them because they "filled a position of greatest need," or had DJO?? I suspect that our team this year would not be even close to sniffing the NCAA if we had one of these big stiffs instead of DJO. Ultimately, if MU would have followed 84's desire and signed one of these bigs, it is highly unlikely this team would be having as good of year this year. DJO is a critical piece of this year's team.
Nice straw man.
Let me make this clearer for you: I would rather have one of the guys I mentioned over Mbao.
Changes your argument, doesn't it?
Quote from: Ners on February 17, 2010, 11:17:09 PM
Keep in mind we Otule for 3 more years, and he did show a ton of improvement early this year when he did play, over where he was a year ago. Hopefully he can remain healthy. Crowder is going to be a baller too..he should be about the closest thing to a Lazar replacement as you could possibly find
Otule improved enough to earn 8 mpg against 3 of the worst teams in Division 1.
You're right that it took a "ton of improvement" to reach that point. But ultimately, the level he's actually at is much more relevant than the amount of improvement it took to get there.
I find it amusing that you describe as "stiffs" players who have been able to go 15-20 minutes/4-6 points/3-5 boards even against high major opposition like Kentucky/Ohio State/Washington/Gonzaga/Kstate etc., but complement the improvement of a player who averaged 8 minutes/4 points/2 boards against MD Eastern Shore, Grambling and Centenary.
Even if you want to argue that Newbill is better than any available big, the real question is whether any available big is better than Otule and/or Mbao. I think its reasonable to conclude the answer is likely yes.
And the other question is this: given the injury history of both Otule and Mbao, do you really think it is more important to go 4 deep at the 2 before you're 3 deep at the 5?
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 18, 2010, 11:48:48 AM
Nice straw man.
Let me make this clearer for you: I would rather have one of the guys I mentioned over Mbao.
Changes your argument, doesn't it?
Otule improved enough to earn 8 mpg against 3 of the worst teams in Division 1.
You're right that it took a "ton of improvement" to reach that point. But ultimately, the level he's actually at is much more relevant than the amount of improvement it took to get there.
I find it amusing that you describe as "stiffs" players who have been able to go 15-20 minutes/4-6 points/3-5 boards even against high major opposition like Kentucky/Ohio State/Washington/Gonzaga/Kstate etc., but complement the improvement of a player who averaged 8 minutes/4 points/2 boards against MD Eastern Shore, Grambling and Centenary.
Even if you want to argue that Newbill is better than any available big, the real question is whether any available big is better than Otule and/or Mbao. I think its reasonable to conclude the answer is likely yes.
And the other question is this: given the injury history of both Otule and Mbao, do you really think it is more important to go 4 deep at the 2 before you're 3 deep at the 5?
What is a straw man? Please clarify. To measure Otule's contribution over 3 games this year against the other players being discussed is pretty week. Otule averaged about 6 minutes per game, if you want to split hairs - triple his minutes to the 18 minute category like the players you mention, and his output would be around 9 points, 7 boards. As for Mbao, he has not shown a lot, but he does have very, very quick feet for a 7'2" man - he may eventually be a good shot blocker. I won't argue his merits against any of the players you mentioned that were signed in the late signing period. You can't bat 100% on all recruits, but at this point, Buzz has earned my confidence as a talent evaluator, recruiter and coach..
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 18, 2010, 11:48:48 AM
Let me make this clearer for you: I would rather have one of the guys I mentioned over Mbao.
Otule improved enough to earn 8 mpg against 3 of the worst teams in Division 1.
Even if you want to argue that Newbill is better than any available big, the real question is whether any available big is better than Otule and/or Mbao. I think its reasonable to conclude the answer is likely yes.
No that is not the real question. Those two are using scholarships already. We are talking about the handing out of the LAST scholarship. Not Otule or Mbao. I think we have a chance to be good next year and I think that Crowder is more likely to contribute next year than any 6'8+ kid buzz has on his radar right now.
I doubt buzz is likely to nail a 6'10+ kid who actually contributes his freshman year because those are few and far between. There are 6'8 kids who come in and put up decent numbers but they aren't as plentiful as you seem to think.
You may not think much of the 14 feet of pain that we'll have playing the 5 next year but to be so certain we'll land someone who can walk in and outplay them is a bit of a jump.
Quote from: Ners on February 18, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
What is a straw man? Please clarify.
I said we should have used one of the last
two scholarships on a big.
You responded by creating your own--that we were only talking about DJO's scholarship.
You then knocked down the straw man argument you created.
Quote from: Ners on February 18, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
To measure Otule's contribution over 3 games this year against the other players being discussed is pretty week.
You used the same three games to conclude that he improved tremendously.
We both have the same frame of reference. If it was enough time for you to conclude tremendous improvement, it should be good enough for me to compare actual performance.
Quote from: Ners on February 18, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
Otule averaged about 6 minutes per game, if you want to split hairs - triple his minutes to the 18 minute category like the players you mention, and his output would be around 9 points, 7 boards.
But he wasn't getting triple the minutes.
My argument is that if you can't play 18 minutes against Grambling, how are you going to play 18 versus Georgetown?
Quote from: Ners on February 18, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
As for Mbao, he has not shown a lot, but he does have very, very quick feet for a 7'2" man - he may eventually be a good shot blocker. I won't argue his merits against any of the players you mentioned that were signed in the late signing period.
Why not? You seemed quite willing to argue the merits of
DJO against any of the players I mentioned. In fact, you even started a second discussion to do just that.
At least we will have (2) centers on the roster, despite their talent level.
Who is the true power forward on the roster?
That's right - we don't have one. That spot will be manned by an undersized SF.
Quote from: PE8983 on February 18, 2010, 01:23:23 PM
At least we will have (2) centers on the roster, despite their talent level.
Who is the true power forward on the roster?
That's right - we don't have one. That spot will be manned by an undersized SF.
Was Charles Barkley a PF? I'd say yes. And he was 6'5"-6'6", but very strong. Sounds a lot like Crowder. David Boone a number of years ago was about the height and weight of Crowder. If he was on this team, we'd be in the mix for sweet 16.
Crowder has the necessary size to be an effective defender in the paint. Hopefully he will be. I bet we look back and judge him to be an excellent pick-up.
Quote from: RawdogDX on February 18, 2010, 12:44:32 PM
No that is not the real question. Those two are using scholarships already. We are talking about the handing out of the LAST scholarship. Not Otule or Mbao. I think we have a chance to be good next year and I think that Crowder is more likely to contribute next year than any 6'8+ kid buzz has on his radar right now.
They are using scholarship already.
And I agree we have a chance to be good next year.
I guess you and I disagree on where the weakest link is. I think another big is more important than a 4th 2G.
Quote from: RawdogDX on February 18, 2010, 12:44:32 PM
I doubt buzz is likely to nail a 6'10+ kid who actually contributes his freshman year because those are few and far between. There are 6'8 kids who come in and put up decent numbers but they aren't as plentiful as you seem to think.
You may not think much of the 14 feet of pain that we'll have playing the 5 next year but to be so certain we'll land someone who can walk in and outplay them is a bit of a jump.
You must have missed it, but I said exactly same thing much earlier in the thread. I'll link for you:
Whats funny is how this board is full of statements about Buzz's superior recruiting ability.
Yet when it comes to this thread, we get: "I doubt buzz is likely to nail a 6'10+ kid who actually contributes."
Wouldn't a truly great recruiter be able to land a 6'10" kid (juco or otherwise) who actually contributes his first year?
SOMEBODY is landing those players.
Quote from: RawdogDX on February 18, 2010, 12:44:32 PM
You may not think much of the 14 feet of pain that we'll have playing the 5 next year but to be so certain we'll land someone who can walk in and outplay them is a bit of a jump.
No worse than assuming that two guys with a combined 85 minutes of playing time this year will be so solid in their play that our bigger need is a guy who will fight for minutes with Buycks and DJO (1288 combined minutes ytd).
We already know that Crowder is under the impression he is playing the 2 or 3 on offense, based on quotes directly from him.
Is he also under the impression that he is going to be defending the opponent's 4 man on defense? That's quite an assumption on your part.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 18, 2010, 11:48:48 AM
Nice straw man.
Let me make this clearer for you: I would rather have one of the guys I mentioned over Mbao.
So, based Mbao's extensive body of work and the amount of time you've spent reading statistics of mid-major players you can state with certainty those guys would have been better at MU than Yous over the next 3+ years?
Might I borrow your crystal ball some time?
You may a few years from now be proven correct, but there's no way you or anyone else here can say what the next three seasons will bring.
At the time MU he landed Mbao, we all knew he was a project from whom little could be expected this season. And yet you're bagging on him, for all intents labeling him a poor recruiting decision, because he's proven to be exactly as advertised.
You can question Buzz for taking on a project, but you should at least do so in the context of what the roster looked like at the time he was signed. Getting little from Mbao this year was OK because we reasonably were counting on minutes in the post from the combination of Otule and McMorrow, and even some minutes down low from Maymon as a smallish 4. Heck, had McMorrow not had his issues, Mbao very well could have been a redshirt this year. Given those circumstances, it was a decent move on Buzz's part to take a flier on an athletic - but extremely raw - 7'2" kid with a lot of upside instead of a JUCO type or mid-major athlete who could offer 15/5/5.
When all is said and done, maybe Mbao never even manages to become a 15/5/5 player. But with what the staff already had in place, it wasn't an unreasonable risk to take a guy who could develop into better, maybe much better, than that over the next couple years.
Your hindsight is, as always, 20/20. But it's unfair to criticize Buzz for a recruiting decision without at least examining that decision in the context in which it was made.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 18, 2010, 01:51:56 PM
Wouldn't a truly great recruiter be able to land a 6'10" kid (juco or otherwise) who actually contributes his first year?
SOMEBODY is landing those players.
Didnt I already cover this?
Quote from: PE8983 on February 18, 2010, 01:57:29 PM
We already know that Crowder is under the impression he is playing the 2 or 3 on offense, based on quotes directly from him.
Is he also under the impression that he is going to be defending the opponent's 4 man on defense? That's quite an assumption on your part.
Where would
you expect him to play, on defense?
"Where would you expect him to play, on defense?"
Don't know - haven't seen him play. If he expects to play the 2 or 3 on offense, where do you think he would expect to play on defense? I know what sounds logical, but I hope it's incorrect. Because, we need a post defender in the worst way.
I think a lot of people on here are automatically thinking that he is our 4 man, simply because that is our need. He may be able to play on offense the way Lazar does with Buzz's offense, but I would guess he doesn't approach Lazar's capability at defending the post. Hope I'm wrong.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 18, 2010, 01:51:56 PM
No worse than assuming that two guys with a combined 85 minutes of playing time this year will be so solid in their play that our bigger need is a guy who will fight for minutes with Buycks and DJO (1288 combined minutes ytd).
I don't know if I'm assuming that they will be 'so solid'. If the two of them combine for 10 and 6 that is 10 and 6 we don't have this year not to mention 5 pf. If they aren't healthy than that sucks but we need high major players and buzz thinks this guy is one and doesn't think he can land a better one. Crowder has enough girth to let him hang with guys an inch or two taller. And i think our coaching staff has earned my trust in their jc selections. Hopefully the success he has next year helps recruit a 6'8 stud to take his place in 2 years.
And he's a wing so i don't think he'll be competing with DJO, he'll be competing with JJones, JWill and Fulce for non-butler wing minutes.
Quote from: PE8983 on February 18, 2010, 03:47:31 PM
"Where would you expect him to play, on defense?"
Don't know - haven't seen him play. If he expects to play the 2 or 3 on offense, where do you think he would expect to play on defense? I know what sounds logical, but I hope it's incorrect. Because, we need a post defender in the worst way.
I think a lot of people on here are automatically thinking that he is our 4 man, simply because that is our need. He may be able to play on offense the way Lazar does with Buzz's offense, but I would guess he doesn't approach Lazar's capability at defending the post. Hope I'm wrong.
He's 6-6, 230. I expect Buzz will see him as a better post defender than most of the other players available to him. I expect Buzz will utilize him as a post defender.
Am I speculating? Are the rest of us speculating? Well, yeah. :) it is a board and all. That's pretty much what we do here. I'm going to continue to speculate and enjoy it.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2010, 02:01:35 PM
So, based Mbao's extensive body of work and the amount of time you've spent reading statistics of mid-major players you can state with certainty those guys would have been better at MU than Yous over the next 3+ years?
You mean the research you didn't do at all when you incorrectly assumed that those players padded their stats against low-major teams and couldn't do the same against good Big East competition?
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2010, 02:01:35 PM
At the time MU he landed Mbao, we all knew he was a project from whom little could be expected this season. And yet you're bagging on him, for all intents labeling him a poor recruiting decision, because he's proven to be exactly as advertised.
The problem with this is we didn't need a project. The time to take a project is when you have Plan A already in place.
We didn't, as you'll soon learn.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2010, 02:01:35 PM
You can question Buzz for taking on a project, but you should at least do so in the context of what the roster looked like at the time he was signed. Getting little from Mbao this year was OK because we reasonably were counting on minutes in the post from the combination of Otule and McMorrow, and even some minutes down low from Maymon as a smallish 4. Heck, had McMorrow not had his issues, Mbao very well could have been a redshirt this year. Given those circumstances, it was a decent move on Buzz's part to take a flier on an athletic - but extremely raw - 7'2" kid with a lot of upside instead of a JUCO type or mid-major athlete who could offer 15/5/5.
This is incorrect. McMorrows health was in question as early as March 16 of last year.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13784.0
I'm not sure if you honestly forgot the timeframe in which Liam's health issues arose or if you intentionally left that out of your story to make it sound like Buzz was blindsided by it after he took Mbao's commitment--either way your narrative above is not the full context. The context HAS to include the fact that Liam was no longer practicing in mid-March with a condition decsribed as "not good" following tests.
Given
those circumstances (not your incomplete version), it was perhaps NOT the best time to take a flier on a project.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2010, 02:01:35 PM
Your hindsight is, as always, 20/20. But it's unfair to criticize Buzz for a recruiting decision without at least examining that decision in the context in which it was made.
All I can say is that I did consider the full context--including the serious health issue that Buzz raised on 3/16 of last year.
Given that you didn't cite that fact, perhaps its advisable that you do the same before lecturing me.