Let's rank Buzz's coaching this season versus other MU seasons. Try and measure it against other REGULAR SEASON performances. I'll ask the same question after the NCAA tourney and we can reassess again at that point.
Right now I have to believe it has to be one of the best REGULAR SEASON performances ever. Sure AL won in 1977 but that regular season team was a 7 seed, which might be what we are this season with much less talent.
Sure 2003 was a final four team but that was a 5 seed with what would be one of the best players in the NBA and two other NBA players. This team might be a 6 or 7 and does anyone outside of Lazar look like they have NBA potential?
Other thoughts?
To be honest last night the way we won is one of the most surprising games in recent history that I can remember. They pounded UL, no points for Samuels until halfway through the second half, the best passing I have seen in an MU team in a while. All of this done 2 days after an overtime win in which our starters all played 40+ minutes. Also, the one run UL made in the second half MU came back with a run of their own which closed it out...for once ;D
well for sure this season goes down as the best coaching job by an Mu coach in the last decade!!!!!!!!
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 03, 2010, 08:37:55 AM
Sure 2003 was a final four team but that was a 5 seed with what would be one of the best players in the NBA and two other NBA players. This team might be a 6 or 7 and does anyone outside of Lazar look like they have NBA potential?
Other thoughts?
2003 squad was a 3 seed, not a 5, but they had legitimate top 10 talent with Wade/Jackson/Deiner/Merritt/Novak and some nice role players. No knock against Crean, he did well with that team in the regular season, too.
IMO, Hayward has no NBA potential (just not athletic enough at his size), but Butler and DJO might.
To you larger point, this is a tremendously coached team. The post-Al team that compares is when Deane got a 4 seed out of the Hutch/Pieper/Eford/etc. team, though that team was undoubtedly talented.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 03, 2010, 09:51:23 AM
IMO, Hayward has no NBA potential (just not athletic enough at his size), but Butler and DJO might.
+1
I said this last year too. I love Lazar and I think someone may take a chance on him in the second round or, at the very least, invite him into camp; but the unfortunate truth is that he is the size of a 2, who's natural position is the 3, and he's spent most of his time playing the 4. But I hope I'm wrong, I really do. Because he seems like a really good kid.
DJO to me is a lot like Jerel. Definitely has the skill to play at the next level, but he's a little shorter than the prototypical NBA 2-guard and too turnover prone.
Butler seemingly has the athleticism and size to play the 3 at the next level, he just needs to continue to develop his outside game and show more of a willingness to shoot the open jumper.
Regardless, I couldn't be happier to have them on the court at the same time right now!
PS - Back on topic, Buzz has coached this team extremely well; but give Crean his due, that final four team was a combination of talent and coaching. I'm not a big fan of TC's (wasn't when he was here, either), but he put his players in the right position to be successful that year...and then the bottom fell out against KU - GOD that game sucked!
My Bad, we were a #3 seed in 2003. We were very talented and performed to expectations. Just like we did last year (remember regular season only comparisons).
2010 were expected to be a 12 seed in the BE and exit the NIT early. With one game to go, we are the #5 seed and going to the dance. And did it was a slew of injuries and defections.
Has any MU team outperformed as much as this team?
Larger point, Buzz met expectations last year, outperformed this year and has recruited well. He's been the head coach for 23 months (I'm sure Buzz can give you the exact day) and he has yet to disappoint.
I'm glad Keno Davis took Providence and not MU.
Well this is sort of an example of the ESPN Era Generation thinking that no sports existed before ESPN. If we are just looking at regular season performance, lets look at the 70-71 team that went 26-0 and was ranked in the top 5 the entire season #2 for 10 weeks and #1 for two weeks.. Or how about the 71-72 team that went 25-2 in the regular season and was #2 for the 12 straight weeks. The 73-74 and 74-75 teams ended the regular seasons ranked third in the county.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 03, 2010, 08:37:55 AM
Let's rank Buzz's coaching this season versus other MU seasons. Try and measure it against other REGULAR SEASON performances. I'll ask the same question after the NCAA tourney and we can reassess again at that point.
Right now I have to believe it has to be one of the best REGULAR SEASON performances ever. Sure AL won in 1977 but that regular season team was a 7 seed, which might be what we are this season with much less talent.
Sure 2003 was a final four team but that was a 5 seed with what would be one of the best players in the NBA and two other NBA players. This team might be a 6 or 7 and does anyone outside of Lazar look like they have NBA potential?
Other thoughts?
1976 easily stands out as the best single year performance, followed closely by 71 and 72. I might put 74, 75 and 78 right after that. Probably '70 as well.
1977 wasn't all that impressive from the regular season standpoint--in my opinion MU would not have even been invited had it not been Al McGuire's last year. It shows that once you get to the tournament its a crap shoot.
In terms of recent history, this season is almost identical to the performance of 2006, starting from similar expectations, similar talent, each year having some advantage, but neither clear cut.
We'll either match 2006's 4th place finish or finish just one game behind. However the W/L The record will be better in 2010.
- Talent wise, these two seasons match up very similarly--perhaps slight edge to this season. Hayward's versatility and defense easily makes up for anything he gives up to Novak on shooting percentage.
- In 2006 I don't think we had a returning player as good as Butler coming back. Our front line was lousy, we would rely on three true freshmen who had never faced college players. In 2010 we had Butler returning, we had Acker and Cubillan--who were underrated preseason, but proved themselves over the season.
- While we have had injuries this year, we weren't completely healthy in n 2006. We lost Matthews for a good portion of the Big East schedule, and we lost Lott for a number of games due to Mono. Kinsella was injured for much of the year. Amo mentially checked out.
- We had more experience this year--DJO and Buycks have more than proven the naysayers wrong--they demonstrated FAR more polish and skill than true freshmen--making nowhere near the number of freshman mistakes that Jerel McNeal made. 2006 we started three freshmen. This year we started none.
- Performance-wise is very similar as well. 2006 we won the Great Alaska Shootout, and followed it up with a disappointing road loss to Nebraska. This year we reached the semis of the Old Spice and followed it up with a disappointing home loss to NC State.
- 2006 we had a disappointing loss to Rutgers, 2010 we had a disappointing loss to DePaul.
- 2006 we had that stunning league-opening shellacking of UConn. 2010 we had last night's win over UL.
- 2006 we had an impressive three game stretch late in the season with wins over Pitt, Georgetown & ND down the stretch to seal the #4 seed in the tournament. 2010 we had the stretch of 3 OT road games versus Seton Hall, Cincy & Providence
- The biggest intangible advantage from this year is that we knew 2/3 of the players in the league already. We also have some institutional experience in visiting each road venue--hotels/transporation/locker room familiarity/restuarants/etc. We also had game experience against most of the other coaches.
I think objectively--while it won't be very popular given the way people craft their opinon to favor one coach or another--one has to give the slight edge to 2006. Same pre-season expectations, finished same or slightly better in the standings, less experienced, similar talent, a little better in the pre-season tournament, worst loss wasn't as bad, best win was truly a signature win. Just about every aspect of the 2006 team was just a tiny bit better.
Have to disagree, 84. In 2006, the 3 amigos were all unknowns and all performed admirably. Novak is the only upperclassman on that team that stepped up his game from previous levels. This year, the only known was Lazar. He has stepped up his game, too, but more impressive is how Mo and Cubi have stepped up their games. We thought we knew what we had with them. Somehow, Buzz has them performing at levels no one thought possible. And of the newcomers, only DJO stands out. So Buzz is doing it with one impact newcomer and getting 4 players performing beyond what they had shown before. Coach Crean had 3 impact newcomers and 1 player outperforming his expectations. Plus, that team had what could be considered traditional size. This one........no. 2006 was great. This is more impressive.
84, I agree 2006 and 2010 are neck and neck at this point. I would say what will determine the difference between the two is how this year finishes. That year's team finished losing 3 of their last 4 (including BET and NCAA). If this year's team loses to ND, then the first round of the BET and NCAA, I would say the edge goes to 2006 based on your analysis. I know the criteria was regular season, but I changed the criteria because I wanted to! Lot of ball left to be played!
Quote from: tower912 on March 03, 2010, 12:19:10 PM
Have to disagree, 84. In 2006, the 3 amigos were all unknowns and all performed admirably. Novak is the only upperclassman on that team that stepped up his game from previous levels. This year, the only known was Lazar. He has stepped up his game, too, but more impressive is how Mo and Cubi have stepped up their games. We thought we knew what we had with them. Somehow, Buzz has them performing at levels no one thought possible. And of the newcomers, only DJO stands out. So Buzz is doing it with one impact newcomer and getting 4 players performing beyond what they had shown before. Coach Crean had 3 impact newcomers and 1 player outperforming his expectations. Plus, that team had what could be considered traditional size. This one........no. 2006 was great. This is more impressive.
I think there are three flaws in your analysis.
First, were you paying attention to Butler the last half of the Big East season? He had earned 25-30 minutes per game by the end of the year, and was putting in some very impressive performances against UConn, Villanova, Louisville, and a double-double versus Syracuse. His only disappointing performance down the stretch was against Pittsburgh--but to say that you didn't know that Butler could be good means you had to view those strong end-of-season performances as aberrations--not overall improvement.
I also have to question you on Acker--its hard to judge a guy who doesn't play because he's behind Dominic James--but when Acker had that chance, he was impressive. he gave us 2.5-1 assist to turnover ratio in those last 8 games--which included five of the elite eight. He was 37% on threes during that stretch, and took us to the wire against UL, SU, Missouri and UConn. That was outstanding performance, and he's continued it this year.
So when you say these two players in particular are performing at levels no one thought possible, it means you did not watch the end-of the year performance.
Plus, I( think you missed Buycks as an impact player--his line is almost identical to Wes Matthews freshman year. Matthews scored a bit more, Buycks is better in both assists & turnovers.
And while you're correct that Crean had more size, Buzz has more speed. Probably a wash.
84, no worries. I look at the 2006 team and see 3 highly ranked freshman guards who performed to their hype, two seniors who stepped up their game (Novak and to a lesser extent Chapman) and adequate size even though it was erratic. It far outperformed expectations, agreed, but that was because the freshman were every bit as good as the hype. A pleasant surprise.
Butler was performing well at the end of year last year, but well enough to project 15 and 6? Acker did an adequate job after DJ went down, but there was a perception that he was just a placeholder and that Jerel, Wes, and Lazar picked up the slack. Acker just didn't screw it up.
3 1500 point scorers gone. Unknown if Lazar could get his shot without Jerel/Wes/DJ around. Two big guys out with injuries. Highest rated incoming freshman out with an achilles tear. Second highest rated incoming freshman leaves right before the conference season. 3rd highest rated freshman took a long time to adjust and still is not a consistent contributor. Acker quits, returns, and emerges as a team leader, not just a placeholder. Cubi overcomes two down years and emerges as a contributing leader. A team in the truest sense in that the sum is far greater than the the total of the parts.
I understand your argument, but I will take this team.
Quote from: tower912 on March 03, 2010, 01:35:07 PM
84, no worries. I look at the 2006 team and see 3 highly ranked freshman guards who performed to their hype, two seniors who stepped up their game (Novak and to a lesser extent Chapman) and adequate size even though it was erratic. It far outperformed expectations, agreed, but that was because the freshman were every bit as good as the hype. A pleasant surprise.
Butler was performing well at the end of year last year, but well enough to project 15 and 6? Acker did an adequate job after DJ went down, but there was a perception that he was just a placeholder and that Jerel, Wes, and Lazar picked up the slack. Acker just didn't screw it up.
3 1500 point scorers gone. Unknown if Lazar could get his shot without Jerel/Wes/DJ around. Two big guys out with injuries. Highest rated incoming freshman out with an achilles tear. Second highest rated incoming freshman leaves right before the conference season. 3rd highest rated freshman took a long time to adjust and still is not a consistent contributor. Acker quits, returns, and emerges as a team leader, not just a placeholder. Cubi overcomes two down years and emerges as a contributing leader. A team in the truest sense in that the sum is far greater than the the total of the parts.
I understand your argument, but I will take this team.
Fair enough!
I think was one of the few who had high expectations for this years team (.500 as a floor, with upside form there), and couldn't understand why both Butler and Lazar were almost criminally overlooked by most at the start of the season.
He's done a great job this year. Fabulous. COY candidate for sure.
I will be interested to see how some posters rate him based on our NCAA seeding because that seemed to be a burr in the saddle for other posters when we didn't advance far enough. Will the same standard be held?
Personally, I think the NCAAs are a crapshoot. Who we play, where we play, etc will determine what our outcome is. A team preparing for us for a whole week that has an inside game will be something I don't think anyone will relish. But based on the pairings, who knows, we might get a great draw in terms of style.
You were one of the few who saw the ceiling for this team instead of the floor. Well done.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 03, 2010, 02:12:20 PM
He's done a great job this year. Fabulous. COY candidate for sure.
I will be interested to see how some posters rate him based on our NCAA seeding because that seemed to be a burr in the saddle for other posters when we didn't advance far enough. Will the same standard be held?
Personally, I think the NCAAs are a crapshoot. Who we play, where we play, etc will determine what our outcome is. A team preparing for us for a whole week that has an inside game will be something I don't think anyone will relish. But based on the pairings, who knows, we might get a great draw in terms of style.
The NCAA's are gravy at this point. An 8-9 game against Gonzaga with Kansas awaiting the winner. Yup, my expectations would drop. This team can get outsized, outtalented, out physicaled. But when they are playing their game, it is just such a pleasure to watch this team. Extra pass after extra pass. Constant disruption of the the passing lanes on defense. It has been a display of how team basketball is supposed to look . A pleasure.
Very fair to say 2006 team and this year's team are quite similar in terms exceeding expectation, though I do think 2006 had Barro who was at least a decent Big. Furthermore, that would have been Tom Crean's 7th MU team, so he'd established the program and team and all of the players were his recruits. I give the edge to this year's team, due to this being Buzz's 2nd year at the helm and having NO Bigs.
Quote from: Ners on March 03, 2010, 02:33:47 PM
Very fair to say 2006 team and this year's team are quite similar in terms exceeding expectation, though I do think 2006 had Barro who was at least a decent Big. Furthermore, that would have been Tom Crean's 7th MU team, so he'd established the program and team and all of the players were his recruits. I give the edge to this year's team, due to this being Buzz's 2nd year at the helm and having NO Bigs.
The one difference being that the 2006 team had no first team All Big East players on it and this team did. Both teams overachieved and both coaches did a great job in my opinion.
Novak was first team all BE in 2006.
I would say both 2006 and this year have been virtually equal.
Nothing expected from either team and both played great ball and were lots of fun to watch.
I'm not sure what is more impressive. Getting 3 freshmen to perform at the level the amigoes did in 2006 or getting JC players to play at a very high level right off the bat and deal with defections and injuries like Buzz has had this year.
Both coaches did a great job.
Quote from: MuMark on March 03, 2010, 06:06:32 PM
Novak was first team all BE in 2006.
I would say both 2006 and this year have been virtually equal.
Nothing expected from either team and both played great ball and were lots of fun to watch.
I'm not sure what is more impressive. Getting 3 freshmen to perform at the level the amigoes did in 2006 or getting JC players to play at a very high level right off the bat and deal with defections and injuries like Buzz has had this year.
Both coaches did a great job.
I meant preseason all Big East First Team (from an expectations point of view). Back then, they also honored 11 guys for First Team All Big East. Now they only honor 5 or 6. Basically, it was "easier" to make the All Big East team back then by a factor of double.
That freshman class along with Novak did something that truly extraordinary in a monster conference coming off a NIT year and with three freshmen playing such pivotal roles. Plus Novak's breakout Senior season. I don't know if people even thought that was a NIT team to start the season.
This year, expectations also low, but most people thought this year would be a NIT season because there were more "known" quantities. We weren't relying on unknown (though highly rated) freshmen like we did then.
Though I do believe the Big East is a slightly tougher this year than that year, which goes into the favor of this year's team.
Tough call. Great accomplishments by both teams