After reading all the recaps of the Pro-Am, I can't wait to watch it next Friday and Saturday. There's quite a few possibilities for a potential starting lineup, and as a current MU student I was curious when was the last time a team this deep put on the MU Blue and Gold? This is a far cry from teams with dead weight like Trevor Mbakwe's and Scottie C. just a few years ago. Its unbelievable how much talent Buzz is bringing in this year. I am interested to hear your thoughts.
I didn't think of mbakwe as dead weight - just never panned out. But I get ur point and it'll be interesting to hear responses.
Mbakwe and Christopherson would have both been impact players if they had stayed at MU imo. Maybe on paper it hasn't been this deep since the final four run, but I think we like to overvalue our players a lot of the time. Not saying the incomers won't/can't be impact players, but we had the same expectations of guys like Williams and Maymon going into last season and it didn't turn out as expected.
Coach Tom Crean was actually quite effective at jettisoning dead weight from the squad. Unfortunately, he almost always replaced the Creaned with comparable talent.
But to answer the original question, yes, Buzz Williams has added incredible depth to the team. In many ways we are even deeper than when Al ran the shop. How far we have come from that April Fool's Day Surprise.
On paper, very deep. Now we have to see who plays and how deep the rotation goes. But yes, on paper and at practices, this team will be deep.
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on July 11, 2010, 10:34:24 PM
Mbakwe and Christopherson would have both been impact players if they had stayed at MU imo. Maybe on paper it hasn't been this deep since the final four run, but I think we like to overvalue our players a lot of the time. Not saying the incomers won't/can't be impact players, but we had the same expectations of guys like Williams and Maymon going into last season and it didn't turn out as expected.
Too early to say ewill didn't turn out as expected. Sounds like he was tearing it up this weekend, we'll be hearing more from him
In my 25 years of being a hard core Marquette fan, this team has more talent on it than any I can remember from a 1-12 roster perspective. The question will be: Will spots 1-7 prove to be more talented than the 2003 Final Four team, and the 1994 Sweet 16 team? D-Wade was such a transcendant talent, its hard to know just how good everyone around him was..but we have to give the 2003 team its due. Should be ALOT of fun these next 2-4 years to see where this thing goes. My guess - At least 1 Final Four in the next 4 years.
Quote from: Ners on July 11, 2010, 11:32:14 PM
In my 25 years of being a hard core Marquette fan, this team has more talent on it than any I can remember from a 1-12 roster perspective. The question will be: Will spots 1-7 prove to be more talented than the 2003 Final Four team, and the 1994 Sweet 16 team? D-Wade was such a transcendant talent, its hard to know just how good everyone around him was..but we have to give the 2003 team its due. Should be ALOT of fun these next 2-4 years to see where this thing goes. My guess - At least 1 Final Four in the next 4 years.
I hope you are right, but getting to a Final Four is awfully tough. Need to get a top 3 seed, first. That's almost always a must. That means finishing in the top 2 in the Big East.
I'm not certain we have a Final Four caliber point guard to make it happen, but we will see. Perhaps in that four years you mention, we will be able to accumulate that extra talent.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 11, 2010, 11:37:11 PM
...
That means finishing in the top 2 in the Big East.
...
I agree that a Final Four run is a tall order, but how do you figure that a top 2 place in the Big East is necessary to get a 3 seed or higher. I think winning the big east or placing second is feasible, but this in no way is required to get a 3 seed. It was only 2 years ago that the Big East had three #1 seeds.
The more accurate question is.....how much of this talent is going to play defense well enough that Buzz feels comfortable using it? How many are going to understand their role in his offense? That will determine how many Buzz plays and for how many minutes. But manomanoman, I can see this team wearing some other teams down.
Quote from: mikem91288 on July 11, 2010, 10:49:08 PM
Too early to say ewill didn't turn out as expected. Sounds like he was tearing it up this weekend, we'll be hearing more from him
EWill was not tearing it up this weekend. He was lazy getting up and down the floor. He continued to have a loose handle on the ball which resulted in him dropping the ball any time anyone bumped or slapped at him down low. He had a great block and a nice put-back jam, but I would say he was far from tearing it up.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 11, 2010, 10:45:43 PM
On paper, very deep. Now we have to see who plays and how deep the rotation goes. But yes, on paper and at practices, this team will be deep.
Quote from: tower912 on July 12, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
The more accurate question is.....how much of this talent is going to play defense well enough that Buzz feels comfortable using it? How many are going to understand their role in his offense? That will determine how many Buzz plays and for how many minutes. But manomanoman, I can see this team wearing some other teams down.
Both strong points. It makes the most sense at the moment to believe the glass is half full. To play devil's advocate, think if Garner is at Burke's freshman level: not ready to contribute yet. Perhaps EWill just isn't there yet either. Consider the possibility that there isn't close to 40 minutes of strong point guard play among all the guards. Then pick two random players to get hurt like seems to happen every year. Not so deep anymore. I think we're in a better position than in year's past, but we didn't look so bad last year either...with the same pre-season perfect scenario with a healthy Cadougan, Maymon on the roster, and expecting EWill to get much more time than he was able to get it looked somewhat deep instead of having no depth.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 11, 2010, 11:37:11 PM
I hope you are right, but getting to a Final Four is awfully tough. Need to get a top 3 seed, first. That's almost always a must. That means finishing in the top 2 in the Big East.
I'm not certain we have a Final Four caliber point guard to make it happen, but we will see. Perhaps in that four years you mention, we will be able to accumulate that extra talent.
Bwaa bwaaaaa!
Let's keep the optimism to a minimum everyone. Chicos is already starting to get carpal tunnel from having to make so many "glass half-empty" posts.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 12, 2010, 07:12:05 AM
EWill was not tearing it up this weekend. He was lazy getting up and down the floor. He continued to have a loose handle on the ball which resulted in him dropping the ball any time anyone bumped or slapped at him down low. He had a great block and a nice put-back jam, but I would say he was far from tearing it up.
Reading posts from amateur scouts is always entertaining because they're so contradictory. Some say Williams tore it up, others say he was lazy. Some think Junior looks explosive, others think he's a step too slow. Some think Jones will be an NBA star, others think he won't contribute at all. Fortunately, Buzz is making the calls instead of using a fan voting system.
It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns. But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.
Quote from: tower912 on July 12, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
The more accurate question is.....how much of this talent is going to play defense well enough that Buzz feels comfortable using it? How many are going to understand their role in his offense? That will determine how many Buzz plays and for how many minutes. But manomanoman, I can see this team wearing some other teams down.
Don't forget about "how much of this talent is going to protect the ball the way Buzz expects?"
My assumption is that the team that plays on the floor
this year will be a much smaller rotation than we think, just like it was the last two years. It would be delightful to be wrong.
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on July 11, 2010, 10:34:24 PM
but I think we like to overvalue our players a lot of the time.
Very true. Some of these guys just aren't going to pan out as anticipated. That's why the depth is nice.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 12, 2010, 08:14:04 AM
Reading posts from amateur scouts is always entertaining because they're so contradictory. Some say Williams tore it up, others say he was lazy. Some think Junior looks explosive, others think he's a step too slow. Some think Jones will be an NBA star, others think he won't contribute at all. Fortunately, Buzz is making the calls instead of using a fan voting system.
This.
Plus the fact that there were two games going on at a time during the Pro-Am. Trying to cycle between the two gyms may have meant that I missed all of the good stuff and only saw the bad, or vice-versa.
That's exactly right.
We are hearing reports about offensive explosions during a summer league that clearly doesn't value defense. I have no doubt that some of these players are going to have some growing pains once practices begin and defense becomes that much more important. That is why I think you are basically going to have an 8 man rotation.
Butler
Crowder
Otule
DJO
Junior
Buycks
Blue
Fulce
Williams, Jones and Smith may get more time as the season wears on. Gardner may have trouble seeing the floor much this year.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 12, 2010, 08:32:08 AM
Don't forget about "how much of this talent is going to protect the ball the way Buzz expects?"
My assumption is that the team that plays on the floor this year will be a much smaller rotation than we think, just like it was the last two years. It would be delightful to be wrong.
We agree about the importance to Buzz of protecting the ball, I just implied it and you made it explicit.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 12, 2010, 08:41:54 AM
That's exactly right.
We are hearing reports about offensive explosions during a summer league that clearly doesn't value defense. I have no doubt that some of these players are going to have some growing pains once practices begin and defense becomes that much more important. That is why I think you are basically going to have an 8 man rotation.
Butler
Crowder
Otule
DJO
Junior
Buycks
Blue
Fulce
Williams, Jones and Smith may get more time as the season wears on. Gardner may have trouble seeing the floor much this year.
I honestly think even Blue might have a hard time seeing the floor early on, because his performance at FIBA was inefficient and filled with turnovers.
I am very glad that we have a deep team in terms of Buzz actually having a bench to use.
We don't have interior defensive depth to put this team up ahead of some of Al's teams in my opinion or maybe the 1994 or 2003 team. The shot blocking and rebounding will still be a question. The only difference is that we might actually have players with a PF or C body out there consistently. That is such odd territory for MU.
Lots to be excited about here. Lets hope everyone meets his expectations and hopefully exceeds.
I have been going to MU games since 1962. I witness the entire McGuire era. A lot of his teams had very good starters, but did not go very deep. However, his 1976 team was very deep. I would say this team on the offensive side of the ball is as deep as any team, with the possible exception of the 1976 team. Offense is what the average fan notices, but defense and rebounding are what makes a good team. How good this team will be defensively is a big question. How well the team will share the ball is also a big question. Last year's team was good because they passed the ball around for the open 3pt shot. This year we have a lot of guards who want to take it to the hoop, which could lead to a lot of one on one playing and a lot of losses. Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.
Quote from: bilsu on July 12, 2010, 09:06:40 AM
I have been going to MU games since 1962. I witness the entire McGuire era. A lot of his teams had very good starters, but did not go very deep. However, his 1976 team was very deep. I would say this team on the offensive side of the ball is as deep as any team, with the possible exception of the 1976 team. Offense is what the average fan notices, but defense and rebounding are what makes a good team. How good this team will be defensively is a big question. How well the team will share the ball is also a big question. Last year's team was good because they passed the ball around for the open 3pt shot. This year we have a lot of guards who want to take it to the hoop, which could lead to a lot of one on one playing and a lot of losses. Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.
Good points (tho I can't remember back to the 1976 team), agree with the rest of your post. Having said that, I do trust that Buzz will take the upgraded talent we've got, coach it up, and get the most out of it. Whether that means the freshman talent see much court time this season, remains to be seen..and probably based on their ability to defend, protect the ball, and score (in that order). The great news is that these freshman have higher ceilings than a lot of the players of the last 20-25 years..
We will be deep--hope Buzz can manage the minutes to keep people happy and productive.
I do not ubderstand the concerns on Cadougan. He does not need to score. Butler and DJO will supply that, with help from Crowder. Caddy only needs to provide 5 to 8 points a game. What will be important will be his dribble drive to the basket with kick out to DJO, and dish to underneath people (Otule, Gardner, Crowder, Butler, etc.)
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 12, 2010, 08:39:26 AM
This.
Plus the fact that there were two games going on at a time during the Pro-Am. Trying to cycle between the two gyms may have meant that I missed all of the good stuff and only saw the bad, or vice-versa.
I wasn't necessarily saying that you were wrong. I enjoy the updates but I also think it's interesting when two people watch the same players in the same games and come away with completely different takes.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 12, 2010, 10:25:51 AM
I wasn't necessarily saying that you were wrong. I enjoy the updates but I also think it's interesting when two people watch the same players in the same games and come away with completely different takes.
I understand and I took no offense :)
Quote from: bilsu on July 12, 2010, 09:06:40 AM
Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.
I propose that your odds of making it through a season and into the dance are based on:
40% Talent
30% Chemistry
10% Matchups
20% Luck
10% Persistence
Once you're in the dance, your odds change to:
30% Talent
30% Chemistry
30% Matchups
10% Luck
10% Persistence
And no, I did not fail math. Persistence only matters if you give 110%.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 12, 2010, 08:09:35 AM
Bwaa bwaaaaa!
Let's keep the optimism to a minimum everyone. Chicos is already starting to get carpal tunnel from having to make so many "glass half-empty" posts.
It's always funny reading someone's interpretation of glass half full vs realistic expectations.
Kentucky was supposed to win it all this year, didn't even make the Final Four. UNC was pegged for a Final Four run prior to the season starting, they didn't even make the NCAAs.
The Final Four is a very difficult challenge, you'll have to forgive me for putting that in realistic context.
Quote from: bilsu on July 12, 2010, 09:06:40 AM
Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.
Exactly. As Knute Rockne said, "As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven"
Same applies for basketball. You can have all the talent in the world, but how do they come together as a team. Look at England in the World Cup this year, arguably as talented as any team in the tournament in terms of individual talent.
It will be fun to watch Buzz put these guys together and see how they mesh. He seems adept at doing this.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 12, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Exactly. As Knute Rockne said, "As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven"
Same applies for basketball. You can have all the talent in the world, but how do they come together as a team. Look at England in the World Cup this year, arguably as talented as any team in the tournament in terms of individual talent.
It will be fun to watch Buzz put these guys together and see how they mesh. He seems adept at doing this.
+1
I would also add that we should be cautious about making any big conclusions drawn from watching glorified pick-up games.
Quote from: Benny B on July 12, 2010, 10:55:30 AM
I propose that your odds of making it through a season and into the dance are based on:
40% Talent
30% Chemistry
10% Matchups
20% Luck
10% Persistence
Once you're in the dance, your odds change to:
30% Talent
30% Chemistry
30% Matchups
10% Luck
10% Persistence
And no, I did not fail math. Persistence only matters if you give 110%.
Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:
10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 12, 2010, 12:00:31 PM
Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:
10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain
I always wondered what the "pleasure" was referring to.
Quote from: groove on July 12, 2010, 11:54:18 AM
+1
I would also add that we should be cautious about making any big conclusions drawn from watching glorified pick-up games.
Yup. Every year in these pick up games we hear basically this:
Player X has put on a ton of muscle
Player Y's footwork is so good now
Player Z is finally consistently hitting from the 3
Etc, etc.
Let's see what happens in the real games. Some guys will certainly make strides, that's what the offseason is all about. Others will still need more time to develop. The question is whether anything short of real game action is ever a true barometer? Tough to say.
The only guarantee is each year the reports coming from the offseason are that we will win the NBA title by sweeping the Lakers. ;D
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 12, 2010, 12:00:31 PM
Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:
10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain
Is this from a Fort Minor song?
Edit: I knew it. Nice choice.
Quote from: ChicosBailBondscolor=teal]The only guarantee is each year the reports coming from the offseason are that we will win the NBA title by sweeping the Lakers. [/color] ;D
Gotta love fans' hopes in the offseason. Can't say I have never looked at the Big East schedule, imagined an absolute lights out perfect performance against every opponent, and had MU going 18-0 before bringing myself back to reality.
Quote from: lurch91 on July 12, 2010, 08:26:29 AM
It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns. But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.
The O'Neill teams had the strongest starting lineup 1 through 5 of any Marquette team since the McGuire era, but they weren't known for great depth. O'Neill's first recruiting class was a very good one, but he never came close to it the next three years. Aside from Miller at the point, Roney Eford and Aaron Hutchins, I can't think of another impact recruit. If you include the three freshman and Arizona transfer Ron Curry with those three, that's seven very good players in four years, not the kind of recruiting that builds depth.
Quote from: MilWarrior on July 12, 2010, 12:04:24 PM
I always wondered what the "pleasure" was referring to.
Before games, Hank Raymonds would always write at the bottom of a chalk board in the dressing room; "Play hard, have
fun."
Quote from: Ners on July 11, 2010, 11:32:14 PM
In my 25 years of being a hard core Marquette fan, this team has more talent on it than any I can remember from a 1-12 roster perspective. The question will be: Will spots 1-7 prove to be more talented than the 2003 Final Four team, and the 1994 Sweet 16 team? D-Wade was such a transcendant talent, its hard to know just how good everyone around him was..but we have to give the 2003 team its due. Should be ALOT of fun these next 2-4 years to see where this thing goes. My guess - At least 1 Final Four in the next 4 years.
I think a final four will depend on Gardner. I think that he has a special nack for scoring in the paint that can get a team through close games. Of course, to be in a close game to begin with, you need your inside man to be able to run the floor and guard the hoop, and grab some tough rebounds. If Gardner never becomes a significant factor, this team will still be good. But I don't see it making a final four unless Gardner becomes one of the Big East's best big men.
I think it is important to have 4 scoring options on the floor at any time. It would be nice if Cadougan could average 10 points a game and on a good night get 15. Having the scoring punch of the three Amigos and Lazar was nice. Butler, DJO and Lazar were the main fire power last year with Buycks, Fulce, Coobey, Acker chipping in as the 4th scoring option. So DJO and Bulter are two givens. Who will the other two that will average 12-13 points a night be?
Quote from: NCMUFan on July 12, 2010, 05:48:37 PM
I think it is important to have 4 scoring options on the floor at any time. It would be nice if Cadougan could average 10 points a game and on a good night get 15. Having the scoring punch of the three Amigos and Lazar was nice. Butler, DJO and Lazar were the main fire power last year with Buycks, Fulce, Coobey, Acker chipping in as the 4th scoring option. So DJO and Bulter are two givens. Who will the other two that will average 12-13 points a night be?
I'd guess Buycks and Fulce/Crowder - depending on which one of them wins the battle for the starting 4 spot..
Quote from: lurch91 on July 12, 2010, 08:26:29 AM
It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns. But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.
Agree - this reminds me of a KO team - very deep
Quote from: lurch91 on July 12, 2010, 08:26:29 AM
It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns. But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.
I think memories are being clouded by the nearly 20 years that have passed. Buzz actually gave more minutes to his bench (45 per game)
last year than O'Neill did in 1994 (39/game).
Only 7 players appeared in all 33 games in 1993-94.
Starters:
Key averaged 33 mpg
McIlvaine averaged 28
Eford 32 mpg
Logermann 31 mpg
Miller 37 mpg
Key Reserves
McCaskill averaged 11 mpg
Pieper averaged 16 mpg
Abraham (only 28 games), 5 minutes/game
Crawford only appeared in 18 games, and averaged 6 minutes
Joseph 8 games/2 mpg
Streater 9 games, 2 per game
Littles 11 games, 2 mpg
Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 12, 2010, 08:57:53 AM
I honestly think even Blue might have a hard time seeing the floor early on, because his performance at FIBA was inefficient and filled with turnovers.
I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.
Quote from: windyplayer on July 13, 2010, 10:23:24 AM
I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.
Right. Why would anyone draw any conclusions on how Blue plays based on how he's played in the past? Inconceivable. ::)
Quote from: windyplayer on July 13, 2010, 10:23:24 AM
I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.
no kidding
There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one. I also had this assumption.
However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me. Maybe it's nothing. But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 13, 2010, 01:24:08 AM
I think memories are being clouded by the nearly 20 years that have passed. Buzz actually gave more minutes to his bench (45 per game) last year than O'Neill did in 1994 (39/game).
Only 7 players appeared in all 33 games in 1993-94.
Starters:
Key averaged 33 mpg
McIlvaine averaged 28
Eford 32 mpg
Logermann 31 mpg
Miller 37 mpg
Key Reserves
McCaskill averaged 11 mpg
Pieper averaged 16 mpg
Abraham (only 28 games), 5 minutes/game
Crawford only appeared in 18 games, and averaged 6 minutes
Joseph 8 games/2 mpg
Streater 9 games, 2 per game
Littles 11 games, 2 mpg
Exact-a-mundo. His first year O'Neill only had seven players on the team he could trust to put on the floor from Dukiet's roster. Then five years later, KO's still down to playing only seven guys, although Crawford developed nicely later, and Abraham was a defensive force.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 13, 2010, 11:31:03 AM
no kidding
There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one. I also had this assumption.
However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me. Maybe it's nothing. But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.
Playing time will be determined how Blue does vs players he is competing against in practice. Remember he started essentially at small forward over Quincy Miller in the FIBA games. He must have been doing something right. At this point in his development Blue has a long way to go offensively. That is why I do not see him and Cadougan on the floor at the same time. That would be two limited scorers in the game at the same time. The other observation from the FIBA tournament was that Kyrie Irving was a shoot first point guard, which would have limited Blue's offensive opportunities. It really took me 3 games to realize how good Irving was. It sounds like Reggie Smith is also a shoot first point guard. It will be interesting to see if Smith and Irving play against each other in CBE classic. That would be blazzing speed against blazzing speed.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 13, 2010, 11:31:03 AM
no kidding
There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one. I also had this assumption.
However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me. Maybe it's nothing. But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.
I honestly started to get a little worried when I saw him play in the WIAAs this year. I wrote it off to "pressing his game" since he was the only scoring option on the floor oftentimes....and maybe that's part of it. But he is way too turnover prone right now to log huge minutes.
Quote from: LittleMurs on July 13, 2010, 11:41:29 AM
Exact-a-mundo. His first year O'Neill only had seven players on the team he could trust to put on the floor from Dukiet's roster. Then five years later, KO's still down to playing only seven guys, although Crawford developed nicely later, and Abraham was a defensive force.
Random fact about Faisal - he could bench press 135lbs 46 times in a row. He was a specimen.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 13, 2010, 12:29:40 PM
I honestly started to get a little worried when I saw him play in the WIAAs this year. I wrote it off to "pressing his game" since he was the only scoring option on the floor oftentimes....and maybe that's part of it. But he is way too turnover prone right now to log huge minutes.
I haven't seen Blue play live, but from watching him play at the FIBA games - its evident he has great upside, yet you can also see room for growth...which isn't surprising considering he is still 17 years old. My feeling was that I hopepeople temper their expctations of Vander as a freshman..and don't get too carried away with all of the hype surrounding his recruitment..and expect huge things from him..I'd be happy with 8-10ppg
I may be wrong as I haven't looked into historical production of high, medium and low contributors, but isn't averaging 8-10 points a pretty high expectation? I want to say that 8-10 would be a full year starter playing a majority of the minutes per game.
Quote from: DLange_MU on July 13, 2010, 09:18:37 PM
I may be wrong as I haven't looked into historical production of high, medium and low contributors, but isn't averaging 8-10 points a pretty high expectation? I want to say that 8-10 would be a full year starter playing a majority of the minutes per game.
You make a good point - 8-10ppg is a relatively high expectation, I guess - yet not too high for a player ranked liked Vander - who is pretty much a consensus 5-star player. For context, I believe Lazar averaged about 7ppg as a freshman - and Zar wasn't rated nearly as high as Vander..but..Zar did get decent minutes as a freshman..and didn't have nearly the depth to compete with, that Vander will.
What do others think as far as production you would expect from Vander this year?
Quote from: Ners on July 13, 2010, 09:59:46 PMWhat do others think as far as production you would expect from Vander this year?
I think at this point it's incredibly difficult to say, largely because of playing time. I think that we can safely assume DJO will start at one of the guard positions. If Buzz runs two guards, my guess is Cadougan will get a good chunk of time because he's a natural point. Do we run a standard 2-guard set? If so, competing with Buycks for playing time, Blue could end up averaging only around 5-10 mpg. If he scored 8-10 ppg with that kind of PT, suffice to say we'd all be screaming bloody murder for him to start.
I basically have two different expectation levels for Blue. My first is that he manages to solidify himself as a solid bench option, and possible spot starter. He averages 20-25 mpg and gets around 9 ppg, leaving us all salivating over his future potential. But that's my high expectation. My second is that he gets some time, but his freshman status and inability to hold on to the ball early on limits him to 5-10 ppg, and he ends up averaging around 4-6 ppg. While we'd probably be disappointed, it's a more realistic expecation, and if this team is as deep as it looks on paper, really wouldn't be a bad production line from a kid who could be behind a trio of more experienced guards.
Quote from: Ners on July 13, 2010, 09:59:46 PM
You make a good point - 8-10ppg is a relatively high expectation, I guess - yet not too high for a player ranked liked Vander - who is pretty much a consensus 5-star player. For context, I believe Lazar averaged about 7ppg as a freshman - and Zar wasn't rated nearly as high as Vander..but..Zar did get decent minutes as a freshman..and didn't have nearly the depth to compete with, that Vander will.
What do others think as far as production you would expect from Vander this year?
I looked at the top scorers in the Big East last year. The list cutoff at 10.8 points. I only recognized two players on the list as being freshmen, Lance Stephenson averaged 12.3 points and Brooks (Providence) averaged 14.2. I am not 100% sure he was a freshmen. There may be some one else on the list that was a freshmen I did not recognize. The point here there are not many freshmen that score a lot in the Big East. * points would be a lot to get out of Blue, especially since his strenght is defense and not offense. MU offense will also not run through him.
Furthermore, only three MU players averaged 10+ ppg last year.
Lazar 18.0, JB at 14.7, and DJO at 13.0. Of those three, DJO had the least amount of minutes per game at 29.7.
I seriously doubt that Vander is going to get around 30 mpg and average 10 ppg. My guess is around 12-15 mpg and about 6 ppg. Now if he starts off well, that may go up. However if he struggles he may end up being the fifth guard on this team and have trouble getting double didgit minutes during BE season.
Quote from: bilsu on July 14, 2010, 08:43:05 AM
I looked at the top scorers in the Big East last year. The list cutoff at 10.8 points. I only recognized two players on the list as being freshmen, Lance Stephenson averaged 12.3 points and Brooks (Providence) averaged 14.2. I am not 100% sure he was a freshmen. There may be some one else on the list that was a freshmen I did not recognize. The point here there are not many freshmen that score a lot in the Big East. * points would be a lot to get out of Blue, especially since his strenght is defense and not offense. MU offense will also not run through him.
Good research/find/analysis - thanks. Think this is helpful for tempering people's expectations of Blue - I felt mine were fairly modest at 8-10ppg considering all of the hype..but now we know statistically how tough it is to contribute alot as a freshman in the Big East...
Even if Vander doesn't score a lot he'll get plenty of PT if he can play solid D and rebound over smaller guards. Put him on the floor with DJO and as a team we will be able to score just fine.
Quote from: Ners on July 13, 2010, 09:59:46 PM
You make a good point - 8-10ppg is a relatively high expectation, I guess - yet not too high for a player ranked liked Vander - who is pretty much a consensus 5-star player.
You might want to look at what other players with his sort of rating have done throughout the the years before going with that thought. Vander's consensus ranking is #48, compare that to other players with the same rank over the last decade.
2009: Kahwi Leonard - San Diego State...12.7 PPG in 31 MPG
2008: Kenny Frease - Xavier....5.4 PPG in 14 MPG
2007: Scoop Jardine - Syracuse...5.5 PPG in 19 MPG
2006: Tom Herzog - Michigan State...redshirted as a freshman
2005: Vernon Goodridge - Miss State...1.8 PPG in 7 MPG, only played in 23 games
2004: Al Horford - Florida....5.6 PPG in 22 MPG
2003: Shagari Alleyne - Kentucky... 0.8PPG in 3 MPG, only played in 18 games
2002: Deron Williams - Illinois...6.3 PPG in 27 MPG
2001: Charles Frederick - Washington...0.8PPG in 5MPG, only played in 6 games due to also playing football
2000: Eddie Starks - Iona...5.5 PG in 16 MPG
Only one player out of 10 scored in double figures, and he was playing at San Diego State, a decidedly lower level of competition. In general, the production for players of that level at the high major level seems to be 5-6 PPG....and that's not taking into account the depth that is available and may hinder playing time at MU.
Quote from: bma725 on July 14, 2010, 09:22:32 AM
You might want to look at what other players with his sort of rating have done throughout the the years before going with that thought. Vander's consensus ranking is #48, compare that to other players with the same rank over the last decade.
2002: Deron Williams - Illinois...6.3 PPG in 27 MPG.
I wonder if anyone back then seriously thought that Williams was going to be an All-Star NBA guard. He may have actually been labelled a disappointment after his freshman year.
Al Horford as well
Quote from: bma725 on July 14, 2010, 09:22:32 AM
You might want to look at what other players with his sort of rating have done throughout the the years before going with that thought. Vander's consensus ranking is #48, compare that to other players with the same rank over the last decade.
2009: Kahwi Leonard - San Diego State...12.7 PPG in 31 MPG
2008: Kenny Frease - Xavier....5.4 PPG in 14 MPG
2007: Scoop Jardine - Syracuse...5.5 PPG in 19 MPG
2006: Tom Herzog - Michigan State...redshirted as a freshman
2005: Vernon Goodridge - Miss State...1.8 PPG in 7 MPG, only played in 23 games
2004: Al Horford - Florida....5.6 PPG in 22 MPG
2003: Shagari Alleyne - Kentucky... 0.8PPG in 3 MPG, only played in 18 games
2002: Deron Williams - Illinois...6.3 PPG in 27 MPG
2001: Charles Frederick - Washington...0.8PPG in 5MPG, only played in 6 games due to also playing football
2000: Eddie Starks - Iona...5.5 PG in 16 MPG
Only one player out of 10 scored in double figures, and he was playing at San Diego State, a decidedly lower level of competition. In general, the production for players of that level at the high major level seems to be 5-6 PPG....and that's not taking into account the depth that is available and may hinder playing time at MU.
Good stuff indeed..though as we debated in a different thread..it is very peculiar that 2 services used to assemble his consensus rank have him ranked 90th and unranked...whereas the other 4 sources have him anywhere from 22-34...either way..glad this information and comparison analysis is coming out so fans expectations aren't too high considering all of the hype around Vander.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 14, 2010, 08:49:07 AM
Furthermore, only three MU players averaged 10+ ppg last year.
Lazar 18.0, JB at 14.7, and DJO at 13.0. Of those three, DJO had the least amount of minutes per game at 29.7.
I seriously doubt that Vander is going to get around 30 mpg and average 10 ppg. My guess is around 12-15 mpg and about 6 ppg. Now if he starts off well, that may go up. However if he struggles he may end up being the fifth guard on this team and have trouble getting double didgit minutes during BE season.
If Jones and Blue combine for 30mpg and 10ppg, I'd be thrilled.
My guess is...
Butler/DJO: 32ppg
Buycks: 10-12ppg
Crowder/Fulce: 8-10ppg
Otule/EWill: 6-8ppg
Blue/Jones: 6-8ppg
Cadougan/Smith: 6-8ppg
Others: 0-2ppg
That comes out to 68-78ppg.
I hope I'm wrong, but I definitely agree with the posters who think that people need to temper their expectations for Blue. He's eventually going to be an excellent player for MU, but a majority of freshmen need some time to adjust before they're ready to become starters/key contributors.
Reggie Smith is going to get a lot of pt this year, imo. He may have the best freshman year.
Crowder as Juco POY should show good too.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2010, 09:42:15 AM
If Jones and Blue combine for 30mpg and 10ppg, I'd be thrilled.
My guess is...
Butler/DJO: 32ppg
Buycks: 10-12ppg
Crowder/Fulce: 8-10ppg
Otule/EWill: 6-8ppg
Blue/Jones: 6-8ppg
Cadougan/Smith: 6-8ppg
Others: 0-2ppg
That comes out to 68-78ppg.
I hope I'm wrong, but I definitely agree with the posters who think that people need to temper their expectations for Blue. He's eventually going to be an excellent player for MU, but a majority of freshmen need some time to adjust before they're ready to become starters/key contributors.
While I agree with you that some need to temper expectations with Blue and Jones, I'll be very pretty dissappointed if they combine for 7pts a game. These are two of our best recruits in years.
Quote from: LAZER on July 14, 2010, 09:52:39 AM
While I agree with you that some need to temper expectations with Blue and Jones, I'll be very pretty dissappointed if they combine for 7pts a game. These are two of our best recruits in years.
Bit of an overstatement there. Blue is #48 in the consensus rankings, Jones is #74. Last year, Cadougan was #47, Erik Williams was #67 and Jeronne Maymon was #73. If Junior doesn't get injured that trio probably averages around 9-10 PPG, which wouldn't exactly be out of line with what was suggested for Blue/Jones.
Quote from: bma725 on July 14, 2010, 10:05:56 AM
Bit of an overstatement there. Blue is #48 in the consensus rankings, Jones is #74. Last year, Cadougan was #47, Erik Williams was #67 and Jeronne Maymon was #73. If Junior doesn't get injured that trio probably averages around 9-10 PPG, which wouldn't exactly be out of line with what was suggested for Blue/Jones.
I was just going by Scout, ESPN, and Rivals, I don't know what the "consensus rankings" are. Either way, i'm also making this assesment from the freshman year performances and similarily touted recruits of Diener, Novak, Mason, Amoroso, Matthews, McNeal, James, Hayward, and Maymon.
I would be surprised with Blue or Jones saw significant PT next year (>5min). I don't expect them playing point or center next year. So there are three spots on the floor left. They are competing with JB, DJO, Buycks, Fulce, EWill (who I expect to be the biggest surprise next year), and Jae. To make PT more scarce for Jones and Blue, I think DJO and JB will average around 35 minute per game. So that leaves about 50 minutes. This is a good problem though.
Quote from: LAZER on July 14, 2010, 10:17:07 AM
I was just going by Scout, ESPN, and Rivals, I don't know what the "consensus rankings" are. Either way, i'm also making this assesment from the freshman year performances and similarily touted recruits of Diener, Novak, Mason, Amoroso, Matthews, McNeal, James, Hayward, and Maymon.
Consensus = RSCI, a system that looks at all rankings by the major services and comes up with a composite Top 100. Draft Express also does one that goes all the way to 150 or so. Generally far more reliable than any one services ranking.
Any way, the problem with a comparison between this class and the players in other years is that these guys likely won't have the opportunity for playing time that the previous ones did. The Amigos were starters right away. Novak only had one guy in front of him as a freshman. Diener played when there were only 3 other guards on the entire roster, only one of whom played his natural position.
Conversely, Jones has to compete with Jimmy, Jae, Erik, and Joe to get playing time at the 3. If he slides over to the 2, then he's got to compete with DJO, Dwight and Vander as well. Similarly, Vander has to compete with Junior and Reggie at the 1, DJO and Dwight at the 2. If for some reason we go with a 3 guard offense there will be more time available, but given the glut of forwards on the team that doesn't make much sense.
Problem is the comparison doesn't exactly work because those teams didn't have the depth at the positions that this team will.
Diener didn't start, but he played a ton because there were only 4 guards on the roster.
Novak didn't start, but
Quote from: LAZER on July 14, 2010, 10:17:07 AM
I was just going by Scout, ESPN, and Rivals, I don't know what the "consensus rankings" are. Either way, i'm also making this assesment from the freshman year performances and similarily touted recruits of Diener, Novak, Mason, Amoroso, Matthews, McNeal, James, Hayward, and Maymon.
You have to consider who else is on the roster. Replace DJO and Buycks with Joe Chapman and Jared Sichting and there would obviously be a lot more opportunities for Blue and Jones.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2010, 10:39:37 AM
You have to consider who else is on the roster. Replace DJO and Buycks with Joe Chapman and Jared Sichting and there would obviously be a lot more opportunities for Blue and Jones.
Definitely true, but bottomline from all i've heard, read, and seen of these guys is if Blue is averaging 4pts and Jones 3pts i'll be dissappointed for sure.
Now if it's because they can't find the floor on a team that's competing for a Big East championship i'll get over it pretty quickly.
Quote from: LAZER on July 14, 2010, 10:58:25 AM
Definitely true, but bottomline from all i've heard, read, and seen of these guys is if Blue is averaging 4pts and Jones 3pts i'll be dissappointed for sure.
Now if it's because they can't find the floor on a team that's competing for a Big East championship i'll get over it pretty quickly.
You gotta put things into perspective. There are only 200 minutes of floortime typically in a game. I'll be more disappointed if EWill, Jae, and Buycks do not average 15 minutes a game.
Here is the break down
JC/Smith - 40mpg
DJO - 35mpg
JB - 35 mpg
These are minutes that I pretty confident about. so that leaves us with 90 minutes left. Would you be more or less disappointed with Otule rode the bench? I want all the talk about his improvements to be real. I want to see that guy on the floor for about 25 minutes a game. All things being equal, would you want a 4 star freshmen getting minutes or a 4 star sophmore getting minutes. You obviously want the sophmore. What about a senior like Fulce?
Yes, I want the best players playing. But I would be really disappointed if Otule, EWill, Jae, Buycks, and Fulce can not take the next step as players. I would be disappointed not only because my team would be worse off but because it would weaken my confidence in Buzz developing players.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on July 14, 2010, 12:45:08 PM
You gotta put things into perspective. There are only 200 minutes of floortime typically in a game.
Judging by the last part of 09-10, I could have sworn there was 225 minutes.
Quote from: Benny B on July 15, 2010, 09:05:16 AM
Judging by the last part of 09-10, I could have sworn there was 225 minutes.
POST OF THE WEEK!!!!!
Quote from: ErickJD08 on July 14, 2010, 12:45:08 PM
You gotta put things into perspective. There are only 200 minutes of floortime typically in a game. I'll be more disappointed if EWill, Jae, and Buycks do not average 15 minutes a game.
Here is the break down
JC/Smith - 40mpg
DJO - 35mpg
JB - 35 mpg
These are minutes that I pretty confident about. so that leaves us with 90 minutes left. Would you be more or less disappointed with Otule rode the bench? I want all the talk about his improvements to be real. I want to see that guy on the floor for about 25 minutes a game. All things being equal, would you want a 4 star freshmen getting minutes or a 4 star sophmore getting minutes. You obviously want the sophmore. What about a senior like Fulce?
Yes, I want the best players playing. But I would be really disappointed if Otule, EWill, Jae, Buycks, and Fulce can not take the next step as players. I would be disappointed not only because my team would be worse off but because it would weaken my confidence in Buzz developing players.
Your point guard minutes break down ain't gonna happen. Don't be fooled by height, Blue or Buycks will be going in at the point before Smith. Until recently, Smith was excelling in high school at the SG spot despite his height because of his amazing athleticism. He's still learning to play the point. IMO he's going to need every bit as much of seasoning as Gardner will his freshman year. I think that next year his only opportunity to play meaningful minutes will be as a defensive stopper in certain matchups.
I expect that Cadugan will win a close battle with Blue for the starting PG position in the preseason with Blue coming on stronger and getting more minutes as the year goes on.
I expect that we've seen the best from Fulce. I see him losing minutes to Otule, EWill, and Jones, as Crowder and Otule replace Lazar's minutes.