MUScoop

 ;D

He's on my flight.  Of course, he's a former guard so he might be bias.  Key to UNC this year will be their guard play.  I should record it on the iPhone for you. 

But what does Jerry Palm say?

Olajuwan...the guy who won Smith two championship rings...disagrees.

What does the Stu "The Legend" Morrill say?

The college game is a guard's game no doubt.  How many three guard lineups are out there versus how many one guard lineups are out there?

And if it is a big guys game why haven't we seen a team with a three big (PF-PF-C) lineup like we see a three guard lineup?

Reason: guard's game.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on October 29, 2010, 12:41:32 PM
Olajuwan...the guy who won Smith two championship rings...disagrees.

Some would argue that Jordan "going to play baseball" had something to do with those two rings.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on October 29, 2010, 12:41:32 PM
Olajuwan...the guy who won Smith two championship rings...disagrees.

We're talking college, not NBA.  He's a good guy.  He's not so sure about UNC this year.  But to no surprise, college is definitely a guard's game....this coming from a former college guard and professional basketball analysis.


Jerry Palm....don't know what he says about this subject, but he was absolutely right that the Big East pretty much sucked balls last year....were there any real questions about that after the tournament?

Stew Morrill....pretty sure he's preparing for his first game right and hoping to go back to the NCAAs again.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on October 29, 2010, 12:59:46 PM
The college game is a guard's game no doubt.  How many three guard lineups are out there versus how many one guard lineups are out there?

And if it is a big guys game why haven't we seen a team with a three big (PF-PF-C) lineup like we see a three guard lineup?

Reason: guard's game.

The reason it's a guard's game (in college) has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with supply. There are an excess of "smalls" who can play and a dearth of "bigs". That 5'7" kid from Chicago St. (Colston?) we played two years ago was a WAY better basketball player than a Barro, Burke, Hazel or Otule. Everybody has good guards, (admittedly some have better than others), but only a select few have good bigs. Until (if ever) we can be one of those select few, Buzz will try to recruit bigger guards (Blue, Jones, Anderson, etc) to somewhat neutralize the situation.

Oh, and if a college coach were lucky enough to have a Maurice Lucas (PF), Charles Barkley (PF) and Kareem (C) on his team I think he'd figure out a way to get them on the court  together even if it meant abandoning his "3 guard" offense.

Lenny, I agree with much of that.  Supply dictates that the college game is played differently.  Not only supply, but talent at the position as well....takes awhile for some of those guys to develop.  As such, since it's nearly impossible to get a quality big if you aren't named UCLA, DUKE, UNC or a few others, then best to build your team to be awesome playing without that piece.

Simply put, the chances of MU landing a STUD big man are slim and it's been that way for 30 years

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 29, 2010, 02:03:27 PM
Lenny, I agree with much of that.  Supply dictates that the college game is played differently.  Not only supply, but talent at the position as well....takes awhile for some of those guys to develop.  As such, since it's nearly impossible to get a quality big if you aren't named UCLA, DUKE, UNC or a few others, then best to build your team to be awesome playing without that piece.

Simply put, the chances of MU landing a STUD big man are slim and it's been that way for 30 years

Sad to say but your last sentence is dead on.

I have a Kenny "The Jet" Bobblehead from when he was in the slam dunk competition in Sacramento

Tell Kenny 4ever says he don't know stink. Without Brad on this team, Smith would be another dime/dozen guard. Besides without Barkley now, nobody would watch the pregame.
BTW, why aren't men of your stature flying Executive Jet?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 29, 2010, 02:03:27 PM
Simply put, the chances of MU landing a STUD big man are slim and it's been that way for 30 years

so that got me thinking about the last 30 yrs of MU bigs .....

Rod Grosse
Roman Mueller
Joe Nethen
Jarrod Lovette
Richard Shaw
Yous Mbao
Greg Clausen
John Kyle Mueller

.........At least MU enjoyed good years from Tom Copa, Walter Downing, Damon Key, Jim McIlvaine, Amal McCaskill, Scott Merritt and Robert Jackson.  

Quote from: NYWarrior on October 29, 2010, 02:55:20 PM
so that got me thinking about the last 30 yrs of MU bigs .....

Rod Grosse
Roman Mueller
Joe Nethen
Jarrod Lovette
Richard Shaw
Yous Mbao
Greg Clausen
John Kyle Mueller

.........At least MU enjoyed good years from Tom Copa, Walter Downing, Damon Key, Jim McIlvaine, Amal McCaskill, Scott Merritt and Robert Jackson.  

The only top 50 "studs" in the group (coming out of high school) were Downing and Jackson - both of whom we got as transfers.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 29, 2010, 11:53:59 AM
4ever....Kenny Smith says Guards Game

Why does this thread feel like an overplayed top 40 song?

What about Lloyd Moore?

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/lloyd_moore

Where was Jimmy Mac rated coming out of St. Catherine's?

It would have been nice for Merritt to have made the NBA so MU (and Crean at IU) could point to a big man that came in and developed into an NBA player.  The kid had talent and I remember in 2004 after the FF run, everyone thought he had a shot at the draft before the season started.  It would have been a nice talking point.  O well. 

We did show that the 5 man in Buzz's offense can make the NBA since Lazar played almost exclusively the 5 and got a guaranteed contract after playing for Buzz

But since this is a guards game, I am happy that Buzz can point to multiple guards/wings out of MU who are getting paid well in the NBA.  It is certainly a guard's game, and Buzz already seems to have added a nice perimeter player in Anderson in this class.  We do need a defensive big man so we don't limit these guards chances.  We score enough points, so we do not really need a "Stud."  We just need someone to push Brooke Lopez off the block and reasonably get a hand in his face so he can't turn around and shoot an easy game winner. 

Using John Pudner's "Ultimate Hoops Guide", he compiled a Statistical Rating to equalize career contributions...according to this, the top MU centers (and some were PF's who had to play center) are:

• Chones (26.7)
• Kojis (26.3)
• Lucas (24.9)
• Rand (24.9)
• Whitehead (22.5)
• Mac (21.8)
• Morstadt (20.5)

Including F2's, NC's, S16's, etc., the winning percent of these centers was 75.5%.  Taking out Mac and Rand, the winning percent was 84.4%.  

Even more so, couple these centers with a strong PF...Larry McNeil (25.2 Stat and a 86.2% Win %) and a Bo Ellis (31.2 Stat and a 85.6% winning rate) and you have Batman and Robin...just like Merritt and Jackson to Wade's Superman.  

Guards are priority #1 as you can win without a Big as recent times have shown.  However, if we want to get over the hump, we need some Green Giants.  

As an aside, Morstadt's nickname was "Nanook".  Got to love the "Ox" then.  

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on October 29, 2010, 12:41:32 PM
Olajuwan...the guy who won Smith two championship rings...disagrees.

Not really. That was 15 years ago. Actually, Olajuwon does not disagree, nor would he ever claim "he" won anyone some rings.

Hakeems BF on the 95 champ team was the key then to the team-- Clyde Drexler, a guard.

I was at all but one of the Houston Rockets home games during the 94 and 95 playoffs. There were games won by key play at every position(K Smith, Robert Horry, Clyde Drexler, Sam Cassell, etc).

BTW, Olajuwon now coaches players (in private sessions) , and his last big name pupil ,last year, was Kobe Bryant-- a GUARD who wanted to learn the Dream Shake, and some post moves.

Who wins a 5 on 5. 5 Dwayne Wades vs 5 Jim Chones. I will go with the Wades. A bigman is dependent on guards.

I have been thinking about the need for a good point guard and Miami.  I think the key to the Celtics is Rondo.  Not sure the Heat will be champions with Arroyo/Chalmers at the point.

Macilvaine was top 100 but not sure exactly his ranking...  see this link.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/05/look-back-marquettes-history-with-top_15.html

Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 29, 2010, 01:52:37 PM
The reason it's a guard's game (in college) has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with supply. There are an excess of "smalls" who can play and a dearth of "bigs". That 5'7" kid from Chicago St. (Colston?) we played two years ago was a WAY better basketball player than a Barro, Burke, Hazel or Otule. Everybody has good guards, (admittedly some have better than others), but only a select few have good bigs. Until (if ever) we can be one of those select few, Buzz will try to recruit bigger guards (Blue, Jones, Anderson, etc) to somewhat neutralize the situation.

Oh, and if a college coach were lucky enough to have a Maurice Lucas (PF), Charles Barkley (PF) and Kareem (C) on his team I think he'd figure out a way to get them on the court  together even if it meant abandoning his "3 guard" offense.

The reason it's a big's game has everything to do with demand.  There's a shortage of bigs and an excess a smalls.  A 7'00" Zoubek can be the deciding factor in a national championship.  You don't have to be an Oden and you can have much more of an impact than a Kemba Walker; an Austin Feeman; an Ashton Gibbs.  Every team has at least 4 guards.  They're like any card through 2-10.  Today they're good enough.  Tomorrow they're not.  Bigs are high face cards and trump cards.


Bigs win the big games. 

Quote from: karavotsos on October 29, 2010, 09:42:18 PM
The reason it's a big's game has everything to do with demand.  There's a shortage of bigs and an excess a smalls.  A 7'00" Zoubek can be the deciding factor in a national championship.  You don't have to be an Oden and you can have much more of an impact than a Kemba Walker; an Austin Feeman; an Ashton Gibbs.  Every team has at least 4 guards.  They're like any card through 2-10.  Today they're good enough.  Tomorrow they're not.  Bigs are high face cards and trump cards.


Bigs win the big games. 

Chief, did you watch the National Championship game?  Zoubek didn't do crap, the refs SHOCKINGLY swallowed there whistles on numerous calls against him, and they barely beat mid major to win a national championship.

Quote from: reinko on October 29, 2010, 11:14:09 PM
Chief, did you watch the National Championship game?  Zoubek didn't do crap, the refs SHOCKINGLY swallowed there whistles on numerous calls against him, and they barely beat mid major to win a national championship.

I think putting the "mid major" qualifier in there is selling Butler short - they clearly showed they belonged in the final throughout the tournament by taking out Cuse, Kansas State and MSU.

Quote from: reinko on October 29, 2010, 11:14:09 PM
Chief, did you watch the National Championship game?  Zoubek didn't do crap, the refs SHOCKINGLY swallowed there whistles on numerous calls against him, and they barely beat mid major to win a national championship.

So, by didn't do crap, you mean he played defense, rebounded, and generally controlled the painted area.  None of which are significant, I understand.  And when you say the refs swallowed their whistles on calls against him, you mean Zoubek was the more physical player, and the refs let the players decide the game.  The refs let Butler man up down low.  I prefer not to have the refs decide the game by being over-officious.

Also, Zoubek had 4 fouls with around 10 minutes left, and Butler never went after him to try to get the 5th.  They should have put in Jakes, got him out on the perimeter and went after Zoubek to get the 5th.  Not left it up to the refs to call a ticky-tack foul or left it up to Zoubek to do something stupid.  Though I guess it wasn't totally out of line to expect Zoubek to do something stupid.

Quote from: NYWarrior on October 29, 2010, 02:55:20 PM
so that got me thinking about the last 30 yrs of MU bigs .....

Rod Grosse
Roman Mueller
Joe Nethen
Jarrod Lovette
Richard Shaw
Yous Mbao
Greg Clausen
John Kyle Mueller

.........At least MU enjoyed good years from Tom Copa, Walter Downing, Damon Key, Jim McIlvaine, Amal McCaskill, Scott Merritt and Robert Jackson.  

That list is, uhm, uhm......less than "stud like"

Certainly Big Mac makes the list and he was highly rated but more of a defensive force than anything else. 

Quote from: karavotsos on October 29, 2010, 09:42:18 PM



Bigs win the big games. 

Not without very good guards.  See North Carolina last year....not only could they not win the big games, they barely won ANY games.  UCLA last year...terrible, despite their size...no guards.  Look at all the premier bigs in college the last 25 years and many of them didn't win a championship or even come that close because they were devoid of guards.  David Robinson. Tim Duncan.  Shaq.  Etc, etc.  Those that had great guards, won.

You're citing David Robinson?!?!! He went to Navy, for chrissakes! And if memory serves, they (NAVY!) went to the ELITE 8!

Yes, he went to Navy.  Imagine how much further they could have gone with some guards that were worth anything.  I also listed plenty of other major bigs that couldn't get to the Final Four, let alone the championship.  Duncan only got past the Sweet 16 once in 4 years. Shaq never got to the Sweet 16 if I remember correctly.

As Kenny Smith said yesterday on the plane....our (UNC's) guard play last year was horrible.  We can't be good without great guard play.

It is a guards game.

I could've sworn we've been through this 100s of tiimes. I dont know why it is so hard for you guys to understand. Do you even watch college basketball?  

Do you not remember what happened when Marcus Jackson was running the point for Marquette?

Yeah man, I'm watching and seein' Pygmy guards crashing the boards in complete frustration, 195 lb. forwards trying to hold position and deflect a shot, and isn't it fun to watch opposing players stroll down the paint like it's the drive-thru lane at Mickey D's. Great teams have bigmen. Check out FF rosters over the past 30 years. Big man's game, without a doubt.

I'm sticking with my original position.  Debating a stupid cliche is pointless.  It's a basketball game.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 30, 2010, 03:25:35 PM
Yeah man, I'm watching and seein' Pygmy guards crashing the boards in complete frustration, 195 lb. forwards trying to hold position and deflect a shot, and isn't it fun to watch opposing players stroll down the paint like it's the drive-thru lane at Mickey D's. Great teams have bigmen. Check out FF rosters over the past 30 years. Big man's game, without a doubt.

And where would those teams be if they didnt have really good guards? Not in the Final Four...thats where.

Yes, great teams have complete rosters...duh.

You can win with good guards and no good big men (MU, for example), but you CANT win with weak guard play and good big men (UNC last year)

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Here, in simpler terms:

The basket is 10 feet high. By definition, it's a big man's game.

Speed kills as much as size does.....as will be demonstrated against UW.  Or, what was more difficult to watch; Marcus Jackson bringing the ball up and trying to get our team into its offense, or Lazar trying to play the post?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 30, 2010, 03:35:12 PM
Here, in simpler terms:

The basket is 10 feet high. By definition, it's a big man's game.

This year, UW has 4 guys 6'10" and above, and 2 more guys listed at 6'8". 

Based on your limited understanding of the game of college basketball, the NCAA should just give them the title now and not waste everyone's time playing the season  out.

I still don't buy that UNC had a great- or even good- frontcourt last year.  Just because a team has tall people on it does not mean they have a good frontcourt.  Every time I watched UNC, their frontcourt was weak and got pushed around.  It certainly was not the case that when the ball was in the painted area they dominated, and the sole reason they lost was because they could not get the ball inside.  I undestand that Larry Drew turned the ball over way too much and that every team needs a point guard who can effectively run the team's offense.  However, that does not equate to college basketball being a guard's game.

UConn was a team with at least the second best starting backcourt in the Big East- based on pure talent-level- and they fizzled because their frontcourt was not good.  Stanley Robinson was supposed to be their frontcourt scorer, but he was not good so they went to the NIT.  They went to the Final Four with Thabeet and Adrian the year before and could have won the championship if Dyson had not gotten injured.  They lose their frontcourt, and they go to the NIT.

I would say that the Florida team that won back-to-back championships was the best team of the decade.  How good were Taurean Green and Lee Humphrey?  They were fine.  I don't think anyone would consider them a great backcourt, and they were basically asked to play defense, not turn the ball over, and make open 3's.  The team's frontcourt was Brewer, Noah and Horford was far and away the best in the country, and that's why they won. 

I don't understand how any of this makes the college game a guard's game.  Anytime a basketball game turns into a halfcourt game, it seems to me that you have an advantage if you have good big men.  The better team you are playing, the better they are at getting back on defense and shutting down transition opportunities.  In these tougher games, you'll have an advantage with good bigs.   

Quote from: GOMU1104 on October 30, 2010, 01:25:13 PM
Do you not remember what happened when Marcus Jackson was running the point for Marquette?

Bad example. Unless I misunderstand, you're saying that if your center is playing point guard, your team is f'ed.  I don't think anyone here would disagree.

Quote from: karavotsos on October 30, 2010, 10:48:33 PM
I don't understand how any of this makes the college game a guard's game.  Anytime a basketball game turns into a halfcourt game, it seems to me that you have an advantage if you have good big men.  The better team you are playing, the better they are at getting back on defense and shutting down transition opportunities.  In these tougher games, you'll have an advantage with good bigs.   

You act like games in the halfcourt are decided solely by the bigs.  If you have crap guards and the other team has good guards good luck starting an offense in the half-court.  They will get pressured, turn the ball over, and have a hard time getting the ball to the bigs.

I would love to see a game last year between the following teams:
Guard Team:
PG: John Wall
SG: Evan Turner
SF: Division Three player
PF: Division Three player
C:  Division Three Player

Bench: James Anderson
Bench: Greivis Vasquez


Big Team:
PG: Division Three Player
SG: Division Three Player
SF: Division Three Player
PF: Demarcus Cousins
C:  Cole Aldrich

Bench: Luke Harangody
Bench: Greg Monroe


Guard team wins by 20

I said you need a guard who can run your offense and not turn the ball over.  I simply said that does not make the game a guard's game.  In that scenario, give me Acker, Cubillan and a Gilbert Brown type, and you can have UNC's all-world frontcourt, minus Deon Thompson (not that it matters who your frontcourt is, because Anderson and Vazquez would be your starters, I'm guessing).  I think it would be an interesting game. 

If the statement that the game is a guard's game were true, then FL would not have won back-to-back championships.  Their guards were competent, but they were not one of the best backcourts in the nation.  If the game is a guard's game- meaning winning the backcourt battle wins you the game- then some team with a better backcourt would have dominated a game with their superior backcourt and won.  Didn't happen for two years when it mattered.

Quote from: karavotsos on October 31, 2010, 12:30:30 PM
If the statement that the game is a guard's game were true, then FL would not have won back-to-back championships.  Their guards were competent, but they were not one of the best backcourts in the nation.  If the game is a guard's game- meaning winning the backcourt battle wins you the game- then some team with a better backcourt would have dominated a game with their superior backcourt and won.  Didn't happen for two years when it mattered.

This is the problem with the "guard's game" cliche, as I believe another poster said.  It means different things to different people.  Though I don't believe to anyone it means that the best backcourt always wins games.  What it means to me is that if you have a poor backcourt, you are not going anywhere in college basketball.  If you can have bad bigs and still go to the tourney.

Anyone who gets to the Final Four 95% of the time has at least good bigs and a good backcourt.   However, if you wanted to get to the tourney and had to choose between a bad bigs or a bad backcourt, you would choose bad bigs every time.

As evidenced by my two teams in the previous post... that guard laden team would win every time.

Quote from: GOMU1104 on October 30, 2010, 01:25:13 PM
It is a guards game.

I could've sworn we've been through this 100s of tiimes. I dont know why it is so hard for you guys to understand. Do you even watch college basketball?  

Do you not remember what happened when Marcus Jackson was running the point for Marquette?

I beleive we actually won the game that he was first used as point guard. However, that team was hurting. Diener and Grimm were injured. Mason was in Crean's doghouse. Novak was ineffective, because there was no other threat on the floor. At that point the team was bad and it had nothing to do with Jackson playing point.