The losses to Duke and Gonzaga could not have proved more clearly Marquette's dire need of a big man who can score, rebound, intimidate and block a shot now and again.
Opponents have no reason to worry about or fear Marquette near the basket.
Agreed, gardner is at least a year away from being a real force. I'm starting to fear Otule may never be.
SUre, we could use another big man. That's no secret. However, we lost both games because we were putrid from beyond the arc and just didn't play smart basketball(i.e. Buycks and DJO not giving up the ball on fastbreaks). Our interior play was worse last year.
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on November 23, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
SUre, we could use another big man. That's no secret. However, we lost both games because we were putrid from beyond the arc and just didn't play smart basketball(i.e. Buycks and DJO not giving up the ball on fastbreaks). Our interior play was worse last year.
+1
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on November 23, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
SUre, we could use another big man. That's no secret. However, we lost both games because we were putrid from beyond the arc and just didn't play smart basketball(i.e. Buycks and DJO not giving up the ball on fastbreaks). Our interior play was worse last year.
Well said.
Why would you need a big man when we have so many guards?
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on November 23, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
SUre, we could use another big man. That's no secret. However, we lost both games because we were putrid from beyond the arc and just didn't play smart basketball(i.e. Buycks and DJO not giving up the ball on fastbreaks). Our interior play was worse last year.
Doris Burkes Thong, I agree that Marquette suffered serious shooting, free throw and rebounding problems against Duke and Gonzaga. But those deficiencies only magnified Marquette's need of a big man who would demand defenders' attention and make things happen near the hoop.
Marquette must rely so extensively on outside shooting because it has no one who can score consistently closer to the hoop. Marquette is doomed, therefore, when that outside shooting is not working.
A skilled big man would make a huge difference.
(Doris Burkes Thong: Your name means what?)
Marquette must rely so extensively on outside shooting because it has no one who can score consistently closer to the hoop. Marquette is doomed, therefore, when that outside shooting is not working.
A skilled big man would make a huge difference.
True, no doubt about it. Gardner has shown the potential to be that type of inside scorer. Unfortunately, he had to play Mon. & Tue. with a sprained left shoulder against what I assume was the highest level of competition he's ever faced. I think he's going to be an excellent player for us, particularly on offense.
Quote from: Uff da on November 23, 2010, 09:01:09 PM
Agreed, gardner is at least a year away from being a real force. I'm starting to fear Otule may never be.
starting to feel? He is about as good as he is going to get.
His 4th foul was an unbelievably stupid foul.
"Our interior play was worse last year."
Disagree with this completely - I would take Lazar in the middle over anyone we have this year. Offensively, he drew bigs out of the paint, and opened up the passing lanes because nobody could play zone against us. His defensive presence in the paint last year is something we are going to really miss this year. If it wasn't obvious tonight, it will become evident in early January.
OMG. We should recruit a center! Someone tell Buzz! Joe True lives!
Hey Joe - you're hilarious. Way to insert your own worthless crap.
Rebounding is a lot about getting position and boxing out. Sure, a tall guy is going to help, but there's no excuse for allowing so many offensive rebounds. We need to do a better job of rebounding, because it's not all about size. We could certainly use a dominant big game, but we can definitely improve as a team now and get better at things that make up for the lack of a super-skilled big man.
I'll take a big man that's just a very strong rebounder and be happy.
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on November 23, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
SUre, we could use another big man. That's no secret. However, we lost both games because we were putrid from beyond the arc and just didn't play smart basketball(i.e. Buycks and DJO not giving up the ball on fastbreaks). Our interior play was worse last year.
No, we lost both games because we were killed inside and on the glass.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 24, 2010, 01:19:19 AM
No, we lost both games because we were killed inside and on the glass.
Yeah, couldn't stop Plumlee at all. Needed to get those rebounds cause he got a lot of easy baskets down low and offensive boards. Can't stop them all, but hope we can do better vs other big guys.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 24, 2010, 01:19:19 AM
No, we lost both games because we were killed inside and on the glass.
I share willie warrior's opinion that Marquette lost close games to Duke and Gonzaga -- games Marquette could have won -- because Marquette was "killed inside and on the glass."
Yes, our outside and free throw shooting were problematic in each game, which helped cement the losses. But the absence of a skilled, reliable big man is what ultimately makes Marquette a team that can be defeated.
The close scores against Duke and Gonzaga are encouraging, of course. Without a big man, Marquette almost beat two of the better teams in the land.
The difference in those games: Our opponents had strong, skilled big men while Marquette had none.
If we could only combine Otule's size with Gardner's hands.
But I will say, Sacre in particular killed us because we weren't really doing a good job boxing him out. There were a couple times that we actually had inside position but simply failed to box him out.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 24, 2010, 06:36:22 AM
If we could only combine Otule's size with Gardner's hands.
But I will say, Sacre in particular killed us because we weren't really doing a good job boxing him out. There were a couple times that we actually had inside position but simply failed to box him out.
It wasn't only Sacre--two other of their guys really killed us on the glass.
There were numerous three offensive rebound gets on sequences by Gonzaga. Crowder is way too undersized to play post. Otule does not box out, and has terrible hands in those mixes. gardner actually played better D when he was in there.
This has been an ongoing problem, and Buzz has not solved it.
Buzz's answer last night, Otule gets third foul early in 2nd half--he stays in; Otule later gets his 4th foul--he stays in. Yet as soon as DJO gets his 2nd foul, he is jerked out of the game. What is up with that? C'mon man!
I had to miss the telecast but feared Sacre would kill us inside after watching him against KS. He looked like what I expected from McMorrow a few years back. Very disappointed reading the posts- the constant phone updates from friends almost ruined my evening, and now things are confirmed.
I agree, but so do we all, that a skilled big would be sweet. I'll go one further and say that a 'not-so-skilled' but smart big would be the answer. I can't help but remember Chris Grimm shutting down UW at Madison's talented big (name escapes me) allowing MU to beat one of their most successful teams ever. If we had a guy like Chris, we could use Gardner as a 4 and really have an inside presence at both ends.
Quote from: MU Avenue on November 23, 2010, 08:52:10 PM
The losses to Duke and Gonzaga could not have proved more clearly Marquette's dire need of a big man who can score, rebound, intimidate and block a shot now and again.
Opponents have no reason to worry about or fear Marquette near the basket.
Do you think we could have won either game this past two days?
I'm firmly in the camp that not only could we have, we should have won at least one. We can't shoot, play poor perimeter defense, and do not attack a zone very well. Another big would be great, but those games were there to be won without another big man.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 24, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
Do you think we could have won either game this past two days?
I'm firmly in the camp that not only could we have, we should have won at least one. We can't shoot, play poor perimeter defense, and do not attack a zone very well. Another big would be great, but those games were there to be won without another big man.
Well said, and although true- I still believe we have a glaring weakness.
We have a number of weaknesses. It's always going to be true that we need a 5 star, top gun big man but so do 335 of the 350 DI teams out there. Not enough supply.
In the meantime, we have weaknesses that need to be addressed with the guys we have.
Quote from: augoman on November 24, 2010, 01:08:00 PM
I had to miss the telecast but feared Sacre would kill us inside after watching him against KS. He looked like what I expected from McMorrow a few years back. Very disappointed reading the posts- the constant phone updates from friends almost ruined my evening, and now things are confirmed.
I agree, but so do we all, that a skilled big would be sweet. I'll go one further and say that a 'not-so-skilled' but smart big would be the answer. I can't help but remember Chris Grimm shutting down UW at Madison's talented big (name escapes me) allowing MU to beat one of their most successful teams ever. If we had a guy like Chris, we could use Gardner as a 4 and really have an inside presence at both ends.
Great job dude...you just called our big guys totally unskilled and stupid. The big guys on the team you supposedly root for...and you call them unskilled and stupid. Stay classy my friend.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 24, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
Do you think we could have won either game this past two days?
I'm firmly in the camp that not only could we have, we should have won at least one. We can't shoot, play poor perimeter defense, and do not attack a zone very well. Another big would be great, but those games were there to be won without another big man.
Agree. A big man didn't hold us back from winning either game. Like my 10-year-old said during the game "how can they expect to get a rebound if they don't put a body on them?" Rebounding is more effort than anything, and we didn't have enough of it either day. From a big man perspective, I am psyched we have Gardner for 4 years. If he buys into Buzz's system, loses some lbs and transforms his body, he will be a very solid big man for us. You can't teach footwork and hands. I rode the hotel elevator with Tony Benford in KC and he said Gardner was pretty banged up, but the kid "is going to be something special."
It's early, but my bigger concern is the lack of shooters -- when you have Cadougan, Blue and Otule out there, you have three guys very hesitant on shooting at all. Cadougan is a solid distributor, but he has a decent shot and should look for it more. Blue plays great D, but he looks like he's playing hot potato out there -- it's like he doesn't want the ball in his hands. Hopefully, the real DJO will step up soon.
Quote from: Freeport Warrior on November 24, 2010, 01:35:34 PM
It's early, but my bigger concern is the lack of shooters -- when you have Cadougan, Blue and Otule out there, you have three guys very hesitant on shooting at all. Cadougan is a solid distributor, but he has a decent shot and should look for it more. Blue plays great D, but he looks like he's playing hot potato out there -- it's like he doesn't want the ball in his hands. Hopefully, the real DJO will step up soon.
Agree. I posted something like this in another thread. Hpefully as the year goes on, people start to beome more comfortable - wheather shooting, distributing, rebounding, etc. We havent even come close to reaching our ceiling!!!!!
(also, im feelin the "most interesting man in the world" avatar! haha)
I was complaining about the rebounding with everyone else last night, but I think the primary reason we lost both was poor outside shooting - especially on uncontested shots! Give our bigs a chance to play some games and develop. It's a little early to throw in the towel on them.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on November 24, 2010, 01:30:18 PM
Great job dude...you just called our big guys totally unskilled and stupid. The big guys on the team you supposedly root for...and you call them unskilled and stupid. Stay classy my friend.
wow. what a bizarre interpretation of what I just said.
Imagine had Daniel Orton committed to Marquette rather than Kentucky. He would have played the majority of the minutes at the 4 or 5 position last year, received a lot more experience in a big time conference, would have had the option to enter the NBA draft had he wanted to most likely as well at MU. Instead, he opted to go to Kentucky and be a back up, not nearly receive as much playing time as he could have gotten else where, and did not gain a lot of in game experience. However, he did get drafted in the first round so it worked out for him. Bottom line, we need to fix something in our recruiting process and convince one of these big men to come to MU rather than sit on the bench for a few years!
I don't get mad or frustrated that Buzz has struggled to land top 50-100 big man recruits because they are such rare and hard to get commodities, thus they tend to land at the top programs or their home state school. Crean struggled to land highly recruited bigs who weren't from Wisconsin and so has Buzz.
That said, every year in college ball we see serviceable to very valuable bigs in the 6 10'-7' feet tall range who weren't top 100 recruits. Granted, there is a fair amount of luck involved when a non-highly recruited big man develops in time to become much better than expected and proved that many other schools whiffed in not recruiting them.
Buzz has tried this a few times and needs to keep doing so, maybe even more often than he has and then hope good fortune shines.
Quote from: augoman on November 24, 2010, 10:55:08 PM
wow. what a bizarre interpretation of what I just said.
"I'll go one further and say that a 'not-so-skilled'
but smart big would be the answer."
Those were your exact words. How else could one interpret but to think you are calling our current big guys stupid or dumb?
I'm not going to put words in one's mouth, but, there is a difference between being generally smart and being smart on the basketball floor. Likewise, there is a difference between being dumb and being dumb on the court. Due to several factors, I think, including inexperienced players etc. our team is playing dumb basketball.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on November 24, 2010, 01:30:18 PM
Great job dude...you just called our big guys totally unskilled and stupid. The big guys on the team you supposedly root for...and you call them unskilled and stupid. Stay classy my friend.
ATL MU Warrior, your reply here to augoman is as silly and as goofy as it gets ... dude.
There is nothing offensive in writing that Marquette needs players with skills and smarts. Your childish interpretation of augoman's words is amusing ... dude.
Also, ATL MU Warrior, you have written, "Stay classy my friend."
A suggestion: Let go of the whole "classy" rap. What on Earth does that mean? For that matter, what does the notion of "class" have to do with this topic or any other topic raised on this site ... dude?
I would be happy if the word "class" or any variation of it never appears again on this board or anywhere else. It always seems so cheesy.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 25, 2010, 07:03:31 AM
I'm not going to put words in one's mouth, but, there is a difference between being generally smart and being smart on the basketball floor. Likewise, there is a difference between being dumb and being dumb on the court. Due to several factors, I think, including inexperienced players etc. our team is playing dumb basketball.
+1
PS. If someone else wrote that they would be accused of racism
Quote from: MU Avenue on November 25, 2010, 08:24:11 AM
ATL MU Warrior, your reply here to augoman is as silly and as goofy as it gets ... dude.
There is nothing offensive in writing that Marquette needs players with skills and smarts. Your childish interpretation of augoman's words is amusing ... dude.
Also, ATL MU Warrior, you have written, "Stay classy my friend."
A suggestion: Let go of the whole "classy" rap. What on Earth does that mean? For that matter, what does the notion of "class" have to do with this topic or any other topic raised on this site ... dude?
I would be happy if the word "class" or any variation of it never appears again on this board or anywhere else. It always seems so cheesy.
If you don't uderstand it, I'm sure it would be a relief to not have to try.
In this instance, I would define class as being supportive of your team, and the individuals on it, even if they don't have a great game and get beat by a superior opponent. Further, I would say that if a poster takes a big fat dump on members of the team, that is definitely not classy.
Hope that helps you figure it out. Dude.
Quote from: MU Avenue on November 25, 2010, 08:24:11 AM
ATL MU Warrior, your reply here to augoman is as silly and as goofy as it gets ... dude.
There is nothing offensive in writing that Marquette needs players with skills and smarts. Your childish interpretation of augoman's words is amusing ... dude.
Also, ATL MU Warrior, you have written, "Stay classy my friend."
A suggestion: Let go of the whole "classy" rap. What on Earth does that mean? For that matter, what does the notion of "class" have to do with this topic or any other topic raised on this site ... dude?
I would be happy if the word "class" or any variation of it never appears again on this board or anywhere else. It always seems so cheesy.
"cheesy?" "classy?" Gross!