Just wondering if people think Buzz will start to "finalize" (for lack of a better term, i suppose) a "Starting 5". I am a guy who believes it is the players who finish the game that matter, but from personal experience, I think it is better to know who is starting and what others players' roles on the team will be...at least for now.
It literally seems like Buzz picks 4 names out of a hat, add JFB, and that's our starting lineup. (example: Reggie not even sniffing the floor in KC, and then starting against Longwood? -I did pick up that perhaps he didnt have great practices in KC, but still)
As we get into our conference games, can we expect to see a more distinguished starting 5?
I think that Butler, DJO, Cadougan and Otule will start a majority of games from here on out, with the fifth spot going to Buycks or Blue or even Crowder. I think that Buzz is really looking for someone to step up and take a starting spot but that hasn't really happened because so many guys have been inconsistent. Most of these non-conf games are basically glorified scrimmages and Buzz has been using them to try different things including, making an attempt to find a line-up that really clicks. So far, he hasn't really seemed to find one.
It seems to me that JFB, Buycks, DJO and Otule are pretty safe bets to start at this point. The fifth guy (Junior/Blue/Smith) doesn't seem certain at all. I don't see any of those first 4 losing their spot unless Buzz goes consistently with Junior/Reggie starting at point, then maybe Blue could overtake Buycks down the road.
Actually I see a lot of advantage to not having a set starting lineup.
1. You can tailor lineup to suit who you are playing without someone getting bent out of shape.
2. I think it is a great incentive to young players to know that, if they are really good in practice they might get to start. This I see as the biggest benefit. Look at Reggie Smith. Sometimes he does not play and sometimes he starts. He will have much more incentive to work hard if he has a chance to start.
3. The opposing team does not have a set team to prepare for.
I was wondering if Buzz was just trying out different lineups before settling on a set lineup for Big East play.
On the Longwood post-game interview with Buzz, he explained more of his strategy with Cadougan and Otule. Basically saying that those two guys aren't in good enough condition to play from media TO to media TO. He loves what they both bring to the team, but they just can't play too many contiguous minutes. I think that was (one) reason for having Reggie start - You get your quick guy going against the other team when they are feeling fresh. After you wear his guy down a bit, you can bring Cadougan in and he can be more effective.
Makes some sense, but probably won't satisfy the fans that want things to be set with your best players - however if it results in better team play and wins, then it's all good.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 07, 2010, 09:15:54 AM
I was wondering if Buzz was just trying out different lineups before settling on a set lineup for Big East play.
He said as such before the season began. And as long as he is communicating effectively with the players, it really shouldn't be a problem.
bilsu and rocky, you guys both make good points.
"Makes some sense, but probably won't satisfy the fans that want things to be set with your best players - however if it results in better team play and wins, then it's all good."
Only way I could relate (and I'm not "comparing" HS bball to D1, just relating)...in HS our JV team was 25-0 or something like that...and our coaches never had a set starting lineup. About halfway through the year some kids (and yes, we were just kids) got frustrated by being in the starting lineup and playing well, and then the next game coming off the bench, etc. But, since we were winning, everyone kind of let it slide. Had we lost a few games, perhaps things would have turned out different.
MU is not going to go undefeated the rest of the year, so could these types of lineup changes have an effect on the psyche of some of the players?? (Am i really tlaking about players' psyche...Damn, I need conference play to start in the worst way...:) )
Thinking Buzz is probably going the way which bilsu has pointed out...
Quote from: bilsu on December 07, 2010, 09:01:29 AM
Actually I see a lot of advantage to not having a set starting lineup.
1. You can taylor lineup to suit who you are playing without someone getting bent out of shape.
2. I think it is a great incentive to young players to know that, if they are really good in practice they might get to start. This I see as the biggest benefit. Look at Reggie Smith. Sometimes he does not play and sometimes he starts. He will have much more incentive to work hard if he has a chance to start.
3. The opposing team does not have a set team to prepare for.
Yet another meaning when Buzz uses the word "interchangeables"....?
I'm glad someone started this thread, as I was thinking about doing myself. I can see the arguments on both sides, and realize that different strategies might work out differently for different teams, depending on their talent & chemistry, but I think that a defined starting line-up is a good idea. It is a nice problem to have, in a way, as it shows that we have a deeper bench than in years past, but I think that players may respond better to knowing their roles in games, and getting used to those roles. However, this is, of course, an outsider's perspective, and I trust Buzz to know what 's best for this team.
Quote from: APieperFan3 on December 07, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
Only way I could relate (and I'm not "comparing" HS bball to D1, just relating)...in HS our JV team was 25-0 or something like that...and our coaches never had a set starting lineup. About halfway through the year some kids (and yes, we were just kids) got frustrated by being in the starting lineup and playing well, and then the next game coming off the bench, etc. But, since we were winning, everyone kind of let it slide. Had we lost a few games, perhaps things would have turned out different.
Did the coach let people know why he was doing what he was doing? Or did he just do it...
It is a problem and will continue to be a problem, unless Buzz solidifies a starting line up. That will add to stability and eliminate the doubt that apparently some players still have.
Judging from what Buzz did last game, starting Smith, it will continue to be a shuffle. The best starting line up:
PG Cadougan (forget Bikes at that position)
2G DJO
F JFB
F Crowder
C Otule
Buzz absolutely needs to get off this shuffle kick.
Blue, Fulce, Gardner and Buycks (thank you Sultan) can come off the bench.
I predict that Buzz will continue with his man crush on Bikes, however. I maintain, who would you rather have on the floor, Bikes or Crowder?
Buzz always says the 5 toughest guys are going to play.
In the early part of the season, he can really prove his point by starting the guys that are practicing hard every single minute of every single day.
It's a good motivational technique, I just hope the guys are mentally tough enough to handle that kind of grind. It's sort of like being on the verge of getting demoted everyday at work. Sure, your productivity may go up, but the stress of that kind of pressure can be tough to handle over the long run.
I trust he knows what he's doing. I hope Buzz trusts himself enough to find the plan he likes and sticks with it.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 07, 2010, 09:58:04 AMI maintain, who would you rather have on the floor, Bikes or Crowder?
I vote Buycks, Crowder is lost on defense. As Al Davis would say, Dwight Buycks is a great player, get over it.
Quote from: Eford4President2012 on December 07, 2010, 10:47:30 AM
I vote Buycks, Crowder is lost on defense. As Al Davis would say, Dwight Buycks is a great player, get over it.
Sorry--a great player?---no frickin' way!
Quote from: 2002MUalum on December 07, 2010, 09:58:36 AM
Buzz always says the 5 toughest guys are going to play.
Buzz has said this on numerous occassions.
What happens when your BEST 5 players arent your TOUGHEST 5 players? Just because a guy is "tough" (mentall and physically) doesn't mean that he is the "best".
With the Big East season on the horizon...I hope Buzz gives our "good" players more chances to be tough....rather than giving our "tough" players more chances to be "good".
Quote from: APieperFan3 on December 07, 2010, 01:59:17 PM
Buzz has said this on numerous occassions.
What happens when your BEST 5 players arent your TOUGHEST 5 players? Just because a guy is "tough" (mentall and physically) doesn't mean that he is the "best".
With the Big East season on the horizon...I hope Buzz gives our "good" players more chances to be tough....rather than giving our "tough" players more chances to be "good".
That's the risk he runs if he really commits to that ideal.
However, it does make the boys come and compete every single day in practice.
Hopefully, the BEST players get the idea and work hard enough to be the TOUGHEST.
If not, Buzz has some decisions to make, and maybe that's why the rotations have been so "interesting" this year.
No way this line up is finalized. Smith starting at point? Crowder not starting, yet I believe he is third in scoring.
No way Buzz is getting off this lame kick! Against the bunnies. What will he do when we meet big time competition every night?
Thought Reggie looked really good last night...and Junior as well. Crazy as it sounds, the lineup I felt was most productive was:
Reggie
Vander
Jae
Jimmy
Otule
So many ways Buzz can go with this team - think we are seeing the value of switchables. Pretty dynamic 2nd team when you can bring in:
Junior
DJO
Buycks
Gardner
Obviously, DJO probably starts..but...the above 9 are going to be the rotation. Maybe Williams gets to be the .5 man in a 9.5 man rotation to take some of the minutes Fulce was going to get.