http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/115613994.html
There is this quote for those who think we have to give more minutes to the likes of Gardner so he can gain experience:
"Mellow is going to be a really good player," said Williams. "He's like most freshmen, the intensity of practice, the value of a possession on the road in a Big East game. He understands that but he hasn't been given the opportunity to execute that. I defend that, but I don't want to put him in a position where we're hurting our team so that he can experience that opportunity.
+1 Buzz.
It seems to me that we had a number of opportunities to get court time for Mellow and EWill in some of our blowout games.
Quote from: DaCoach on February 09, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
It seems to me that we had a number of opportunities to get court time for Mellow and EWill in some of our blowout games.
In our last blowout (DePaul), they both did get minutes.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310180269
Also, in the romp against ND at home, they both played as well:
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310100269
Prior to that, against Miss Valley State, they both got double digit minutes:
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=303550269
So what other blowouts were you looking for them to get minutes in? Since those three we haven't won any other game by more than 10 points.
We could have played them when we were up 18 against Louisville.
Buzz says he loves all of his players -- even the ones who transfer mid year. Would have been interesting to read the players' side of their benching and if they're accepting of their situation or depressed by it.
Quote from: tower912 on February 09, 2011, 11:58:39 AM
We could have played them when we were up 18 against Louisville.
I think that you are kidding but we did and he missed a lay-up.
Buzz did play Erik for a minute in the last 10 minutes of the Louisville game. Erik blew a bunny layup, committed a foul, allowed an offensive rebound and was promptly banished back to the end of the bench.
I was being sarcastic and had completely forgotten that EWill got in, missed a layup, got beaten for a rebound, etc. Oops. ZFB nailed it on the scout board, BTW. Why is it when freshmen and sophomores sit the bench at Wisconsin, it is a sign of what a genius Bo is, waiting until they are ready to play them, but when Buzz sits young guys and goes with experience it is a sign he can't coach and can't recruit? Good call, ZFB
Jones was ranked #74 in the RSCI.
I think its fair to compare him to other 6'5" to 6'8" WF/WG freshmen that were ranked between 75 and 100 in the RSCI.
#96 CJ Fair - Syracuse
#90 Dwayne Polee - St. Johns
#89 Jarel Eddie - Virginia Tech
#82 Bryce Jones - USC
#77 Jason Morris - Georgia Tech
#74 Jamail Jones - Marquette
http://bit.ly/gC1ThF (http://bit.ly/gC1ThF)
The question is why were Jones' peers more ready to contribute this year?
Is it that Jones just wasn't as good as advertised? Is it a development issue? Is it just a comfort level issue?
I don't buy the "he might cost us a win" argument--St. Johns and Virginia Tech are in the same spot we are relative to a potential NCAA bid, and yet Polee and Eddie are getting significant minutes and are part of the primary rotation with their teams.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 09, 2011, 01:01:12 PM
The question is why were Jones' peers more ready to contribute this year?
Who would you replace in the lineup, Crowder or Butler?
Quote from: Boone on February 09, 2011, 11:59:21 AM
Buzz says he loves all of his players -- even the ones who transfer mid year. Would have been interesting to read the players' side of their benching and if they're accepting of their situation or depressed by it.
What would you expect them to say? Even if they felt differently, they will say the "right" thing.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 09, 2011, 01:01:12 PM
Jones was ranked #74 in the RSCI.
I think its fair to compare him to other 6'5" to 6'8" WF/WG freshmen that were ranked between 75 and 100 in the RSCI.
#96 CJ Fair - Syracuse
#90 Dwayne Polee - St. Johns
#89 Jarel Eddie - Virginia Tech
#82 Bryce Jones - USC
#77 Jason Morris - Georgia Tech
#74 Jamail Jones - Marquette
http://bit.ly/gC1ThF (http://bit.ly/gC1ThF)
The question is why were Jones' peers more ready to contribute this year?
Is it that Jones just wasn't as good as advertised? Is it a development issue? Is it just a comfort level issue?
I don't buy the "he might cost us a win" argument--St. Johns and Virginia Tech are in the same spot we are relative to a potential NCAA bid, and yet Polee and Eddie are getting significant minutes and are part of the primary rotation with their teams.
I don't think you can do this analysis without at least considering a team's other options at the position. I don't honestly know much about the other options at SJU or VT, so I can't comment on those. But you can't just look at things in a vacuum. Even though a freshman "might cost us a win" because we have other players ahead of him at his position, he might be a starter and/or playing major minutes on another that is weak at his position.
Quote from: Boone on February 09, 2011, 11:59:21 AM
Buzz says he loves all of his players -- even the ones who transfer mid year. Would have been interesting to read the players' side of their benching and if they're accepting of their situation or depressed by it.
I agree. Nice article though.
i think they should have been used earlier in the DePaul thrashing. we were up by almost thirty and you could have put one of them with the other 4 starters and worked the other in as one came out.
Quote from: mu89 on February 09, 2011, 01:38:52 PM
i think they should have been used earlier in the DePaul thrashing. we were up by almost thirty and you could have put one of them with the other 4 starters and worked the other in as one came out.
I think Buzz was sending a message in that game. Recall that was the game right after the Louisville melt down. Buzz was telling the starters "Even though you may think the game is won, you must keep playing like it is tied" Its more important to insist the guys who are going to control our destiny this year know they have to execute to the end, then it is to give the young guys a few more minutes against what was effectively a "pre-season" team. Their time will come, next year and whether they played against DePaul will make very little difference.
Quote from: NotAnAlum on February 09, 2011, 02:03:11 PM
I think Buzz was sending a message in that game. Recall that was the game right after the Louisville melt down. Buzz was telling the starters "Even though you may think the game is won, you must keep playing like it is tied" Its more important to insist the guys who are going to control our destiny this year know they have to execute to the end, then it is to give the young guys a few more minutes against what was effectively a "pre-season" team. Their time will come, next year and whether they played against DePaul will make very little difference.
apples and oranges.
i hear you about driving home the message but i feel to compare the depaul game to the louisville situation doesn't really make sense. buzz took full responsibility for the loss to louisville, he didn't blame the players. he should send a message to himself to be a better coach. if that means keeping starters in up by 30 against a winless depaul, then so be it. but i think they should've been out there earlier.
Toward what end? I'm not exactly sure that mop-up duty against an overmatched team is really relevant experience.
you don't think it would be slightly better than sitting on the bench until there's, say, 2 minutes left? i'm sure there's some psychological effect on a player. especially to have a home crowd cheer for you for being out there. i know if i were a player on the far end of the bench, i would love to be out there. but that's just me. i see both sides. that's just my opinion.
I'm sure they would love to be out there. In fact, if they didn't, they shouldn't be playing.
I just think from an experience point-of-view, junk minutes in a blow out don't do any good. I can't see how it would help either one of them grow into better contributors next year and down the line. The only valid reason to play them IMO is to get your regular guys some rest.
i hear you. i guess i'm just a little worried of another transfer. i want them to stick it out and actually become contributors.
Quote from: mu89 on February 09, 2011, 02:46:51 PM
i hear you. i guess i'm just a little worried of another transfer. i want them to stick it out and actually become contributors.
But playing people because they might leave means you probably don't want them to begin with. Honestly, I have given Buzz a lot of grief over the transfers, but of all the people who have left after signing LOIs, do you miss any of them? Tyshaun Taylor is the only one I can think of, and that was most definately a unique situation. If they leave because of lack of undeserved playing time, then, well...good luck to them.
great point.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 09, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
But playing people because they might leave means you probably don't want them to begin with. Honestly, I have given Buzz a lot of grief over the transfers, but of all the people who have left after signing LOIs, do you miss any of them? Tyshaun Taylor is the only one I can think of, and that was most definately a unique situation. If they leave because of lack of undeserved playing time, then, well...good luck to them.
I guess a question is what is "undeserved playing time"? What does a guy have to do to "deserve" a couple of extra minutes of playing time in a blow out?
You said in an earlier post that you thought the only valid reason to play one of these players is to give the regular guys some rest. I think another valid reason to play them in this scenario is to reward them for hard work by letting them play. Even if this won't help them become contributors, I think it's a valid reason to put them on the floor. Even if they would never dream of transferring, I think it's valid to let them get out there and run because they'd love to be out there.
Why does Buzz ever play Frozena? Is it because that last 45 seconds of the game is giving one of the regular guys a rest? Is it to help him become a contributor down the line? I don't think so. I think it's a reward for his hard work because Rob loves to be out there. I personally don't see any problem with giving our younger scholarship players a few extra minutes in trash time for the same reasons. In fact, I think it's a great idea.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 09, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
But playing people because they might leave means you probably don't want them to begin with. Honestly, I have given Buzz a lot of grief over the transfers, but of all the people who have left after signing LOIs, do you miss any of them? Tyshaun Taylor is the only one I can think of, and that was most definately a unique situation. If they leave because of lack of undeserved playing time, then, well...good luck to them.
I miss On Court Trevor Mbakwe.
Off Court Trevor Mbakwe ... not so much.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 09, 2011, 03:07:06 PM
I guess a question is what is "undeserved playing time"? What does a guy have to do to "deserve" a couple of extra minutes of playing time in a blow out?
You said in an earlier post that you thought the only valid reason to play one of these players is to give the regular guys some rest. I think another valid reason to play them in this scenario is to reward them for hard work by letting them play. Even if this won't help them become contributors, I think it's a valid reason to put them on the floor. Even if they would never dream of transferring, I think it's valid to let them get out there and run because they'd love to be out there.
Only if the game is well in hand. Otherwise, the only way any player should be on the floor is if they help you win. JJ and EWill don't do that right now...and Buzz alludes to this in the article.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 09, 2011, 03:24:54 PM
Only if the game is well in hand. Otherwise, the only way any player should be on the floor is if they help you win. JJ and EWill don't do that right now...and Buzz alludes to this in the article.
I agree completely. I was just talking about the case where they maybe could get a couple extra minutes in a blow out...like the DePaul game.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 09, 2011, 03:27:44 PM
I agree completely. I was just talking about the case where they maybe could get a couple extra minutes in a blow out...like the DePaul game.
Not if they didnt earn it/dont deserve it. You shouldnt get on the court "just because..."
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 09, 2011, 03:27:44 PM
I agree completely. I was just talking about the case where they maybe could get a couple extra minutes in a blow out...like the DePaul game.
You mean like how Buzz put in Ewill at Louisville when we were up 18 with 5:44 to play?
I very much doubt inserting Erik and Jamail into the DePaul game any sooner would have put that game in jeopardy.
I also doubt very much that it would have done them much good either. A few extra minutes of mop-up duty against an overwhelmed opponent isn't going to make a bit of difference in their development. Their development is happening in practice every day, against better players going all out, not against a bad team that's down 30.
Also, if they're unhappy about their PT and thinking about a transfer, I don't think an extra 2-3 minutes in a lopsided game against DePaul would do anything to change that.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2011, 04:16:18 PM
Also, if they're unhappy about their PT and thinking about a transfer, I don't think an extra 2-3 minutes in a lopsided game against DePaul would do anything to change that.
And if this is the case, and they get put into the middle of a contested game only to get torched by the other team, how does that help development?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 09, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
And if this is the case, and they get put into the middle of a contested game only to get torched by the other team, how does that help development?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Are you somehow reading my suggestion that a few minutes against DePaul is relatively meaningless as advocacy for minutes during more closely contested games? If so, you entirely misread my point (or I wrote so poorly it wasn't understandable).
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 09, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
And if this is the case, and they get put into the middle of a contested game only to get torched by the other team, how does that help development?
It's easy to sit on the bench and say I could do this, do that. Getting in and getting torched then sitting through the video session and getting called out by the coaches in front of all the other players can be very humbling. That should make a motivated player want to work harder.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on February 09, 2011, 03:28:56 PM
Not if they didnt earn it/dont deserve it. You shouldnt get on the court "just because..."
I've never advocated playing a kid that didn't earn it or doesn't deserve it. I simply think that any player who is working hard in practice has earned/deserves playing a few minutes in garbage time.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 09, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
In our last blowout (DePaul), they both did get minutes.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310180269
A 30 point blowout and they get 3 and 4 minutes.
Also, in the romp against ND at home, they both played as well:
http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310100269
A 22 point blowout and they each get 2 minutes. Consider that most of the final 3-4 minutes are spent running out the clock without running game offense, I wouldn't call them teachable moments. These guys are quality schollie athletes, not Frozena. I'd guess they feel embarrassed to be put in that late in the game.
Quote from: tower912 on February 09, 2011, 11:58:39 AM
We could have played them when we were up 18 against Louisville.
Yeah--it would not have hurt, given the outcome.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 19, 2011, 07:47:56 AM
Yeah--it would not have hurt, given the outcome.
He hurt plenty in the one minute he played. He missed a wide open lay up, gave up an offensive rebound/put back and committed a foul in a game we lost by one.
Quote from: DaCoach on February 09, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
It seems to me that we had a number of opportunities to get court time for Mellow and EWill in some of our blowout games.
Quote from: DaCoach on February 19, 2011, 12:17:56 AM
A 22 point blowout and they each get 2 minutes. Consider that most of the final 3-4 minutes are spent running out the clock without running game offense, I wouldn't call them teachable moments. These guys are quality schollie athletes, not Frozena. I'd guess they feel embarrassed to be put in that late in the game.
You asked about court time. I gave court time. Now you say that it was not *teachable* court time. I guess I need more practice hitting moving targets.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 19, 2011, 10:37:26 AM
You asked about court time. I gave court time. Now you say that it was not *teachable* court time. I guess I need more practice hitting moving targets.
Or you could merely bring reality into your comments. Both these guys were highly rated and presumably will contribute in future years. It is incumbent to get them quality time on the court in game situations. A blowout win is a perfect opportunity to give them that chance. Most coaches understand that. It seems that Buzz is unwilling to recognize that distinction. A 2 minute time bite in a 22 point blowout while we're going 4 corners teaches nothing and merely embarrasses the athlete.
Quote from: DaCoach on February 19, 2011, 04:15:16 PM
Or you could merely bring reality into your comments. Both these guys were highly rated and presumably will contribute in future years. It is incumbent to get them quality time on the court in game situations. A blowout win is a perfect opportunity to give them that chance. Most coaches understand that. It seems that Buzz is unwilling to recognize that distinction. A 2 minute time bite in a 22 point blowout while we're going 4 corners teaches nothing and merely embarrasses the athlete.
With the progress of Otule, Gardner even Junior this year it's obvious he knows what's going on. Why don't you wait a year or two and see if they develop to your standards.
Quote from: jeffreyweee on February 19, 2011, 04:21:08 PM
With the progress of Otule, Gardner even Junior this year it's obvious he knows what's going on. Why don't you wait a year or two and see if they develop to your standards.
Otule, Gardner and JC are getting quality time. I'd suggest that game minutes helped propel that improvement. If we wait 2 years for EWill, he'll be a senior and probably worthless as a 4 year schollie. Jamail and Williams need more meaningful minutes.
Quote from: DaCoach on February 20, 2011, 02:36:47 AM
Otule, Gardner and JC are getting quality time. I'd suggest that game minutes helped propel that improvement. If we wait 2 years for EWill, he'll be a senior and probably worthless as a 4 year schollie. Jamail and Williams need more meaningful minutes.
Yes the minutes probably helped but they were ready to contribute and develop in game. When Junior was on the floor people were saying "We need him out there more he runs the offense well." When Ox was on the floor people were saying "Hey he's got a solid offensive game and is improving on defense." Jamail and EWill seem to make mental mistakes more often while out there. They aren't yet at the point where they can develop on the floor in a game situation. We have capable guys in front of them.
It's late so I'm not sure if that makes sense but basically I think they have to develop a bit more before floor time will benefit both MU and their development as opposed to hurting MU and helping their development.
I bet you'll see EWILL in a Fulce role next year and Jamail in a vander/junior type of minutes or role next year.