MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Lighthouse 84 on February 13, 2011, 12:06:49 PM

Title: JB
Post by: Lighthouse 84 on February 13, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
I missed the start.  What's with JB?  Head still?
Title: Re: JB
Post by: 🏀 on February 13, 2011, 12:08:48 PM
Lenny thinks it defensive matchups. I think Elmore is dead wrong.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: 21Jumpstreet on February 13, 2011, 12:09:16 PM
Agreed, dead wrong.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: MU B2002 on February 13, 2011, 03:13:17 PM
Is this some sort of hush hush penalty for something?  I don't get that he is healthy enough to log major minutes, but not healthy enough to start.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: BallBoy on February 13, 2011, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: MU B2002 on February 13, 2011, 03:13:17 PM
Is this some sort of hush hush penalty for something?  I don't get that he is healthy enough to log major minutes, but not healthy enough to start.

I think it is a away to break up the line up some what.  MU has a hard time with bench points.  Most of our scoring comes from 4 guys and they are in teh starting line up.  If you move JB from the starting now you have three guys that can score and then JB provides the second wind. 
Title: Re: JB
Post by: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: marqptm on February 13, 2011, 12:08:48 PM
Lenny thinks it defensive matchups. I think Elmore is dead wrong.

Then what is the dead right answer?
Title: Re: JB
Post by: Jacks DC on February 13, 2011, 04:27:17 PM
Maybe he heard you guys complaining about our lack of production from the bench so he took Jimmy out of the starting lineup.  I noticed ESPN highlighted the difference in bench points a few times, as if that's worth anything.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: romey on February 13, 2011, 04:31:51 PM
I noticed the bench point "stats" too.  Pretty silly to think we'd bench him to get more points off the bench - at what cost - less points out of our starters?
Title: Re: JB
Post by: Tugg Speedman on February 13, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
MU has been described (in think accurately) as a "good team" from top to bottom yet missing that "go to guy."  By default it is (was supposed to be) Jimmy.

How does he maintain his leadership role coming off the bench? 

Should you just proclaim Crowder the defacto Captain and move on?
Title: Re: JB
Post by: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 04:39:42 PMMU has been described (in think accurately) as a "good team" from top to bottom yet missing that "go to guy."  By default it is (was supposed to be) Jimmy.

How does he maintain his leadership role coming off the bench? 

Should you just proclaim Crowder the defacto Captain and move on?

540's post-post-game (after Homer went off the air) today talked about how Marquette is very solid but lacks that one star player that can lift you to victories. Time and time again, we've seen solid contributions from DJO, Buycks, Butler, and Crowder, but no one has established themselves as that crunch-time competitor, that game-in and game-out force that will get the job done. Hayward had that. McNeal had that. But now...crickets. The positive is that we have four guys who can do it on any given night. Which gives us the chance to win any game. But in terms of consistency, I agree that we simply don't have that one mainstay leader.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: Da 'Lanche on February 13, 2011, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 04:39:42 PM
MU has been described (in think accurately) as a "good team" from top to bottom yet missing that "go to guy."  By default it is (was supposed to be) Jimmy.

How does he maintain his leadership role coming off the bench? 

Should you just proclaim Crowder the defacto Captain and move on?

For all we know, Jimmy B. was fine with coming off the bench today....for whatever reason.   Maybe he is demonstrating leadership by showing it is not all about him (see JMAY's dad) but about the good of the team.

I do agree with you in that he was supposed to be the go to guy this year....I expected that as well and it just had not happened to the extent anyone had hoped for or believed.  Not a knock on JB, just that expectations were high and perhaps he is not the same caliber as a go-to guy as a Lazar or McNeal, etc.
Title: Re: JB
Post by: NickelDimer on February 13, 2011, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 04:46:03 PM
540's post-post-game (after Homer went off the air) today talked about how Marquette is very solid but lacks that one star player that can lift you to victories. Time and time again, we've seen solid contributions from DJO, Buycks, Butler, and Crowder, but no one has established themselves as that crunch-time competitor, that game-in and game-out force that will get the job done. Hayward had that. McNeal had that. But now...crickets. The positive is that we have four guys who can do it on any given night. Which gives us the chance to win any game. But in terms of consistency, I agree that we simply don't have that one mainstay leader.

And this will doom a team come tourney time.
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev