Vander Blue is commonly referred to as a 5*, and this is why some people were so disappointed with his freshman year and so willing to write him off as a bust already (myself not included). However, he was rated a 5* by only one service (Rivals) at #24 overall. His consensus ranking was #48, which is definitely good, but it's not like we don't have higher/similarly rated players on the current roster.
Blue's RSCI rating and breakdown:
#48 consensus
#24 Rivals
#31 ESPN
#34 Dave Telep
#35 Hoopmasters
Unranked Prep Stars
Wilson's RSCI rating and breakdown:
#40 consensus
#23 Prepstars
#30 Dave Telep
#31 ESPN
#37 Hoopmasters
#45 Prep Stars
#66 All Star Report
#94 Rivals
So why is Wilson not referred to as a 5* if his highest ranking is one slot higher than Blue's, and his consensus ranking is higher too? Do we have two five stars on the team? Or do we have two high four stars in Blue and Wilson?
On top of those two, next year's roster includes:
Cadougan #47 consensus, rankings range from 41 to 76
Williams #67 consensus, rankings range from 42 to unranked
Jones #74 consensus, rankings range from 52 to unranked
Anderson #95 consensus, rankings range from 64 to unranked
I guess I don't really have a point except that it's weird to me that Blue is referred to as a 5* when some posters want to say he fell far short of expectations, but other posters watch the McD's AA game and lament Buzz' inability to land 5* players. So which one is it? Are Blue and Wilson both 5* recruits, and should Buzz be commended for landing two of them? Or is it unfair to focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him? Or will people eternally use selective data to whine? Should we institute a Scoop convention that only RSCI #'s be used when discussing recruit rankings in an attempt to curb this problem?
I don't really caught up in the number of star a recruit has, when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter. Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season. James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's. It feels good for your program to land 5 star players, but there really isn't that big of a difference from a 4 to a 5 star player, and when it comes down to it, rarely will a freshman have a big impact on a team.
Quote from: Jamailman on March 31, 2011, 07:47:43 PM
Vander Blue is commonly referred to as a 5*, and this is why some people were so disappointed with his freshman year and so willing to write him off as a bust already (myself not included). However, he was rated a 5* by only one service (Rivals) at #24 overall. His consensus ranking was #48, which is definitely good, but it's not like we don't have higher/similarly rated players on the current roster.
Blue's RSCI rating and breakdown:
#48 consensus
#24 Rivals
#31 ESPN
#34 Dave Telep
#35 Hoopmasters
Unranked Prep Stars
Wilson's RSCI rating and breakdown:
#40 consensus
#23 Prepstars
#30 Dave Telep
#31 ESPN
#37 Hoopmasters
#45 Prep Stars
#66 All Star Report
#94 Rivals
So why is Wilson not referred to as a 5* if his highest ranking is one slot higher than Blue's, and his consensus ranking is higher too? Do we have two five stars on the team? Or do we have two high four stars in Blue and Wilson?
Not every service uses "stars" to rate players. There is no common definition.
Of those that use stars, Blue's top mark was a 5* rating, Wilson's best was a 4*. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Jamailman on March 31, 2011, 07:47:43 PM
I guess I don't really have a point except that it's weird to me that Blue is referred to as a 5* when some posters want to say he fell far short of expectations, but other posters watch the McD's AA game and lament Buzz' inability to land 5* players. So which one is it? Are Blue and Wilson both 5* recruits, and should Buzz be commended for landing two of them? Or is it unfair to focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him? Or will people eternally use selective data to whine? Should we institute a Scoop convention that only RSCI #'s be used when discussing recruit rankings in an attempt to curb this problem?
The disappointment over Blue is a reflection of comments made at the time of his commitment--Blue was heralded at the time as the type of player we haven't signed since the days of Doc Rivers or Kerry Trotter.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/64704752.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/64704752.html)
Maybe Rosiak's comments were overblown--but a lot of people agreed with him. Saying that Blue was similar in pedigree to James or McNeal--while more accurate--would have made it harder to argue that Buzz was a better recruiter than the guy who brought in James and McNeal.
Meanwhile, a comparison of Blue's performance to other recent frosh may explain any disappointment.
http://bit.ly/hxUtae (http://bit.ly/hxUtae)
(Make sure you change all players to Fr stats for a like-for-like comparison).
Finally the consensus rankings of the two players rated higher than Blue come with asterisks of their own.
Cadougan gets a pass because of his injury, and we just haven't seen Wilson yet.
Cant wait for the season to start, so this banter will end.
There have been 205 rivals 5-star players since mu joined the big east, and blue is the only one from wisconsin and we landed him - that's all.
Jamail Jones is rated the bigger prospect for the nba.
It is quite obvious from the above data that all of Buzz's top recruits were overrated.
Quote from: mviale on March 31, 2011, 10:00:07 PM
Cant wait for the season to start, so this banter will end.
+1 we have got 7 long months of such threads. :-[
Quote from: bilsu on March 31, 2011, 10:12:32 PM
It is quite obvious from the above data that all of Buzz's top recruits were overrated.
Yeah, the highly touted DJO & Crowder really didn't live up to the hype. Oh wait...
I also don't get how people say players don't improve under Buzz. They don't blow up after 1 year like apparently lots of fans expect, but look at what Jimmy went from and how Junior and Otule are progressing. You can't expect freshman to play 15-20 min a game and at the same time be upset when Crowder, DJO, etc get put to the bench. We have solid veterans that play the bulk of the minutes and the luxury to let highly touted freshman/sophs develop in practice and take up their roles when the time comes. It's ridiculous to look at freshman stats when Buzz's teams don't need freshmen to play. Will people still be shocked when Erik Williams comes on strong next year and think "I can't believe he's a contributor as a junior after seeing him do nothing as a freshman."
Until there is a objective, definitive and universally accepted method for determining class rankings (and therefore how many * a player gets), this is all just meaningless gibberish.
Vander and Jamil can be negative four million-bazillion stars for all I care... I'm happy they're on this team, and everyone else should be too.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 31, 2011, 09:27:05 PM
Saying that Blue was similar in pedigree to James or McNeal--while more accurate--would have made it harder to argue that Buzz was a better recruiter than the guy who brought in James and McNeal.
I see what you did here. Cute.
Quote from: flash on March 31, 2011, 08:29:16 PM
I don't really caught up in the number of star a recruit has, when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter. Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season. James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's. It feels good for your program to land 5 star players, but there really isn't that big of a difference from a 4 to a 5 star player, and when it comes down to it, rarely will a freshman have a big impact on a team.
3 Amigos got a ton of playing time, and improved because of that. There was no alternative. They were all we had. Blue had upperclassmen to compete with, and that was his fate. He will be fine. The fact that he saw the floor as much as he did as a freshman is all you need to know about his ability.
But, was Blue a 5 star recruit? Isn't that normally reserved for the top 20-25 recruits in the country? I don't think anyone had him in that category.
Quote from: 6746jonesr on April 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
But, was Blue a 5 star recruit? Isn't that normally reserved for the top 20-25 recruits in the country? I don't think anyone had him in that category.
Rivals did:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953
(http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953)
Quote from: ringout on April 01, 2011, 09:12:11 AM
3 Amigos got a ton of playing time, and improved because of that. There was no alternative. They were all we had. Blue had upperclassmen to compete with, and that was his fate. He will be fine. The fact that he saw the floor as much as he did as a freshman is all you need to know about his ability.
This is interesting, because earlier in the week Pakuni argued quite vehemently that we were very
inexperienced. Of our top 10 players, he pointed out, 8 had zero or one year of D1 experience.
Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was
too much experience ahead of him.
I think the correct view is somewhere between those two--while we were quite experienced, a player as talented as Blue (consensus top 50 /top 25 by some accounts) should have shown a greater contribution than he did.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 11:25:27 AM
Rivals did:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953
(http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953)
This is interesting, because earlier in the week Pakuni argued quite vehemently that we were very inexperienced. Of our top 10 players, he pointed out, 8 had zero or one year of D1 experience.
Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was too much experience ahead of him.
I think the correct view is somewhere between those two--while we were quite experienced, a player as talented as Blue (consensus top 50 /top 25 by some accounts) should have shown a greater contribution than he did.
I did not say there was too much experience ahead fo VB. Thanks for playing.
I said that there was
NO experience ahead of the 3 Amigos.
From a D1 perspective, we were inexperienced this year, but the guys that played ahead of VB were more experienced and deserved to play ahead of VB.
Any freshman that plays in every game was making a contribution.
Quote from: ringout on April 01, 2011, 11:34:03 AM
I did not say there was too much experience ahead fo VB. Thanks for playing.
I said that there was NO experience ahead of the 3 Amigos.
I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.
McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.
Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.
Quote from: ringout on April 01, 2011, 11:34:03 AM
From a D1 perspective, we were inexperienced this year, but the guys that played ahead of VB were more experienced and deserved to play ahead of VB.
I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 03:17:40 PM
I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.
McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.
Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.
I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.
Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1? Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent. Because he's a wing. And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1. Bad example.
Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer. Bad examples.
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1? Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent. Because he's a wing. And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1. Bad example.
Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer. Bad examples.
Does this surprise you?
This is the first I heard about EWill. Any details about what he did/how he was injured?
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer.
This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?
If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.
Regarding EWill...couldn't find anything in writing, but I found this.
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110319/483/urn_publicid_ap_org574e880c28fd411bbb8d5d516bb31abe/
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 03:17:40 PM
I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.
Someone here recently told me that Jae Crowder came into the season with two years relevant experience.
Erik Williams came into the season with one.
Ergo, Buzz played the more experienced guy.
At least according to that person.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on April 01, 2011, 03:34:44 PM
This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?
If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.
On the Scout Board, Dodds recapped the latest Buzz Show, during which he mentioned Erik's shoulder injury when asked about the returning players.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=7376748
Outside of the injury information on EWill, nothing really all that substantive from Buzz in that thread. Some players need to have an "impact" and some need to "evolve." Oh and Ox needs to get in better shape. (Duh.)
Quote from: rocky_warrior on April 01, 2011, 03:34:44 PM
This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?
If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.
http://www.gomarquette.com/allaccess/
In the most recent show, not sure what time, but it's in there
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1? Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent. Because he's a wing. And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1. Bad example.
And yet, throughout the year many on this board said Blue was our best PG prospect. All of a sudden, you object to that notion. Go figure.
I guess the issue for me is that if Buzz can coach Buycks or Smith to make the transition from 2G to the point in his offense, he could have done the same for Blue.
And let's be honest--Buzz's offense doesn't rely on a point guard to run the offense in a traditional sense. Aside from brining the ball up (which Blue would have been perfectly capable of doing), the PG responsibility isn't that much different than the 2G.
So, yeah, if Blue had demonstrated James' scoring potential, I absolutely think that he would have been the guy bringing the ball up (instead of Buycks and/or Smith).
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer. Bad examples.
Fulce and Willams received as many as 19 and 23 minutes respectively--which would seem to define the upper limitations of their injuries. The fact that they routinely received less than that reflects choice/not injury limitation.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt--Buzz didn't want to give minutes to Crowder ahead of the more experienced players. He only did it because he
had to.
If Buzz has projected Fulce and/or Williams' limited minutes for the last five to ten minutes of close games, I'd concede your point.
But the fact is that according to Buzz, Williams started in order to protect Crowder from picking up an early foul. That tells me that Buzz didn't favor experience--he wanted Crowder in the lineup ahead of Williams--for some very obvious reasons.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 03:17:40 PM
I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.
McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.
Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.
I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.
The only other guards were Tommy Brice and Joe Chapman. Fitz played on the perimeter, but we all know how consistent he was. When McNeal arrived at MU, he was the least of the Amigos. My argument is that VB will be a quality player over his career at MU. That's all. If you think otherwise, well, we'll talk in 3 years.
You are all over the place. Not sure what your overall point is. I think your channeling Chicos today.
Quote from: ringout on April 01, 2011, 04:50:18 PM
The only other guards were Tommy Brice and Joe Chapman. Fitz played on the perimeter, but we all know how consistent he was. When McNeal arrived at MU, he was the least of the Amigos. My argument is that VB will be a quality player over his career at MU. That's all. If you think otherwise, well, we'll talk in 3 years.
You are all over the place. Not sure what your overall point is. I think your channeling Chicos today.
And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations. He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers. I don't think he showed that yet.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 05:43:20 PM
And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations. He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers. I don't think he showed that yet.
Who's arguing he did live up to overinflated freshman year expectations? His career isn't over though. And it's a fact that he was behind DJO and Butler at the 2/3. McNeal and Matthews had to split minutes between Chapman and Fitzgerald at the 2/3, which isn't even close. James had no zero competition, and Blue has never played PG so I'm not sure where that comes in to play.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 05:43:20 PM
And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations. He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers. I don't think he showed that yet.
Not sure where that expectation came from. His state tournament his Jr. year got the hype machine revved. He wasn't even the best player in WI his senior year although he does have more D1 upside than the kid that was Mr. Basketball. VB was #48 RSCI, I think. Kemba Walker was #15. His freshman year was OK, but not mindblowing. VB will be fine.
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 05:56:30 PM
Who's arguing he did live up to overinflated freshman year expectations? His career isn't over though.
The first couple of posts included these comments.
"Or is it unfair to
focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him?"
"Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season. James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's."
Put me in the category of being disappointed with what we got out of Blue this year. And that's not just because he didn't get a starting job on day one--after 12 points against DePaul, he only managed 24 points in the next 18 games.
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 05:56:30 PM
And it's a fact that he was behind DJO and Butler at the 2/3. McNeal and Matthews had to split minutes between Chapman and Fitzgerald at the 2/3, which isn't even close.
And Novak, who was essentially another SG.
I already conceded the point on James as PG. But we could have made Novak, Chapman, and Fitz the primary backcourt, and Lott, Amo, Barro and Grimm the primary frontcourt, with Matthews and McNeal relegated to the bench.
Instead, I feel that McNeal and Matthews played as the primary options because they were
better than the other options--not because there were no other options available.
Quote from: Jamailman on April 01, 2011, 05:56:30 PM
James had no zero competition, and Blue has never played PG so I'm not sure where that comes in to play.
I already conceded the point on James.
I also said that if Blue had played like James, he would have been in the lineup at the PG spot.
I based it on the same three reasons I gave before:
--It was frequently mentioned throughout the year that many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect. I'm not the first to say this.
--If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.
--Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.
Do you disagree with any of those points? It sounds like you want to disagree with me, but you can't disagree with any of the supporting reasons.
Quote from: ringout on April 01, 2011, 06:01:11 PM
Not sure where that expectation came from. His state tournament his Jr. year got the hype machine revved. He wasn't even the best player in WI his senior year although he does have more D1 upside than the kid that was Mr. Basketball. VB was #48 RSCI, I think. Kemba Walker was #15. His freshman year was OK, but not mindblowing. VB will be fine.
I posted the link from Rosiak above.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 07:00:50 PM
I posted the link from Rosiak above.
Given that the Rosiak blog post was before his Sr. season, and he had a tremendous state tourney his Jr. year, I guess I understand the expectations at the time of the post. His sr. season was more muted. I don't care. I said in a post before this season started that, as a freshman, he would play because of defense, and that is what happened. He has a whole off season to work on his offense. I am still a big VB fan. He will be a productive Warrior.
Quote from: Benny B on April 01, 2011, 09:04:34 AM
Until there is a objective, definitive and universally accepted method for determining class rankings (and therefore how many * a player gets), this is all just meaningless gibberish.
While i get your point and i agree with it somewhat, it's not just meaningless gibberish.
Sure, people can point to a team like Butler which isn't comprised with a bunch of socalled 4-5 star recruits and yet they'll be in their second straight NCAA title game while squads full of better recruits like at Duke, OSU, Kansas, Kentucky, etc will be watching. Butler is an exception though.
For as flawed and how often wrong these star rankings can be with high school recruits in both college basketball and football, schools like Kansas, Duke, and N. Carolina are consistently top 5-10 teams almost entirely because their rosters are comprised of mostly just 4-5 star recruits.
So while it's regularly shown that plenty of 3 star recruits end up becoming better college players than 4-5 star guys do, in the end, the more 4-5 star recruits that a program signs, the more likely that the program with have lots of success.
The problem though for really big time recruits like Blue who sign with a Wisconsin or Marquette is that neither school is able to sign kids that often who are that highly thought of. This in turn tends to raise expectations higher for many of the fans. They expect the kid to be a really good player right away and if instead there are some struggles, quite a few fans starting saying what the hell is wrong with X player even though 5 stars next to a high school players name is far from a lock in guaranteeing great success in college.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 11:25:27 AM
Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was too much experience ahead of him.
I think the main reason by far that Vander Blue saw his playing to be as limited as it was is Vander himself.
I have zero doubt that Buzz would have liked to play Vander more, but his jump shot mechanics were simply to broken and he was to turnover prone when handling the ball. So even though Blue didn't struggle with the more typical defensive woes that so many freshman deal with, he was a big liability on the offensive. That forced Buzz to play Vander less, especially as the year went along and later in the season where it was obvious that MU was on the selection bubble. Buzz couldn't risk playing Blue to many minutes in games where he looked lost offensively.
QuoteBut the fact is that according to Buzz, Williams started in order to protect Crowder from picking up an early foul. That tells me that Buzz didn't favor experience--he wanted Crowder in the lineup ahead of Williams--for some very obvious reasons.
I'm sure Buzz views experience like the vast majority of all other college coaches. If say two players at the same position are roughly equal as players at that current time, the coach will give more of the minutes to the more experienced player. If though the coach feels a less experienced player will be more productive, experience loses out to productivity. For obvious reasons though, ideally coaches would prefer that their better players also be guys with experience, it just often doesn't work out that way.
QuotePut me in the category of being disappointed with what we got out of Blue this year. And that's not just because he didn't get a starting job on day one--after 12 points against DePaul, he only managed 24 points in the next 18 games.
I agree that fans have reason to be at least somewhat disappointed in Vander's freshman year. While it's not all that uncommon for highly ranked kids to struggle as freshman, many highly ranked freshman also do come in and play great right away. Vander wasn't terrible, but he was far from really good either. There were a variety of reasons for that, but IMO the clear biggest reason was his broken jump shot. He was terrible shooting from the perimeter and i think that affected the rest of his offensive game, and confidence. I'm reasonably confident that Vander will get back his ability to drive the paint and finish which he also struggled with this year, but a quality shooting guard needs to be able to do the first thing in his position title, be able to shoot the ball.
Blue has some funky mechanics on his jump shot and i'm sure the coaching staff noticed. So it will be interesting if in the offseason do they try to completely overhaul Vander's shooting mechanics, just tweak it, or leave it alone and simply ask him to shoot a ton of jumpers whenever he has free time?
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 01, 2011, 04:38:23 PM
I guess the issue for me is that if Buzz can coach Buycks or Smith to make the transition from 2G to the point in his offense, he could have done the same for Blue.
Here is where you went all wrong. Buycks was a 2nd year player at MU, with 3 years of post high school experience that included some time at the point. Blue is a 1st year player at MU who never played point in high school.
Just because Buzz was able to get Buycks to trasition in a year does not mean he 'could have done the same for blue' in a few months.
Part two of you going wrong is that you seem sure he should have tried. You ever think that he wants him to play the 2? Perhaps he thinks with Buyckes & JR this year, and JR & Wilson for the next 2 is ok. And that we don't need to take Blue out of his natural position. Perhaps Buzz (who knows a hell of a lot more about Blue than you) realizes that he could be an above avg 1 or a great 2 and has chose the latter.
Why are you so sure this is a good idea?
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 04, 2011, 12:07:06 PM
Here is where you went all wrong. Buycks was a 2nd year player at MU, with 3 years of post high school experience that included some time at the point. Blue is a 1st year player at MU who never played point in high school.
Just because Buzz was able to get Buycks to trasition in a year does not mean he 'could have done the same for blue' in a few months.
Also, Buycks played to point in JUCO and high school. So while he may be better suited for the two, he had plenty of experience at the point prior to his "transition" this year. He played out of his natural position, but by no means was the position new to him.
Likewise, Reggie Smith was a point guard in high school. More of scoring point guard than a set-up-the-offense-and-pass point guard, but he wasn't a 2G "coached" to play the point.
Which obviously would have been the case for Blue, who not only would have been playing out of his natural position, but would have been learning a new position.
So, yeah, those were bad comparisons.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 04, 2011, 12:41:05 PM
Also, Buycks played to point in JUCO and high school. So while he may be better suited for the two, he had plenty of experience at the point prior to his "transition" this year. He played out of his natural position, but by no means was the position new to him.
Likewise, Reggie Smith was a point guard in high school. More of scoring point guard than a set-up-the-offense-and-pass point guard, but he wasn't a 2G "coached" to play the point.
Which obviously would have been the case for Blue, who not only would have been playing out of his natural position, but would have been learning a new position.
So, yeah, those were bad comparisons.
Putting aside the irony of you suggesting that JUCO experience is relevant ("it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball"), I don't see any clear agreement or disagreement with the actual points I made.
1. It was frequently mentioned throughout the year by many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect. I'm not the first to say this.
As far as I know, you've never objected to the statement previously. Considering that Blue had an A/T ratio of 1.2 and Buycks 1.4, (even though Buycks had far more opportunities as the designated PG), I think there is some truth to the notion that Blue had the potential to be better--and it wasn't as if Buycks was putting up outstanding A/T numbers.
2. If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.
I note that you explain why you thought it might be
easier to teach Buycks and Smith to run the point (even though their prior experience is "nothing akin to D1"). The question is whether you think Buzz was
capable of teaching Blue to run the point in MU's 2010-11 offense.
I think he was capable--and if Blue had demonstrated James' 15 ppg scoring ability, I think we would have seen him do just that.
3. Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.
I don't see you objecting to this--largely because it would be pretty difficult for you to do so. Buzz runs a motion offense so any perimeter player can initiate the offense. It doesn't matter if Blue or Buycks (or DJO) dribble penetrates--they each would have the decision to take the shot, pass to a big inside, or pass back outside.
Its not like Buzz has hundreds of set plays for each player.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 04, 2011, 06:08:44 PM
Putting aside the irony of you suggesting that JUCO experience is relevant ("it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball"), I don't see any clear agreement or disagreement with the actual points I made.
1. It was frequently mentioned throughout the year by many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect. I'm not the first to say this.
Quote
What other posters said or didn't say is irrelevant to Blue's ability to play the point.
That said, being a point guard "prospect," and actually playing the position successfully for the first time as a freshman are hardly the same thing. I think you're confusing what people think Blue may eventually become with whether he would be that from the moment he set foot on campus.
QuoteAs far as I know, you've never objected to the statement previously. Considering that Blue had an A/T ratio of 1.2 and Buycks 1.4, (even though Buycks had far more opportunities as the designated PG), I think there is some truth to the notion that Blue had the potential to be better--and it wasn't as if Buycks was putting up outstanding A/T numbers.
Wait .... what?
Are you suggesting that anyone who posts here must actively object to every statement made or otherwise it's assumed they agree with it? What a stupid suggestion.
Secondly, the fact Blue had a worse A/T ratio, despite handling the ball less proves nothing, except the opposite of what you're suggesting ... that he was less suited to handle the point.
2. If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.
Ugh. Once again, Reggie Smith was not a two. He played the point in high school and was recruited to Marquette as a point. Likewise, Buycks was a combo guard who played point guard in high school and both point and off guard in JUCO.
Stop making things up. Nobody "coached" them how to play a new position this year. Unlike Blue, they both had extensive experience playing the point at lower levels.
QuoteI note that you explain why you thought it might be easier to teach Buycks and Smith to run the point (even though their prior experience is "nothing akin to D1"). The question is whether you think Buzz was capable of teaching Blue to run the point in MU's 2010-11 offense.
Not sure we're you're going here. Are you arguing that JUCO competition is the same as what Marquette plays, or do you agree with me, it's nothing akin to it? If it's the former, that's a really silly statement. If it's the latter, why are you even raising it?
But no, Buzz couldn't have taught Blue to play the point this year. I very much doubt any coach could have taught a natural two guard who never played the point in high school how to play the point against high-major competition in a couple of months.
Then question is why do you seem to think a coach can wave a magic wand and teach a kid who hasn't played the point how to do it?
Quote
3. Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.
Buzz would be a surprised to learn this. He's said that his offense does indeed have a point guard, a pivot and three "switchables."
Perhaps you know more about his offense than he does.