Some here have suggested Davante wasn't capable of playing 30 minutes at a high level due to his fitness level. It's also been said Davante was only so efficient offensively because Otule had "worn down" the opposing team, and Buzz could use Davante in favorable matchup situations. Davante's defense has been criticized as well.
Last night showed us a lot about Davante:
1) He's plenty fit to go 30 minutes
2) He can put up efficient offensive numbers against anyone, including a 7 footer like Alec Brown.
3) His defense has improved significantly (4 steals last night against Green Bay)
4) He's not the shot blocker of Otule - yet he had 7 rebounds last night and no turnovers, and a few nice passes out of the post.
We certainly will miss Chris - but Davante's increased minutes will also likely result in increased offensive efficiency, and his much maligned defense has improved and he is adequate.
He was adequate defensively. He wasn't guarding their big guy very often though.
Gardner looked good out there last night. That said, if people look hard enough and long enough they'll find something they don't like. Yeah, it sucks not having Otule in, but this team can win without him. The team has time to learn how to play without him before the BEast portion of the schedule begins.
1) Plenty fit? Did you not see him sucking wind every time he was out there in the last 5 minutes of the first half and last 10 of the second? He still did good work on the offensive end, but you could tell the minutes were getting to him.
2) And he always has been able to. He did great offensively last night, I have no complaints on that end.
3) Eesht...I don't know. Brown destroyed Gardner when he was on him. Career highs in both points and rebounds and Buzz had to put Gardner on Cougill...which allowed Cougill to make some easy entry passes to the paint.
4) Rebounding was solid, but almost all of those were off Vander's misses. Only one defensive rebound.
I love his offensive game, but his greatest value to our defense is his ability to draw fouls on the offensive end and hopefully get his man to spend time on the bench. I just hope Jamil is back soon...Ox played a massive 30 minutes against a slow-paced team like Green Bay, but no way does he put in that kind of time against Big East competition.
Especially against better competition, Davante will be more effective as a 12-15 mpg player. He drifts out to the perimeter defensively too often and doesn't box out near well enough when he is down low. He excels as a change-of-pace guy, but he's definitely not a 25-30 mpg player every night.
I want him to succeed, but it's natural to see a defensive dropoff with him out there, and if he has to play that many minutes, he's not going to be as efficient offensively.
You guys are ridiculous. Gardner played very, very well on both offense and defense last night.
First, The Sultan says..."He was adequate defensively. He wasn't guarding their big guy very often though."
Then, Brewcity says..."Brown destroyed Gardner when he was on him. Career highs in both points and rebounds"
Either he was guarding him or he wasn't. Then, "he was tired at the end of both halves" so was everybody else. My favorate though is this gem..."Rebounding was solid, but almost all of those were off Vander's misses." , now it matters who shoots and when the rebounds are? As if Gardner had 20 rebounds but if they were on Vander misses there no good. Besides I have never heard of a rebound on a made shot?
Quote from: denverMU on December 11, 2011, 01:37:09 PM
You guys are ridiculous. Gardner played very, very well on both offense and defense last night.
First, The Sultan says..."He was adequate defensively. He wasn't guarding their big guy very often though."
Then, Brewcity says..."Brown destroyed Gardner when he was on him. Career highs in both points and rebounds"
Either he was guarding him or he wasn't. T
I think there is nothing inconsistent between our statements. When Gardner was guarding Brown, Brown killed him. They moved Gardner off of him.
QuoteQuote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2011, 01:40:19 PM
I think there is nothing inconsistent between our statements. When Gardner was guarding Brown, Brown killed him. They moved Gardner off of him.
Really, you have broken down the film and all of Browns 22 points and 14 rebounds were when Davante was guarding him. No one else on MU were responsible for how well Brown played.
Come on guys, Gardner is better than any 6'8" or taller player we had in the last 6 years. I'm grateful we have him.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2011, 01:40:19 PMI think there is nothing inconsistent between our statements. When Gardner was guarding Brown, Brown killed him. They moved Gardner off of him.
+1
And my point about him rebounding Vander's misses was meant to illustrate that in 30 minutes, he had 1 defensive rebound. We need better from our center, or teams like Vandy, Georgetown, and Syracuse are going to destroy us on the offensive glass.
Quote from: denverMU on December 11, 2011, 01:45:47 PM
Really, you have broken down the film and all of Browns 22 points and 14 rebounds were when Davante was guarding him. No one else on MU were responsible for how well Brown played.
Just because he wasn't on him for all of his points and rebounds doesn't negate the fact that Brown was eating Davante up.
Brown also has 5 inches on Gardner. Christ, be appreciative of the fact that we have someone on the team at 6'8" that knows what to do with the ball once he gets it.
All due respect Brew - Gardner is a very, very solid player and will soften the blow of losing Chris. I like Chris and agree that he as a good deal of value to the team - certainly is a better defender than Davante - but really disagree with you on how much you minimize Davante's contributions to the team.
DG has a really nice skill set, and can play 20+ minutes per game and be productive. Seems you greatly embellish what Chris brings to the table, while generally discrediting what Davante does. DG was practically our best player against Duke and UNC last year...his production and offensive efficiency speak for themselves. I propose that whatever DG yields defensively, he cancels out/equals offensively
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2011, 02:18:57 PM
All due respect Brew - Gardner is a very, very solid player and will soften the blow of losing Chris. I like Chris and agree that he as a good deal of value to the team - certainly is a better defender than Davante - but really disagree with you on how much you minimize Davante's contributions to the team.
DG has a really nice skill set, and can play 20+ minutes per game and be productive. Seems you greatly embellish what Chris brings to the table, while generally discrediting what Davante does. DG was practically our best player against Duke and UNC last year...his production and offensive efficiency speak for themselves. I propose that whatever DG yields defensively, he cancels out/equals offensively
Agree 100%Your last paragraph is skewed towards offense. Nobody is disputing Davante brings more to the table on that end of the floor. The presence of Otule on the defensive end changes what teams are able to do offensively. The presence of Gardner on the defensive end pretty much allows teams to do what they want offensively. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 11, 2011, 02:30:46 PM
Agree 100%
Your last paragraph is skewed towards offense. Nobody is disputing Davante brings more to the table on that end of the floor. The presence of Otule on the defensive end changes what teams are able to do offensively. The presence of Gardner on the defensive end pretty much allows teams to do what they want offensively. It's as simple as that.
Agree to an extent - though I really only recall 1, truly game changing play Chris made in his MU career thus far and it was a block down the stretch against Cuse in the regular season game last year. If we start playing Derrick Wilson more, our team will be significantly better defensively than it has been in years past as he can absolutely keep guards out of the paint/stop penetration (unlike Junior). Van and DJO certainly can keep action out of the paint. So long as our perimeter defenders don't get broken down off the dribble - it isn't QUITE as critical to have a guy like Chris patrolling the middle.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2011, 02:18:57 PMAll due respect Brew - Gardner is a very, very solid player and will soften the blow of losing Chris. I like Chris and agree that he as a good deal of value to the team - certainly is a better defender than Davante - but really disagree with you on how much you minimize Davante's contributions to the team.
DG has a really nice skill set, and can play 20+ minutes per game and be productive. Seems you greatly embellish what Chris brings to the table, while generally discrediting what Davante does. DG was practically our best player against Duke and UNC last year...his production and offensive efficiency speak for themselves. I propose that whatever DG yields defensively, he cancels out/equals offensively
kenpom.com adjusted defensive ratings of Final Four teams:
2011:
14 Connecticut, 15 Kentucky, 49 Butler, 86 VCU
2010:
4 Duke, 5 Butler, 22 West Virginia, 30 Michigan State
2009: 3 Connecticut, 10 Michigan State, 15 Villanova,
16 North Carolina2008:
1 Kansas, 3 UCLA, 4 Memphis, 19 North Carolina
2007: 2 UCLA,
12 Florida, 15 Ohio State, 20 Georgetown
2006: 3 UCLA, 4 LSU,
5 Florida, 18 George Mason
2005:
5 North Carolina, 11 Illinois, 14 Louisville, 25 Michigan State
2004: 3 Georgia Tech, 4 Duke,
5 Connecticut, 12 Oklahoma State
2003: 1 Kansas,
19 Syracuse, 44 Texas, 101 Marquette
In the past 9 years, 6 teams have reached the Final Four with an adjusted defensive rating worse than 20. That means 83.3% of all Final Four teams over close to the past decade have been in the top-20 of defensive ratings. In addition, only 2 teams have made a Final Four with a defensive rating lower than Buzz's 56.3 average defensive rating in his first three seasons -- 2011 VCU and 2003 Marquette.
Bottom line, with very few exceptions, if you want to play the last weekend, you need to have a good defense. You can't try to cancel it out with a good offense. If you look at all of the top-ten offenses over that span that had defensive ratings of 50 or worse, you will find 33 teams. Of those, only 1 made the Final Four (2003 Marquette).
My hope for this team a week ago was higher than most -- contend for the Big East title and tournament, get a #1 seed, make a solid run at the Final Four and possibly win the whole darn thing. That was because we had the #13 defense in the country. In our past two games without Otule, that has dropped twice, to #15 and now to #18. If that keeps falling, the odds are we won't be dancing beyond the second weekend, and we definitely won't have any chance of adding our name to that list of bold-faced teams you see above.
Yo, it's only December. This team is young and will rebound. Glad to see you've got solid faith in the team out there. Buzz will have this team ready for BEast play. Has the team had some questionable down moments; yes. That said, I'll take the down moments right now so that Buzz and his coaching staff can work the kinks out before March.
Wesley Sissel Unseld, for those who do not know, was a six foot seven inch (maybe), 270 center who played at Louisville, and with Baltimore/Washington for over 10 years in the NBA. He could not jump. He was hardly lithe. He seemed to move slow. He seemed to get "winded." But, he had a great career.
This fan always thought Unseld was one-of-a-kind player. Yet, if you look at Davante Gardner you see exactly the same sort of player ... you see the same shooting ability (the same shot, actually), the same moves under the basket, the same jarring picks, the same passing, etc.
It is a different basketball game than when Unseld played. But, he was always a winner. Nine games into a sophomore year, Davante Gardner has shown poise, cool, and ability to improve his game. This kid is going to have a big, big impact for the Warriors before he is done.
PS In Italian (davanti), French (devant) and Spanish (delante) all mean ahead, or first, as first in line :)
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
Agree to an extent - though I really only recall 1, truly game changing play Chris made in his MU career thus far and it was a block down the stretch against Cuse in the regular season game last year. If we start playing Derrick Wilson more, our team will be significantly better defensively than it has been in years past as he can absolutely keep guards out of the paint/stop penetration (unlike Junior). Van and DJO certainly can keep action out of the paint. So long as our perimeter defenders don't get broken down off the dribble - it isn't QUITE as critical to have a guy like Chris patrolling the middle.
How many times has an opposing team's guard gotten by our guy but didn't penetrate all the way to the basket because of the mere threat of getting his shot blocked, leading to a more difficult/lower %age shot?
How many times has Chris blocked the opposing team's big guy out effectively, allowing one of our smaller guys to get the board that the other team's big guy would otherwise have gotten?
Don't think of it in terms of a specific play that shows up in the box score or even a singular game changing play...that's not at all what I'm talking about. Just the fact that we have an imposing interior defender in the paint changes how the other team goes about their offense and is an immense benefit. Nobody is going to have a second thought about driving the lane with Gardner in there.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 11, 2011, 01:47:31 PM
Come on guys, Gardner is better than any 6'8" or taller player we had in the last 6 years. I'm grateful we have him.
Did he at least crack a smile while on the court?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 11, 2011, 02:58:27 PM
How many times has an opposing team's guard gotten by our guy but didn't penetrate all the way to the basket because of the mere threat of getting his shot blocked, leading to a more difficult/lower %age shot?
How many times has Chris blocked the opposing team's big guy out effectively, allowing one of our smaller guys to get the board that the other team's big guy would otherwise have gotten?
Don't think of it in terms of a specific play that shows up in the box score or even a singular game changing play...that's not at all what I'm talking about. Just the fact that we have an imposing interior defender in the paint changes how the other team goes about their offense and is an immense benefit. Nobody is going to have a second thought about driving the lane with Gardner in there.
Not sure it matters if the opposition doesn't have to think twice about driving the lane due to a big man present - if they can't penetrate due to very good perimeter defense by our guards (which Derrick Wilson greatly helps with). Does Buzz have MU alter its offensive plan of attack to attack the paint off the dribble based off of the opposition having a center/shot blocker? Think we are always attacking the rim..always..regardless of who's in the middle on the opposition.
Not saying as a player you don't think twice about driving the lane with a DOMINANT big in the lane - though I don't think Chris qualifies as a dominate/elite shot blocker...and more critical is perimeter defense.
If you're looking for "game changing plays" out of Otule defensively, you're quietly shifting the frame you're talking about. Otule's number one job is to make sure that neither team has/needs "game changing" dramatic type plays in the paint while he's in. He slows the game down by not allowing the other team to slash to the hoop, backing big men away from the hoop, etc. If one of the other four MU players on the floor makes a "game changing" defensive play at the basket while Otule's in, generally speaking Chris has already done something wrong.
Quote from: MUBurrow on December 11, 2011, 04:14:42 PM
If you're looking for "game changing plays" out of Otule defensively, you're quietly shifting the frame you're talking about. Otule's number one job is to make sure that neither team has/needs "game changing" dramatic type plays in the paint while he's in. He slows the game down by not allowing the other team to slash to the hoop, backing big men away from the hoop, etc. If one of the other four MU players on the floor makes a "game changing" defensive play at the basket while Otule's in, generally speaking Chris has already done something wrong.
?? - So looking for game changing plays or other measurable production out of a player isn't an accurate measuring stick as to impact? Instead we need to look for a player (Center) "slowing a game down by not allowing the other team to slash to the hoop??" Does stopping a player from getting to the hoop not start with EVERY other player on the team other than the Center? Otule is simply the last line of defense if the other players have defensive break downs.
One thing I'll give Chris credit for is that on the offensive end, he does seal his man well, which makes things easier for our slashers - yet I see Davante being just as effective in that role, plus better offensively.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2011, 06:03:06 PM
?? - So looking for game changing plays or other measurable production out of a player isn't an accurate measuring stick as to impact? Instead we need to look for a player (Center) "slowing a game down by not allowing the other team to slash to the hoop??" Does stopping a player from getting to the hoop not start with EVERY other player on the team other than the Center? Otule is simply the last line of defense if the other players have defensive break downs.One thing I'll give Chris credit for is that on the offensive end, he does seal his man well, which makes things easier for our slashers - yet I see Davante being just as effective in that role, plus better offensively.
How many times a game do our guards/wings get beat on dribble penetration? 10? 15? 20? It happens. Most other teams we play have highly athletic, good players just like we do.
Even if it's only 10, those possessions significantly impact the outcome of the game. I'd prefer to have someone in the middle that has a prayer of 1) making that player think twice about going to the rim leading to another pass and most likely a lower % shot, 2) altering a shot, 3)getting a body on his guy or 4)blocking a shot. Gardner cannot do any of this as well as Otule can.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2011, 06:03:06 PM
?? - So looking for game changing plays or other measurable production out of a player isn't an accurate measuring stick as to impact?
My point is that no, its often not. I really don't want this to turn into a Gardner vs. Otule debate, because my overarching point is they do such different things - Davante's just happen to show up on the stat sheet, whereas Chris' rarely do. Chris can play 20 minutes and have very little on the stat sheet, yet make you walk away and say "he had a really good game." Chances are if Davante plays 20 mins and the stat sheet looks bare, he didn't have the impact on the game Chris would with the same stats. Thats not even just the (imho inflated) expectations talking, its just the way I see their respective effects on the game. Chris won't ever blow you away with stats or dramatics. Davante very well could.
I have Gardner as the second most productive player on the court against UWGB. Jae was +7 pts and Davante was +5.3. However, a concern is that the defensive eFG% was poor for the second game in a row (1H was great. 2H was terrible).
I've long been advocating for Gardner to get more minutes. Statistically, the numbers have consistently been favorable to Davante and less so to Otule.
If nothing else, a silver lining of the Otule injury is that it will help provide an answer to the question of giving Davante more minutes.
We got crushed on the boards and defensive eFG% has been terrible since Otule went down. That tells me all I need to know about Otule's value to the team.
I'm not on either side of the debate. What's sad is that it has become if you favor Devante, you bash Chris to make your point and vice versa. Both of thier games are flawed on one side of the court, but what's clear is that we aren't as good without Chris, just like we wouldn't be as good without Davante. For years we have been playing without any semblance of production from a true center at the 5 spot. This season we were finally getting 40 quality minutes from the 5, with the option of subbing offense/defense as matchups, time, and score dictated. That is a LUXURY we no longer have. Now we're back to playing a PF at center at least some of the time, and that would be the case if Gardner had gone down instead. Teams like that have ceilings due to a lower margin for error. We need BOTH of those guys healthy for this team to reach its full potential, which I think is a final four/national championship.
Quote from: Jamailman on December 12, 2011, 11:57:10 AM
What's sad is that it has become if you favor Devante, you bash Chris to make your point and vice versa.
Yep. Very sad indeed.
Their skills compliment each other. Why drag one down to support the other?
Quote from: MUMac on December 12, 2011, 11:59:20 AMYep. Very sad indeed.
Their skills compliment each other. Why drag one down to support the other?
Both are important, and there's no doubt that not only do they compliment each other, but neither can provide the skills the other does. Chris can't score, shoot, or pass like Davante, and Gardner can't defend, block shots, or close the lane like Otule.
We are simply a much better team with both guys in the lineup.
Quote from: Jamailman on December 12, 2011, 11:57:10 AM
We got crushed on the boards and defensive eFG% has been terrible since Otule went down. That tells me all I need to know about Otule's value to the team.
I'm not on either side of the debate. What's sad is that it has become if you favor Devante, you bash Chris to make your point and vice versa. Both of thier games are flawed on one side of the court, but what's clear is that we aren't as good without Chris, just like we wouldn't be as good without Davante. For years we have been playing without any semblance of production from a true center at the 5 spot. This season we were finally getting 40 quality minutes from the 5, with the option of subbing offense/defense as matchups, time, and score dictated. That is a LUXURY we no longer have. Now we're back to playing a PF at center at least some of the time, and that would be the case if Gardner had gone down instead. Teams like that have ceilings due to a lower margin for error. We need BOTH of those guys healthy for this team to reach its full potential, which I think is a final four/national championship.
A few points.
We did not get crushed on the boards, except against Washington. Defensive rebounding has been an issue all season so far, for reasons that I can only think of as being strategic.
It's also too early to draw any conclusions as to how effective Marquette will be defensively (or offensively). The Washington game was the first in-game adjustment, and the 1H defensive eFG% against UWGB was very good.
Like it or not, how Buzz uses Gardner and Otule makes the situation a zero sum conversation. Before last week, Buzz chose to play one or the other. That situation creates a winner and a loser and a better/worse discussion.
I don't think anyone disputes that Chris is a valuable member of the team and Marquette is better with him and Gardner together. That's a strawman argument.
To me, the question is, "how much of a dropoff will occur for Marquette?" if we only use Gardner.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 12, 2011, 12:15:03 PM
Both are important, and there's no doubt that not only do they compliment each other, but neither can provide the skills the other does. Chris can't score, shoot, or pass like Davante, and Gardner can't defend, block shots, or close the lane like Otule.
We are simply a much better team with both guys in the lineup.
Exactly right. They are both excellent on one side of the ball and mediocre to serviceable on the other side. They're both at their best with 20-25 mpg while playing in offense/defense situations that suit them best. As a tandem they gave our team a dimension it had been lacking for a long time. Buzz does not have the option to play a center for 40 minutes any more, and that hurts the team a great deal. REALLY hope Chris can make it back by February to get into the flow of things somewhat in time for March, even if he can only give us 10-15 minutes. It's the difference between this team being very good and great.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 12, 2011, 12:30:53 PM
To me, the question is, "how much of a dropoff will occur for Marquette?" if we only use Gardner.
My answer to the question is that the dropoff would be the same if you asked the question with Otule in place of Gardner. On the one hand we're better on offense but worse on defense. On the other hand we're worse on defense but better on offense. I would think the person harping on defensive eFG% (and I agree with you) would recognize the value Otule brings to that part of the equation. This team is appreciably better with 40 minutes from a true center, however you want to split that between Davante and Otule, 25/15, 20/20, or 15/25.
It also gave us insurance in case one got in foul trouble. Now if Davante picks up a few quick ones we're looking at 20-25 minutes at the C from JWilson and/or Crowder, and that's not a formula for deep tournament runs.
All in all I was pleased with Gardner's play against Green Bay. The first thing I expected to happen was that he would foul out. I think he ended up with only one foul. Second of all when he was on Alec Brown he used his body to keep him away from the basket. When Brown got inside position at least Gardner did not make it worse by fouling him. I think most of Brown's point's came against someone else besides Gardner. The first time Gardner went out Alec scored two straight times, once over Crowder and once over Jones. In the second half he also hit a 25ft three. Brown was very mobile. It will be interesting to see how Gardner does against a stronger less moible center.
Quote from: Jamailman on December 12, 2011, 12:44:16 PM
My answer to the question is that the dropoff would be the same if you asked the question with Otule in place of Gardner. On the one hand we're better on offense but worse on defense. On the other hand we're worse on defense but better on offense. I would think the person harping on defensive eFG% (and I agree with you) would recognize the value Otule brings to that part of the equation. This team is appreciably better with 40 minutes from a true center, however you want to split that between Davante and Otule, 25/15, 20/20, or 15/25.
It also gave us insurance in case one got in foul trouble. Now if Davante picks up a few quick ones we're looking at 20-25 minutes at the C from JWilson and/or Crowder, and that's not a formula for deep tournament runs.
No one is disputing that Marquette is better with both Otule and Gardner than with just Gardner.
As for the offensive/defensive tradeoff between Gardner and Otule, I'm curious to see how things change with Otule out. I'm not convinced that Otule plays an irreplaceable role in the early season defensive eFG% improvement. He's basically had the same overall stats (blocks, defensive rebounds, etc) from last year. And, last year's team was not good defensively.
I'm really not trying to knock Otule here. If anything, it's more about wanting to see the data of this "experiment", with a wistful hope that Marquette doesn't have a significant dropoff.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 12, 2011, 01:27:20 PM
No one is disputing that Marquette is better with both Otule and Gardner than with just Gardner.
As for the offensive/defensive tradeoff between Gardner and Otule, I'm curious to see how things change with Otule out. I'm not convinced that Otule plays an irreplaceable role in the early season defensive eFG% improvement. He's basically had the same overall stats (blocks, defensive rebounds, etc) from last year. And, last year's team was not good defensively.
I'm really not trying to knock Otule here. If anything, it's more about wanting to see the data of this "experiment", with a wistful hope that Marquette doesn't have a significant dropoff.
I know it's a really small sample, but how do MU"s pre and post Otule injury defensive stats compare?
Rebounding is a Huge problem for us. The only solution I see is gving J Wilson more minutes on the floor some of which come at 3. I would like him out there 30 minutes a game once healty. 10 mins at the 3, 10 mins at the 4, and 10 mins at the 5 or have Crowder slid over at the 5.
If you look at our team what player's are good rebounder's for there postion? Crowder and Otule and Gardner are average at there postion. Crowder due to HT, Gardner due to leaping, and Otule does not have good hands.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 12, 2011, 01:53:41 PM
I know it's a really small sample, but how do MU"s pre and post Otule injury defensive stats compare?
Depends on how you look at it.
For the season.
Def Eff - 0.89 ppp
eFG% - 43% (#26)
TO% - 27% (#15)
DR% - 35% (#242)
FTR - 24.6% (#8)
UW wasn't good by any stretch. 1.08 ppp allowed; 53% def eFG%; 22% TO, 47% DR%; 15% FTR
UWGB depends on how you look at it. 0.80 ppp allowed; 47% def eFG%; 35% TO, 36% DR%; 16% FTR. Overall ppp and turnover rate were good. Def RB% was fine. Def eFG% was poor. However, the 1H def EFG% was 41%.
While I would not consider Otule a good rebounder, I think he would have kept Washington's center from getting so many offensive rebounds. Also MU will get better as they adjust to playing without Otule. However, I felt we were a three seed with Otule and it is hard to say were we are now.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 12, 2011, 01:27:20 PM
I'm really not trying to knock Otule here. If anything, it's more about wanting to see the data of this "experiment", with a wistful hope that Marquette doesn't have a significant dropoff.
I can get behind that. Would love to see us end the season in the coveted top 25 slot of adjusted D with or without Otule.