MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: jtsanto on January 14, 2012, 06:57:28 PM

Title: Vander
Post by: jtsanto on January 14, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
I was not able to see the game so I am asking this because of the stat line and a friends comments, what was up with Vander today? My friend said he seemed like he was not interested in the game. His line was clearly low for him and not sure if he is being passed by Mayo.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: esotericmindguy on January 14, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
The short answer? He's not very good at basketball.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: nyg on January 14, 2012, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: jtsanto on January 14, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
I was not able to see the game so I am asking this because of the stat line and a friends comments, what was up with Vander today? My friend said he seemed like he was not interested in the game. His line was clearly low for him and not sure if he is being passed by Mayo.

He did not play for the last 13 minutes when MU made it's run.  Mayo had the playing time.  Vander did see a few seconds at the end when Mayo fouled out.  Not a good day for him.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: AZWarrior on January 14, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Could be Buzz is coming to grips that Jr and Blue in the game together, against a team that is zoning us, is not a winning proposition.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: chicagowarrior on January 14, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
afraid to shoot?
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: GGGG on January 14, 2012, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 14, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Could be Buzz is coming to grips that Jr and Blue in the game together, against a team that is zoning us, is not a winning proposition.


It worked for a while against Syracuse.  I noticed that he was pulled right after he gave up a back door cut.  Never looked in the game at all.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: Markusquette on January 14, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 14, 2012, 09:41:14 PM

It worked for a while against Syracuse.  I noticed that he was pulled right after he gave up a back door cut.  Never looked in the game at all.

Did anyone notice his body language or mannerisms while on the bench in the second half?  Did it look like he was pouting or was he into it?
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: GGGG on January 14, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
Some have commented that he looked like he was pouting or "not into it."  They never showed him on camera.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: MUMac on January 14, 2012, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 14, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
Some have commented that he looked like he was pouting or "not into it."  They never showed him on camera.

I would disagree.  My seats are a few rows behind the bench.  At a key time in the game, he turned towards the crowd and waved his arms to get more noise.  He was cheering throughout, etc.  I even saw him extend his hand in a way that appeared to give a teammate a 5.

Sometimes when he plays poorly, he gets down on himself.  Some may take that as "pouting" or "not into it".  To me, he is upset with himself.  I think some people really look for any reason to criticize him.

Title: Re: Vander
Post by: GGGG on January 14, 2012, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: MUMac on January 14, 2012, 10:00:14 PM
I would disagree.  My seats are a few rows behind the bench.  At a key time in the game, he turned towards the crowd and waved his arms to get more noise.  He was cheering throughout, etc.  I even saw him extend his hand in a way that appeared to give a teammate a 5.

Sometimes when he plays poorly, he gets down on himself.  Some may take that as "pouting" or "not into it".  To me, he is upset with himself.  I think some people really look for any reason to criticize him.


Good to hear because he was really not very good today.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: MUMac on January 14, 2012, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 14, 2012, 10:02:24 PM

Good to hear because he was really not very good today.

He had some defensive moments.  But, some lapses as well.  He guarded Gibbs early in the 2nd half, and I thought did a good job.  Then they put DJO back on him and Gibbs continued to have a career day. 

That said, I would agree that Blue was not very good today. 
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 14, 2012, 10:42:36 PM
From what I saw, Vander was definitely "into the game" while on the bench.

No, he wasn't having a good game, but Junior (when not vomitting) and Mayo were having good games so Vander found himself on the bench. That happens sometimes.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: JTBMU7 on January 14, 2012, 10:46:42 PM
i wonder if there is a bug going around the team. JC was puking, maybe vander was sick too? even when he play poorly on offense he still is aggressive, i dont recall him attacking at all today. seemed odd.
my guess is he bounces back big time against l'ville.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: Spaniel with a Short Tail on January 14, 2012, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: MUMac on January 14, 2012, 10:00:14 PM
I even saw him extend his hand in a way that appeared to give a teammate a 5.

I haven't seen a media story on this - clear anti-Blue bias!
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: NersEllenson on January 14, 2012, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 14, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Could be Buzz is coming to grips that Jr and Blue in the game together, against a team that is zoning us, is not a winning proposition.
Bingo....thought this was one of Buzz's better coaching games that I recall.  In my opinion he found his go to lineup moving forward:  Cadougan, Mayo, DJO, Crowder, Wilson/Gardner with Mayo beginning to play "Blue" minutes, and Blue playing "Mayo" minutes.

Pitt ran the same play about 3 times in a row in the 2nd half that pulled Gardner up on high hedges..and MU got hurt in that with 3 buckets.  Buzz then sent Gardner to bench and Wilson into game.  Seemed Buzz modified his D in the St. John's game in the 2nd half where he allowed Gardner to not have to follow his man out to the top of key to defend ball screen.

Was good to see Jamil Wilson being very aggressive in all phases today.  He will be wildcard on the team this year...if he continues to play like he did today...team has Elite 8/Sweet 16 capability for sure.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: MUMac on January 14, 2012, 11:00:24 PM
I liked some extended moments in the 1st half with DG, Crowder and Wilson on the floor.  This can only benefit Wilson, who is being forced to play out of position due to CO's injurty.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: bilsu on January 14, 2012, 11:59:27 PM
A week ago there were posters arguing that he should replace Cadougan at point. That is a good indication that this board should not be the coach.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: brewcity77 on January 15, 2012, 07:11:07 AM
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on January 14, 2012, 09:43:24 PMDid anyone notice his body language or mannerisms while on the bench in the second half?  Did it look like he was pouting or was he into it?

One thing I did notice during a break was that when Buzz was huddling with the guys, DW, Juan, and Vander were off to the side, not really part of it. He had a bad day, Buzz was clearly sending a message, but I wouldn't worry. There isn't a player on this team that hasn't had a bad day or two this year. The main difference here is that Van's every mistake is under a microscope, whereas a lot of other guys are given a pass.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: jtsanto on January 15, 2012, 07:53:26 AM
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on January 14, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
Did anyone notice his body language or mannerisms while on the bench in the second half?  Did it look like he was pouting or was he into it?
This is what I am saying! This seems to be a trend and then they leave
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: We R Final Four on January 15, 2012, 08:29:30 AM
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2012, 10:57:13 PM
Bingo....thought this was one of Buzz's better coaching games that I recall.  In my opinion he found his go to lineup moving forward:  Cadougan, Mayo, DJO, Crowder, Wilson/Gardner with Mayo beginning to play "Blue" minutes, and Blue playing "Mayo" minutes.

Pitt ran the same play about 3 times in a row in the 2nd half that pulled Gardner up on high hedges..and MU got hurt in that with 3 buckets.  Buzz then sent Gardner to bench and Wilson into game.  Seemed Buzz modified his D in the St. John's game in the 2nd half where he allowed Gardner to not have to follow his man out to the top of key to defend ball screen.

Was good to see Jamil Wilson being very aggressive in all phases today.  He will be wildcard on the team this year...if he continues to play like he did today...team has Elite 8/Sweet 16 capability for sure.

You may want to hold off on buying those tickets for the Elite 8 just yet.  Love to see the improvement of JW today, but keep in mind this was his best game and it came against a winless conf. foe in Pitt.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 15, 2012, 08:48:45 AM
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 15, 2012, 08:29:30 AM
You may want to hold off on buying those tickets for the Elite 8 just yet.  Love to see the improvement of JW today, but keep in mind this was his best game and it came against a winless conf. foe in Pitt.
It was not his best game, Villanova was. But he's become a really solid contributor off the bench and is probably our most athletic player. Not sure what there is to complain about as far as Wilson is concerned. He's the guy who's going to be one to watch in the next couple years, not Vander.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: jsglow on January 15, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
I think that Mayo's defensive development was part of the reason that VB only played 15 minutes.  Mayo has always been more of a threat offensively and did a really good job guarding '12' (as Buzz would say) nothwithstanding a couple of misguided fouls on long three point attempts.  That said, I actually am starting to like Blue at the Point position when JC is out of the game.  Kind of funny, he'll play the one and the three but really can't effectively play the two.  Yesterday was not a good game because of turnovers and one or two defensive lapses.

One quick thought on Gibbs . . . He played one heck of a game yesterday in what he and Pitt perceived as a 'do or die' situation.  No one should worry that his career high was some kind of MU defensive lapse.  Best player on the floor, hands down.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: avid1010 on January 15, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Quote from: bilsu on January 14, 2012, 11:59:27 PM
A week ago there were posters arguing that he should replace Cadougan at point. That is a good indication that this board should not be the coach.

in essence this is much of what buzz did.  junior was playing well, so blue spent some time on the bench.  if you play it out a few years down the road, we have one more year of junior, and i don't believe tj taylor will be a pg for mu.  so, if blue can get comfortable at the PG position, during the remainder of this season and the 2012-2013 season, we'll have an experienced senior as a PG in 2013-2014 when we return everyone but junior.  if blue can't play the pg position well, then we're looking at tj taylor or d. wilson.  i don't believe wilson can defend, rebound, create, or finish as well as blue, and the shooting seems to be equal, so the thought of having a senior point guard for a team that will return 90%+ of it's scoring in 2013-2014 is appealing to me.  

i would also think buzz could recruit a pretty good freshman point guard for the 2013-2014 season as there should be playing time available, especially in upcoming years.  

i have to believe tj is a better shooter than blue, and to have mayo and tj taylor at the wings will open the lane for a point guard of blue's athleticism and size to get to the rim.  buzz isn't going to come out and say this type of thing publicly, but what makes this board fun is to try and predict that type of thing.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: We R Final Four on January 15, 2012, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 15, 2012, 08:48:45 AM
It was not his best game, Villanova was. But he's become a really solid contributor off the bench and is probably our most athletic player. Not sure what there is to complain about as far as Wilson is concerned. He's the guy who's going to be one to watch in the next couple years, not Vander.

PRN--who is complaining about Wison?  Like I said he played great.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: wadesworld on January 15, 2012, 09:03:18 AM
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 14, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
The short answer? He's not very good at basketball.

Yeah, he's part of the less than 1% of high school kids who get a division 1 athletic scholarship, not to mention starting on an upper half Big East men's basketball team, but he's not very good at basketball. OK guy.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: Canned Goods n Ammo on January 15, 2012, 09:11:02 AM
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 14, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
The short answer? He's not very good at basketball, yet.

Fixed.

He's got some big holes, but still some big potential.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: 79Warrior on January 15, 2012, 11:19:06 AM
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2012, 10:57:13 PM
Bingo....thought this was one of Buzz's better coaching games that I recall.  In my opinion he found his go to lineup moving forward:  Cadougan, Mayo, DJO, Crowder, Wilson/Gardner with Mayo beginning to play "Blue" minutes, and Blue playing "Mayo" minutes.

Pitt ran the same play about 3 times in a row in the 2nd half that pulled Gardner up on high hedges..and MU got hurt in that with 3 buckets.  Buzz then sent Gardner to bench and Wilson into game.  Seemed Buzz modified his D in the St. John's game in the 2nd half where he allowed Gardner to not have to follow his man out to the top of key to defend ball screen.

Was good to see Jamil Wilson being very aggressive in all phases today.  He will be wildcard on the team this year...if he continues to play like he did today...team has Elite 8/Sweet 16 capability for sure.

Not sure I would go all Elite 8/Sweet 16 after barely beating a lousy Pitt team at home. I will be more optimistic about this team is we can protect the home court against UL tomorrow. We have shown we can beat the weak teams. Lets see if we can send Pitino home with a loss.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: jeffreyweee on January 15, 2012, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 15, 2012, 07:11:07 AM
One thing I did notice during a break was that when Buzz was huddling with the guys, DW, Juan, and Vander were off to the side, not really part of it. He had a bad day, Buzz was clearly sending a message, but I wouldn't worry. There isn't a player on this team that hasn't had a bad day or two this year. The main difference here is that Van's every mistake is under a microscope, whereas a lot of other guys are given a pass.

This happened when Mayo fouled out. The people in the huddle were the 5 that were on the floor + DG because he was replacing Mayo. That's why everyone else was still on the side. Every time someone came out Vander was congratulating them and his spirits seemed fine.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: DCWarriors04 on January 15, 2012, 11:47:26 AM
While Pitt isn't the same team, I wouldn't call them lousy. This is a team that is missing a lot of fire power from last year and doesn't have their starting PG out there yet. Before the season is over they will make a run where they knock off teams ahead of them in the standings. Be glad we faced them when we did and not later on when Dixon has that team clicking.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: 79Warrior on January 15, 2012, 02:22:42 PM


I would call 0-5 in BE lousy. Likely 0-6 by end of Monday.
Title: Re: Vander
Post by: ErickJD08 on January 15, 2012, 03:01:25 PM
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 15, 2012, 07:11:07 AM
One thing I did notice during a break was that when Buzz was huddling with the guys, DW, Juan, and Vander were off to the side, not really part of it. He had a bad day, Buzz was clearly sending a message, but I wouldn't worry. There isn't a player on this team that hasn't had a bad day or two this year. The main difference here is that Van's every mistake is under a microscope, whereas a lot of other guys are given a pass.

I think people criticize his mistakes because he does them frequently every game. At least that is why I don't think he is very good. I think our best lineup under most circumstances is JC, DJO, TM, JC, and DG.

I think JW will continue to improve. He was very active on the boards yesterday and he is getting more confident. For example, I remember there were a couple of times during the St Johns game were he had an open 10 footer and didn't take it. Yesterday, he took it and hit it. Once he finds his role a bit more and gets a little more confidence, he should be solid.
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev