Gardner's return remains uncertain
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/138877749.html
If he doesn't play at UConn there is reason for concern.
Until then we're lucky with how the sked breaks. He can either play vs Cinci and then benefit from the long week off for recovery or he can continue to rest and have nearly 2 weeks to get ready for UConn. We win at home without him. It's when we have 3 road games out of 4 that we need to be back at full strength if possible.
Count me being in the camp that thinks Yancy Gates and Co. could be really tough without Gardner.
Quote from: The Lens on February 07, 2012, 03:33:04 PM
If he doesn't play at UConn there is reason for concern.
Until then we're lucky with how the sked breaks. He can either play vs Cinci and then benefit from the long week off for recovery or he can continue to rest and have nearly 2 weeks to get ready for UConn. We win at home without him. It's when we have 3 road games out of 4 that we need to be back at full strength if possible.
It said he could have gone last night but didn't out of caution. Pretty confident he'll be back either Saturday or next week against UConn.
I think he'll dress Saturday and come off the bench in an "if necessary" role.
Quote from: Wade for President on February 07, 2012, 03:36:53 PM
Count me being in the camp that thinks Yancy Gates and Co. could be really tough without Gardner.
Me too. I think he sits one more week and then hopefully rested totally for UCONN.
Beating Cincy without Gardner, even at home will be a task.
Agree, we need Gardner to play to have a change to beat Cincinnati. And, the sooner he plays he can knock off the growing rust from being idle. He was starting to play more minutes before the injury. Hope he hasn't lost too much.
I think we beat cincy at home with or without gardner.
It's sad that fans think a team as good as us needs one player to have a chance to beat an unranked team.
Quote from: jhags15 on February 07, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
It's sad that fans think a team as good as us needs one player to have a chance to beat an unranked team.
No crap. Gardner would obviously help, but MU definitely does not "need him" in order to win the game against Cincy this weekend.
Quote from: jhags15 on February 07, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
It's sad that fans think a team as good as us needs one player to have a chance to beat an unranked team.
But...Otule/Gardner >>> David Robinson/Tim Duncan
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on February 07, 2012, 05:49:06 PM
But...Otule/Gardner >>> David Robinson/Tim Duncan
Compared to any center tandem we've had in the past 15-20 years, that may actually be true....
Quote from: jhags15 on February 07, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
It's sad that fans think a team as good as us needs one player to have a chance to beat an unranked team.
Not really, Cincy is a really, really good road team. Ask G-town and UConn. They also had an 7 or 8-game road winning streak in the BEast spanning from last year to the start of this conference season. With Cashmere and Gates, they can beat any team on any given night barring a Kentucky or Cuse.
Gardner needs to be healthy and ready for March. If that means having to do without him most or all of February, so be it.
With respect to Cincy, just remember that last week Depaul played them even at Cincy for 36 minutes, and only folded in the final stretch.... I really don't think that Cincy is that good. At home I think it's a W either way. Only problem is that I can't quite muster the same vitriol for Cronin (who seems a good guy) as compared to Huggy bear.
It's easy to look at Cincinnati and think, "Oh, no. Yancy Gates." While Gates certainly is not a player to take lightly, you have to remember that the Bearcats go four guards for most of the game (post-brawl). If Marquette can limit Gates like they did Pope in the second half, it comes down to guard play. With the way Junior and Blue have stepped up (and the consistency of DJO), I like Marquette's odds.
Quote from: Aaronj2005 on February 07, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
With respect to Cincy, just remember that last week Depaul played them even at Cincy for 36 minutes, and only folded in the final stretch.... I really don't think that Cincy is that good. At home I think it's a W either way. Only problem is that I can't quite muster the same vitriol for Cronin (who seems a good guy) as compared to Huggy bear.
You realize that we trailed after 20 minutes to DePaul last night and we didn't really put them away until the last couple of minutes either, right? We were down double-digits to them.
Another problem is our rebounding without Gardner. DePaul is the worst rebounding Big East team, and they were POUNDING us on the glass in the first half. Cincinnati will take advantage of that on Saturday.
Quote from: jhags15 on February 07, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
It's sad that fans think a team as good as us needs one player to have a chance to beat an unranked team.
Really?!? Do you not recall an "unranked" team coming to the Bradley Center and throttling us? Cincy/Gates has given us trouble in the past, and having Gardner back would be a huge benefit for MU. Maybe not
totally necessary to get the win, but our size and depth are big question marks at this time.
We got embarassed on Saturday, were trailing a lousy DePaul team by 12 on Monday (both teams unranked...cough, cough). It's not sad my friend...it's reality.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 08, 2012, 12:08:10 AM
You realize that we trailed after 20 minutes to DePaul last night and we didn't really put them away until the last couple of minutes either, right? We were down double-digits to them.
Another problem is our rebounding without Gardner. DePaul is the worst rebounding Big East team, and they were POUNDING us on the glass in the first half. Cincinnati will take advantage of that on Saturday.
Disagree. MU put them away early in the 2nd half. Never really concerned that De Paul could come back. Yes, they cut it to single digits, but that was it.
If Cincy shoots as unbelievably as De Paul did, they will likely take a lead on us as well. When De Paul played De Paul ball, MU smoked them. The 25-5 run from the 3 minute mark of the 1st half to the 2nd half is demonstrative of that. MU turned up the heat defensively and De Paul could not answer. I kind of expect something similar on Saturday.
Quote from: Wade for President on February 08, 2012, 07:52:10 AM
Really?!? Do you not recall an "unranked" team coming to the Bradley Center and throttling us? Cincy/Gates has given us trouble in the past, and having Gardner back would be a huge benefit for MU. Maybe not totally necessary to get the win, but our size and depth are big question marks at this time.
We got embarassed on Saturday, were trailing a lousy DePaul team by 12 on Monday (both teams unranked...cough, cough). It's not sad my friend...it's reality.
See, this is the inconsistency I do not understand. On Saturday, we got embarrassed by the final score. It was a game (4 points) with 10 to go. MU doesn't get any credit for the first 30 minutes. But, on Monday, De Paul get's all the credit in the world for the first 17 minutes when they built their lead, but MU get's no credit for dominating from that point out to win the game.
Cincy isn't that good, not actually that big, and they're on the road. They also haven't really played well in a month (the ND game)
We can beat anybody and lose to anybody. Taking a team with Gates lightly, especially when we probably will be without Gardner, is just silly.
I hope for a win and I think we'll win. But to talk like this is going to be "easy" ... I don't know what folks have seen so far to convince them of this.
Just get our press going and we're ok against Cincy. Our guards are too strong for theirs in a full court game, and we'll steal half of the entry passes to Gates. Was the game changer against DePaul-they struggled to get the ball up, tried long passes inside and got them stolen, and spent so much energy dealing with the press that their shooting went ice cold. We don't have more guard depth than they do, but Vander, Mayo, and DWill are strong defenders and this style lets them show that off. It also opens the things up for Jae to add to his steal totals, and spaces the floor, which allows undersized but athletic players to get more boards.
Quote from: MUMac on February 08, 2012, 07:58:35 AM
Disagree. MU put them away early in the 2nd half. Never really concerned that De Paul could come back. Yes, they cut it to single digits, but that was it.
If Cincy shoots as unbelievably as De Paul did, they will likely take a lead on us as well. When De Paul played De Paul ball, MU smoked them. The 25-5 run from the 3 minute mark of the 1st half to the 2nd half is demonstrative of that. MU turned up the heat defensively and De Paul could not answer. I kind of expect something similar on Saturday.
Quote from: MUMac on February 08, 2012, 08:04:54 AM
See, this is the inconsistency I do not understand. On Saturday, we got embarrassed by the final score. It was a game (4 points) with 10 to go. MU doesn't get any credit for the first 30 minutes. But, on Monday, De Paul get's all the credit in the world for the first 17 minutes when they built their lead, but MU get's no credit for dominating from that point out to win the game.
Isn't your first post, well, pretty inconsistent in its own right? You complain that Wade for President doesn't give Marquette credit for 30 minutes of good basketball (fortunately for us this season, games are 40 minutes long, so I'm not sure we need to give credit for 30 minutes when 40 minutes is what we need), yet you say that the 25-5 run was more demonstrative of "DePaul ball." Should they not receive credit for 20 minutes of good basketball (they led into the 2nd half)? And maybe the last 10 minutes of the Notre Dame game were Marquette getting back into "Marquette ball." I mean, let's face it, we typically play a good 30 minutes and a horrible 10 minutes in games. Against Notre Dame, our 30 good minutes weren't good enough to make up for the 10 horrible minutes like it has been a number of games. So maybe that was "Marquette ball."
I guess if you want to go knock DePaul and claim that it was just because of a hot streak (no doubt they made some prayers, but they also outhustled us in every way in the 1st half, also knocked down some WIDE OPEN 3s, and KILLED us on the offensive board) rather than giving them credit for a good 25 minutes (within 4 with 15 to go, like Marquette was within 4 with 10 to go at Notre Dame), then I'm not sure how you can give credit for Marquette having a good 30 minutes at Notre Dame. Heck, Marquette never held a double-digit lead at Notre Dame like DePaul did on Monday. Seems hypocritical to me.
Quote from: Aaronj2005 on February 07, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
With respect to Cincy, just remember that last week Depaul played them even at Cincy for 36 minutes, and only folded in the final stretch.... I really don't think that Cincy is that good. At home I think it's a W either way. Only problem is that I can't quite muster the same vitriol for Cronin (who seems a good guy) as compared to Huggy bear.
Cronin is a 100% douche. Witness his bullshit "faux tough guy" press conference after the Xavier game and then his subsequent gutless punishment.
Cronin was known as a douche under Huggins. He was known as a douche when he left under the dark of night to be at Pitino's side. He was known as a douche at Murray State. He was known as a douche for scheduling the 15 worst teams in Division I last year full well knowing he'd be fired if he didn't stockpile wins of any kind.
The irony of it all is that Huggy is known as a pretty good dude off the court. Same with Pitino. But as MU fans we're always going to have the ones we hate.
Quote from: strotty on February 07, 2012, 11:57:18 PM
If Marquette can limit Gates like they did Pope in the second half, it comes down to guard play. With the way Junior and Blue have stepped up (and the consistency of DJO), I like Marquette's odds.
Foul problems stopped Pope. Pope had 16 points before picking up his 4th foul with over 10 minutes left in the game. He didn't score a basket after that.
With no Gardner, Gates will have a huge advantage. If he stays out of foul trouble, he will cause us fits.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 08, 2012, 09:41:43 AM
Isn't your first post, well, pretty inconsistent in its own right? You complain that Wade for President doesn't give Marquette credit for 30 minutes of good basketball (fortunately for us this season, games are 40 minutes long, so I'm not sure we need to give credit for 30 minutes when 40 minutes is what we need), yet you say that the 25-5 run was more demonstrative of "DePaul ball." Should they not receive credit for 20 minutes of good basketball (they led into the 2nd half)? And maybe the last 10 minutes of the Notre Dame game were Marquette getting back into "Marquette ball." I mean, let's face it, we typically play a good 30 minutes and a horrible 10 minutes in games. Against Notre Dame, our 30 good minutes weren't good enough to make up for the 10 horrible minutes like it has been a number of games. So maybe that was "Marquette ball."
I guess if you want to go knock DePaul and claim that it was just because of a hot streak (no doubt they made some prayers, but they also outhustled us in every way in the 1st half, also knocked down some WIDE OPEN 3s, and KILLED us on the offensive board) rather than giving them credit for a good 25 minutes (within 4 with 15 to go, like Marquette was within 4 with 10 to go at Notre Dame), then I'm not sure how you can give credit for Marquette having a good 30 minutes at Notre Dame. Heck, Marquette never held a double-digit lead at Notre Dame like DePaul did on Monday. Seems hypocritical to me.
Hypocritial? That was your take? Hmmmm. Strange. Complain? Where was my complaint. How did I knock De Paul? Why are you putting quotations on phrases that I did not use? If you want to parse words, I suggest you look inward first.
As to what I can get out of your post, not sure I fully understand your points, as you weave in and out of reality quite a bit. My first post you cite pointed out that De Paul shot lights out and made some unbelievable shots in the 1st half. If Cincy does that to MU, they will be leading, and likely big as well. To me, though, that was not typical De Paul. When MU turned up the pressure it was typical De Paul, they could not handle it and their shooting percentages returned to earth. To you, that's hypocritical. Guess I can't understand your reality.
But, my 2nd post was not giving credit to MU for the first 30 minutes. It was pointing out the inconsistencies of that post – and many others like it. Your inability to understand that is something I cannot help you with in a message board.
Quote from: mufanatic on February 08, 2012, 10:05:02 AM
Foul problems stopped Pope. Pope had 16 points before picking up his 4th foul with over 10 minutes left in the game. He didn't score a basket after that.
With no Gardner, Gates will have a huge advantage. If he stays out of foul trouble, he will cause us fits.
Yep. That's exactly how the game went down. Pope lost his offensive zeal once he got that 4th foul and was no longer a force on D. I remember a frantic effort at the end of the first half to try to tag Pope with his 3rd just before the break. Without Pope, the Fryers just didn't seem to have enough offensive punch as we had the speed to keep up with their quick guys. No doubt, DG can help if he is available. Plus Jamail needs to have a better game than he did against DePaul.
Quote from: MUMac on February 08, 2012, 10:18:38 AM
Hypocritial? That was your take? Hmmmm. Strange. Complain? Where was my complaint. How did I knock De Paul? Why are you putting quotations on phrases that I did not use? If you want to parse words, I suggest you look inward first.
As to what I can get out of your post, not sure I fully understand your points, as you weave in and out of reality quite a bit. My first post you cite pointed out that De Paul shot lights out and made some unbelievable shots in the 1st half. If Cincy does that to MU, they will be leading, and likely big as well. To me, though, that was not typical De Paul. When MU turned up the pressure it was typical De Paul, they could not handle it and their shooting percentages returned to earth. To you, that's hypocritical. Guess I can't understand your reality.
But, my 2nd post was not giving credit to MU for the first 30 minutes. It was pointing out the inconsistencies of that post – and many others like it. Your inability to understand that is something I cannot help you with in a message board.
::) I used quotes because I don't know what "DePaul ball" is (or "Marquette ball," for that matter...don't worry, I know you didn't use "Marquette ball." I did. It's in quotes because I don't understand the idea of "(enter team name) ball," which you apparently do). You did use the phrase "De Paul ball" in your first post. My bad, I misquoted your misspelling of "DePaul," I can see how that would confuse you ::).
Where do I weave in and out of reality? You claim that when DePaul was beating Marquette it was because they were just hot and playing lights out in a way that isn't possible for them to continue to do for a full game (forget that they were completely out-hustling us, had a 9-1 offensive rebounding edge part way through the first half, made some prayers, but also some wide open 3s which had more to do with a lack of defense from Marquette than it did with DePaul being white hot, etc.). You claim that despite the fact that they were within 4 with 15 minutes left, they had no chance because they were back to "De Paul ball," whatever that is. That's not a direct quote, but you were, "Never really concerned that De Paul could come back" (a direct quote from you, if you were wondering). That seems like you're taking credit away from DePaul. Typically you don't hear people saying "DePaul is playing really well. There's no chance they win this game!" Maybe you do think like that, though...
Then you claim that because Marquette was within 4 with 10 minutes left at Notre Dame, we didn't get blown out and were in the game. Here's a direct quote from you, since you seem to want them, "On Saturday, we got embarrassed by the final score. It was a game (4 points) with 10 to go." Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. Seems to me you're saying the final score is deceiving. We lost by 17, but it was a much better game because we were within 4 with 10 to play. If that's not what you meant, I'm not sure why you included that in your post. Pretty similar story to DePaul against Marquette, yet because Marquette was the one that won by 13 points, then to you DePaul never really had a chance, but when Marquette loses by 17 to Notre Dame they were in the game and it could've gone Marquette's way. I find that interesting that you call out Wade for President for giving Marquette no credit for 30 good minutes of basketball (not a direct quote, but your words), but he gives credit to DePaul for what you say (again, not a direct quote, forgive me ::) ) was 17 good minutes of basketball. Seems to me you want to give Marquette credit for good basketball for part of the game in a blowout loss yet you don't want to give DePaul credit in a blowout loss of their own. That would suggest that you are the one with the inconsistencies.
Davante' Gardner @iGetBuckets_54
Great workout....gettin back right
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 08, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
Davante' Gardner @iGetBuckets_54
Great workout....gettin back right
Excellent addition to the actual topic of the thread.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on February 08, 2012, 08:23:55 AM
Cincy isn't that good, not actually that big, and they're on the road. They also haven't really played well in a month (the ND game)
Gee, does it really make sense to contradict the sky is falling attitude around playing Cincinnati without Gardner with facts? That's a little hard to digest for some around here.
1. Gates can be a load, but 12 points and 9 rebounds a game while nice for any team nice to count on, aren't "monster" numbers.
2. Gardner is a unique offensive talent, but even against Gates I'd rather have Wilson defending because of his much better quickness and jumping ability. He's also a far better rebounder than Gardner at this point. Against Gates, I think that Gardner's best contribution would be to
potentially get Gates in foul trouble trying to defend Gardner.
3. The real issue with playing Cincinnati without Gardner is the extra minutes Wilson and Crowder will have to provide.
4. A Buzz quote from the blog post. "(Wilson) is 6-7 with shoes on. He's not 6-7 with shoes off. That's hard. It's really hard." Will this put an end to the 'Wilson is actually 6'8" posts? I hope so.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 08, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
Davante' Gardner @iGetBuckets_54
Great workout....gettin back right
Fantastic news. If we could just get 10 minutes from him on Saturday spelling Jae/Jamil that would be awesome.
Quote from: mufanatic on February 08, 2012, 10:05:02 AM
Foul problems stopped Pope. Pope had 16 points before picking up his 4th foul with over 10 minutes left in the game. He didn't score a basket after that.
With no Gardner, Gates will have a huge advantage. If he stays out of foul trouble, he will cause us fits.
This is one of those accurate, but not exactly true, statements.
Yes, Pope didn't score after picking up his fourth foul. But he had been slowed way before then.
In fact, Pope scored 10 of his 16 points before picking up his
second foul. And 14 of 16 before picking up his third.
To suggest foul trouble, and specifically the picking up of his fourth foul, is what slowed him is misleading. He scored most of his points in the game's first 11 minutes and went another 19 (relatively speaking) unproductive minutes before he was in real foul trouble.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 08, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
Fantastic news. If we could just get 10 minutes from him on Saturday spelling Jae/Jamil that would be awesome.
I want the 5 extra fouls. That provides some comfort if anyone gets in foul trouble. That hurt MU a great deal at ND. Jamil was relegated to the bench for much of the game, due to foul trouble. JJ and Juan were his replacements. It would be nice to have Gardner available to provide another body, and talent, for that reason.
Agree with MUMac.
Quote from: Jamailman on February 07, 2012, 08:44:58 PM
Compared to any center tandem we've had in the past 15-20 years, that may actually be true....
Then it wouldn't it be:
Otule/Gardner : MU basketball :: Duncan/Robinson : Spurs
I'm not ready to say that either.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 08, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
Davante' Gardner @iGetBuckets_54
Great workout....gettin back right
Was this a BB workout on the floor or a workout with the training staff in the training room?
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 08, 2012, 02:18:22 PM
Was this a BB workout on the floor or a workout with the training staff in the training room?
I think it was a date.
Quote from: MUMac on February 08, 2012, 12:54:04 PM
I want the 5 extra fouls. That provides some comfort if anyone gets in foul trouble. That hurt MU a great deal at ND. Jamil was relegated to the bench for much of the game, due to foul trouble. JJ and Juan were his replacements. It would be nice to have Gardner available to provide another body, and talent, for that reason.
Not to mention that Gates shoots FT's at ~55% , I wouldn't mind sending him to the line if we have to.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 08, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
This is one of those accurate, but not exactly true, statements.
Yes, Pope didn't score after picking up his fourth foul. But he had been slowed way before then.
In fact, Pope scored 10 of his 16 points before picking up his second foul. And 14 of 16 before picking up his third.
To suggest foul trouble, and specifically the picking up of his fourth foul, is what slowed him is misleading. He scored most of his points in the game's first 11 minutes and went another 19 (relatively speaking) unproductive minutes before he was in real foul trouble.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you and say that my statement is fairly true. In the first half, he scored 10 points in 11min 9sec of playing time before picking up his second foul with 5:23 remaining. He sat out the majority of the remaining time of the second half. (Played a 54 second stint, sat out 4m29s) And didn't score the rest of the half so foul trouble had an impact in the first half.
Second half, scored 6 of his teams 8 points before picking up his fourth foul at the 10:27 mark. So he scored another 6 points in just over 8 minutes of playing time. In total, 16 points in 19 minutes.
After picking up his fourth foul, he didn't score. His usage in the game after getting his fourth foul was as follows:
Played additional 48 secs after picking up foul 4 before going to the bench.
Sat out 1m 8 secs
Played 1m 6 secs
Sat out 1m 2 secs
Played 5m 42 secs before going to the bench for good with 41 seconds left in the game. Last 10 minutes of the game, 0 points.
Foul trouble slowed him down.
Quote from: LittleMurs on February 08, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
Gee, does it really make sense to contradict the sky is falling attitude around playing Cincinnati without Gardner with facts? That's a little hard to digest for some around here.
2. Gardner is a unique offensive talent, but even against Gates I'd rather have Wilson defending because of his much better quickness and jumping ability. He's also a far better rebounder than Gardner at this point. Against Gates, I think that Gardner's best contribution would be to potentially get Gates in foul trouble trying to defend Gardner.
Gardner is not be the best defender and is definitely not quick, but he would help immensely on the defensive end against bigs who like to bang like Gates.
With Jamil Wilson picking up a majority of the minutes playing the 5 with Gardner out, he has been a bit abused on the defensive end. Lets not forget that Pope put up 16 points in 19 minutes of playing time when Pope was not in foul trouble. And Cooley had his way with Wilson very early in the ND game, where he scored 5 points while hanging 2 fouls on Wilson in less than 5 minutes of playing time.
Gardner has weight to bang down low which is what you want against the Cooleys and Gates. Wilson can and does get pushed around down low against bangers. Cooley did it with his 6-9 248lb frame and Gates is licking his chops with his 6-9 260lb frame.
I expect a win with or without Gardner but it won't be easy if he have to play without him.
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 08, 2012, 02:18:22 PM
Was this a BB workout on the floor or a workout with the training staff in the training room?
It was a work out with the training staff and ran some drills..no "game" action.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 08, 2012, 11:12:53 AM
Seems to me you want to give Marquette credit for good basketball for part of the game in a blowout loss yet you don't want to give DePaul credit in a blowout loss of their own. That would suggest that you are the one with the inconsistencies.
That poster has an irrepressible and sanctimonious douche tough guy act to keep up.
The only result of your conversation with him will be a diminishing faith in a fellow MU supporter.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on February 08, 2012, 04:16:59 PM
That poster has an irrepressible and sanctimonious douche tough guy act to keep up.
The only result of your conversation with him will be a diminishing faith in a fellow MU supporter.
Good points.