MUScoop

Saw nothing from him that makes me think that this year will be any different.  He needs to get more confident and just attack.

Until he can consistently hit from 12 feet and out, what you see is what you get from him. Don't think he will ever be a real threat offensively because he simply can't shoot.

It was the first game and let's be careful to make too many assumptions either positive or negative.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 11, 2012, 07:39:30 PM
It was the first game and let's be careful to make too many assumptions either positive or negative.

Point well taken.

Guess I was just really hoping to watch Vander and his inability to shoot is almost baffling

I'm not concerned. Same ole Vander. Decent college player who is a good defender, great athlete, and marginal offense player. I am concerned, however, (if what some on here are saying) that he has aspirations to play pro ball next year. I think he will be disappointed on that front.

Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on November 11, 2012, 07:34:41 PM
Saw nothing from him that makes me think that this year will be any different.  He needs to get more confident and just attack.

He's just not that good, it's pretty plain and simple. He never has been. He's going to board, play solid defense and hustle but expect very little on the offensive side. Even when he scores all his points come in transition. I don't think that will change.

Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on November 11, 2012, 07:34:41 PM
Saw nothing from him that makes me think that this year will be any different.  He needs to get more confident and just attack.

Any different from what? He made solid improvements last year and if he does the same this year we should all be happy. Looks to me like he's really matured. He took what he was given and didn't try to force anything. It was the first game, nothing to complain about.

Quote from: MARQ_13 on November 11, 2012, 07:41:08 PM
I'm not concerned. Same ole Vander. Decent college player who is a good defender, great athlete, and marginal offense player. I am concerned, however, (if what some on here are saying) that he has aspirations to play pro ball next year. I think he will be disappointed on that front.

In one of his few dribble drives he got fouled and failed to finish the shot.same ole.  Had no coordination on the shot. Watch out Junior, Wilson looks tough

Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 11, 2012, 07:42:20 PM
He's going to board, play solid defense and hustle but expect very little on the offensive side. Even when he scores all his points come in transition.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 11, 2012, 07:42:20 PM
He's just not that good, it's pretty plain and simple. He never has been. He's going to board, play solid defense and hustle but expect very little on the offensive side. Even when he scores all his points come in transition. I don't think that will change.

<sigh>

Here we go again.  You say he's "going to board, play solid defense and hustle," but he's "not that good?"

Last I checked, rebounding and defense are part of basketball.   Oh, and so is scoring in transition.

NOPE.

Quote from: lab_warrior on November 11, 2012, 07:48:08 PM
NOPE.

Nailed it.

Quote from: lab_warrior on November 11, 2012, 07:48:08 PM
NOPE.

I believe that'd make this a +2.

Some people are going to hate on Vander regardless. He has an off night, he's an awful player. If he had went for 23/7/5, he's an awful player that can only rack up stats against Colgate. All the Vander hate is really annoying. Hard-working kid who has only improved and been willing to play within the system.

Not even a little worried.

Vander will be fine! No worrys!

Quote from: ecompt on November 11, 2012, 07:37:34 PM
Until he can consistently hit from 12 feet and out, what you see is what you get from him. Don't think he will ever be a real threat offensively because he simply can't shoot.

He needs to get more consistent within 12 feet. He still blows layups.

My only wish is I could actually scream this into a loudspeaker directly into Kenosha's ear, making his vacant, helium-filled head actually explode. 

Someday, hopefully folks will find the other 7/8 of Kenosha's extensively lobotomized brain.

Quote from: lab_warrior on November 11, 2012, 08:10:01 PM
My only wish is I could actually scream this into a loudspeaker directly into Kenosha's ear, making his vacant, helium-filled head actually explode. 

Someday, hopefully folks will find the other 7/8 of Kenosha's extensively lobotomized brain.

took the words right out of my beak

No concern with Vander on my end. I'll stand by my word that I believe he will have a very very good year.

Some people on this board are pathetic. Don't really need to name names.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 11, 2012, 07:47:10 PM

<sigh>

Here we go again.  You say he's "going to board, play solid defense and hustle," but he's "not that good?"

Last I checked, rebounding and defense are part of basketball.   Oh, and so is scoring in transition.

Right, he's an average big east player. 8 points 4.5 rebounds with 40% shooting. When you're SOLID at certain aspects of the game and poor at others that makes you average in my opinion. He's a liability on the offensive end, especially considering Marquette's point gaurd situation. Personally, I don't think he's as great of a defender as others on this board. With Lockett assuming the 3 we have two guards who cannot score on consistent basis. Sigh all you want, just stating my opinion. So am I concerned? No, this is the same player Marquette has dealt with since he's been there.

Quote from: morecowbell on November 11, 2012, 08:20:29 PM
No concern with Vander on my end. I'll stand by my word that I believe he will have a very very good year.

Some people on this board are pathetic. Don't really need to name names.

How noble of you. But there is no denying that he sucked against Colgate.

Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 11, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
Right, he's an average big east player. 8 points 4.5 rebounds with 40% shooting. When you're SOLID at certain aspects of the game and poor at others that makes you average in my opinion. He's a liability on the offensive end, especially considering Marquette's point gaurd situation. Personally, I don't think he's as great of a defender as others on this board. With Lockett assuming the 3 we have two guards who cannot score on consistent basis. Sigh all you want, just stating my opinion. So am I concerned? No, this is the same player Marquette has dealt with since he's been there.

The only thing your opinion tell me, as in years past, is that you know very little about the game of basketball.  You admitted that Blue rebounds well, plays defense, and scores in transition, but say "He's just not that good...He never has been."

That is an absurd statement.  Completely absurd.  Especially since you freely admit that he does most things well.  (Except for your backtracking on his defense...which frankly shows you know even less than I thought you did prior to making that post.)

Quote from: Knight Commission on November 11, 2012, 08:55:39 PM
How noble of you. But there is no denying that he sucked against Colgate.

Cool....but that wasn't the question asked.  I think making assumptions positive or negative after one game are dumb.  Seriously, we had a poster gushing over Ferguson in one thread.  Really? 

Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 11, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
With Lockett assuming the 3 we have two guards who cannot score on consistent basis.

Do you want me to look up stats to prove you wrong, or do you just want to retract your statement that Lockett can't score?

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 11, 2012, 09:07:42 PM
The only thing your opinion tell me, as in years past, is that you know very little about the game of basketball.  You admitted that Blue rebounds well, plays defense, and scores in transition, but say "He's just not that good...He never has been."

That is an absurd statement.  Completely absurd.  Especially since you freely admit that he does most things well.  (Except for your backtracking on his defense...which frankly shows you know even less than I thought you did prior to making that post.)



Cool....but that wasn't the question asked.  I think making assumptions positive or negative after one game are dumb.  Seriously, we had a poster gushing over Ferguson in one thread.  Really?  

wrong. The question was whether there is reason to be concerned about Vander. After tonight's performance against Colgate the answer is yes, there is reason to be concerned. Let's hope we are wrong,

Lets just judge a player on one game against a nobody opponent where everyone got minutes and the offense never really played as they would in a 'real' game.

Coach really didn't ask much of Vander today.  Time was spent evaluating our two big guys following injuries while giving max minutes to both Juan and Jake in an effort to see if they can combine to fill Todd's shoes for now.  Both Vander and Lockett took backseats.  Coach has a pretty good handle on what they can do.  Vander's fine.

Quote from: jsglow on November 11, 2012, 09:39:11 PM
Coach really didn't ask much of Vander today.  Time was spent evaluating our two big guys following injuries while giving max minutes to both Juan and Jake in an effort to see if they can combine to fill Todd's shoes for now.  Both Vander and Lockett took backseats.  Coach has a pretty good handle on what they can do.  Vander's fine.

What makes you think Coach didn't ask much of Vander? Lets stop making excuses for him and Junior.

After one game?  Against Colgate?  C'mon man.

Quote from: Knight Commission on November 11, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
What makes you think Coach didn't ask much of Vander? Lets stop making excuses for him and Junior.

Dude...everyone is getting some minutes. Vander didn't look great, but he didn't need to. Just relax...start bitching if he looks like that in 3 weeks.

Vander will be fine.  Let's see on Tuesday.

Jake Thomas seemed more active defensively and from a rebounding perspective than did Vander today.  I'm not expecting much of a jump from Vander this year over last - but hope I'm wrong.  If Vander can take a nice step up - MU will be very, very good.  I just don't see anything in Vander's game that leads me to believe he'll be able to score consistently in the half-court, or off the bounce in the half-court.  His jumper did look better today, and his misses were online, which was encouraging.  He'll always be awesome in transition.

I was impressed with how active Thomas was not just in rebounding but overall hustle. he was in the mix of things most of the time out there. Loved his positioning under the boards and the diving for contested balls

Ill be worried if he keeps this performance up for several games. But he wont, he will prove all dem haters wrong!

Quote from: lab_warrior on November 11, 2012, 07:48:08 PM
NOPE.

Not concerned at all. First game against a tight zone that has read the book on him. Alley oops were thrown to high and behind. He should have been at the line on one of them too. He played good defense.

Vander and Jamil are the two guys we need to step up this season and I believe both will have great years. Little worries about Vander having a great season.

Quote from: Goose on November 12, 2012, 05:48:22 AM
Vander and Jamil are the two guys we need to step up this season and I believe both will have great years. Little worries about Vander having a great season.

If we need Blue to have a big year offensively to be successful we are not likely to be successful.  He is a nice complementary player who provides good defense and excellent rebounding for a guard, but to this point in his college career has not shown the smallest inkling whatsoever that he can be a focal point on offense for a successful team.  He must improve quite a bit from last year just to not be a detriment on offense.  He must vastly improve to be helpful and vastly, vastly improve to be a focal point.  Not impossible of course, but that certainly did not appear to be the case yesterday.   It's only one game, though, and I could be singing a different tune after Maui.

Quote from: CTWarrior on November 12, 2012, 07:50:47 AM
If we need Blue to have a big year offensively to be successful we are not likely to be successful.  He is a nice complementary player who provides good defense and excellent rebounding for a guard, but to this point in his college career has not shown the smallest inkling whatsoever that he can be a focal point on offense for a successful team.  He must improve quite a bit from last year just to not be a detriment on offense.  He must vastly improve to be helpful and vastly, vastly improve to be a focal point.  Not impossible of course, but that certainly did not appear to be the case yesterday.   It's only one game, though, and I could be singing a diferent tune after Maui.

Based on what?  Clearly the offense was being run through Jae and DJO last year, and DG when he was in.  Vander had to look for openings.  He managed 8.4 points per game on 41.3% as a sophomore.  I realize he was a 5 star recruit, but cut the guy some slack.  He hasn't been asked to do more than play solid D and find openings.  Would it be nice for him to hit some more shots?  Absolutely, but lets be honest with ourselves.

Quote from: CTWarrior on November 12, 2012, 07:50:47 AMHe must improve quite a bit from last year just to not be a detriment on offense.  He must vastly improve to be helpful and vastly, vastly improve to be a focal point.

I think this general type of statement is vastly made about Vander and is a MASSIVE overstatement. Vander was a 41.3% shooter from the field last year. Not great, but not far off the senior number of DJO at 44.7% or Jerel at 44.2%. From three, he shot 16% as a freshman and 26% last year. I think getting to 30% this year and 33% next year is realistic. Those numbers are already at "not a detriment" level and there's no reason to think he can't take his 8.4 ppg and increase to double digits this year and 12-13 ppg next year, which are solid starter numbers.

He is already very good at getting to the line, and after a rocky start, has become our best free throw shooter. From the Villanova game where he iced the game at the line he led the team in FT%, ahead of Crowder, DJO, and Gardner.

Defensively he's a stud and is also one of the better rebounding guards in the country. I think far too many people look at Vander and see his freshman Big East season without seeing how much he has already improved.  :-\

I am a big Vander fan. His strength in the half court is as a seam finder, not as a shooter-scorer like DJO or Jerel. He has the most NBA athletic skill set on the team. We need to remember he is still very young and developing, but with Todd out, he will be continued to be called out for not being the SG that he is now slotted as, especially against a zone, as unfair as that is. It is MU Achilles heel right now and Buzz is asking Vander and Jake to step in and fill that role.  

So, fan expectations fall into those two reality chasms...and will continue to all season.  I am betting on Vander to step up based on the work he has put in.  Yet, he will continue to look bipolar for a bit of the early OOC--great against a man defense, struggling against a zone.

Not worried.

To meathead fans, if a player doesn't score a lot that means he's not very good.

An additional difference between Vander's shooting percentages and those of Crowder or DJO is that those guys HAD to shoot and were the guys we relied on to take or force shots when the offense broke down.  Vander last year (wisely) wouldn't shoot unless he had a lay-up (usually off a drive) or a wide-open, uncontested shot, generally from close range.  Then, if you take away the creampuff games (creampuff = Mount Saint Mary's, Winthrop, Jacksonville, Green Bay, Northern Colorado & Milwaukee) he shot 38.4% last year, and when you consider he rarely took anything but very high percentage shots, that is pretty bad.  I agree he improved a great deal last year, but he was basically unplayable against good teams as a freshman.  I think he deserves his playing time because he certainly adds value on the defensive end of the floor and on the boards, but I remain very skeptical about his ability to score/distribute/be an asset on offense. 

I don't pretend to know everything, and I've been wrong before, and I hope I'm wrong this time, but so far I just don't see what so many of you do.  I still think when I see him with the ball trying to do something in the half court something bad is more much likely to happen than something good.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 12, 2012, 08:46:38 AM
Not worried.

To meathead fans, if a player doesn't score a lot that means he's not very good.

I didn't say he wasn't good, I said we can't rely on him as a focal point on offense.  Big difference, don't you think?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 12, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
I am a big Vander fan. His strength in the half court is as a seam finder, not as a shooter-scorer like DJO or Jerel.

I agree with that, and must have deleted the part saying that I didn't see him becoming a DJO or Jerel, merely meant to use their numbers to illustrate that Vander doesn't have a woeful shooting percentage. He penetrates and gets points in the paint and at the line. If he can just become a 30% shooter from range, he'll be a legitimate second or third option, and with guys like Lockett and Jamil around, that's all he needs to be.

CT Warrior
Excellent point on the shooting % difference between Blue and Jae/DJO. You are completely correct that VB's lower % were based off better opportunities to some extent. I am a big VB fan and I base that off of what I hear from people who know ball better than me. Numerous times last year Mike Kelly commented on his D and overall skill set in a positive way. In fact, several times he really spooned out the praise and I would think Kelly could have negative bias towards VB due to UW blow off.

I am not saying that VB is AA type player at this point, but do think he still has real upside. He was a young recruit and I am going to give him rope to prove himself. Honestly after watching the game yesterday he appears not to be my biggest concern foreward.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 11, 2012, 09:29:56 PM
Lets just judge a player on one game against a nobody opponent where everyone got minutes and the offense never really played as they would in a 'real' game.

It will be much clearer after we play East Cupcake on Tuesday night.

Quote from: Marqevans on November 12, 2012, 09:10:43 AM
It will be much clearer after we play East Cupcake on Tuesday night.

Nah, I look at these cupcakes as preseason football games.  You don't show your hand until the games start to count.. or are more difficult.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 12, 2012, 08:14:27 AM
I realize he was a 5 star recruit, but cut the guy some slack.

This is the problem for most people.

If Vander was a walk-on transfer like Jake, everybody would be drooling.

I know it's hard to compartmentalize for fans, but what a player did before he gets to MU doesn't mean ANYTHING, and what he does after he leaves MU doesn't really mean anything either. It's simply about the performance and production for the years the player is in school.

Don't let HS rankings or pro-potential skew your vision, guys. Look at what the player is actually accomplishing.

Vander didn't look good yesterday. Well, Otule's jump hook looked good, but he didn't rebound or play any meaningful defense. He also had some ugly possessions when he was double teamed. So. What.

Quote from: lab_warrior on November 11, 2012, 07:48:08 PM
NOPE.

+3

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on November 11, 2012, 09:49:04 PM
Dude...everyone is getting some minutes. Vander didn't look great, but he didn't need to. Just relax...start bitching if he looks like that in 3 weeks.

It's a viable comment.  It's Vander's junior year, I would hope he could play better than he did yesterday considering his talent.  Hopefully he puts it all together, but he will not be a really good player on this team until he can become at least an average efficiency offensive player.  I'm rooting for him, it's as frustrating for us as it is for him.

Quote from: statnik on November 12, 2012, 09:29:51 AM
It's a viable comment.  It's Vander's junior year, I would hope he could play better than he did yesterday considering his talent.  Hopefully he puts it all together, but he will not be a really good player on this team until he can become at least an average efficiency offensive player.  I'm rooting for him, it's as frustrating for us as it is for him.

You are totally ignoring the fact that Buzz wanted to see what he had from his bench.  He knows what he has in Vander.

Average efficiency offensive player.  Please explain this.  This seems to be a statement that gets tossed around and repeated enough times that people just believe it without looking at the numbers.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 12, 2012, 09:32:35 AM
You are totally ignoring the fact that Buzz wanted to see what he had from his bench.  He knows what he has in Vander.

Average efficiency offensive player.  Please explain this.  This seems to be a statement that gets tossed around and repeated enough times that people just believe it without looking at the numbers.

All it means is he shot just over 40% last year from the field, despite not taking many perimeter shots.  I would be willing to estimate (although no proof of it) that half his shots were within 4 or 5 feet of the hoop.  That is definitely not an average percentage for a player who does most of his work in transition or off of drives close to the basket.  If he could get his percentage to around 45% and 30% from 3 if he tries many 3s, I'd be happy.

Why aren't you happy now?  He is the best perimeter defender on the team and rebounds extremely well for his position.  I just don't get how people can be so critical of him because he doesn't score like you expect him to.

OTOH, we have people gushing about Jake Thomas' effort and hustle, even though he didn't do much of consequence offensively either.

Judge players by what they DO ON THE FLOOR...not what you EXPECT them to do based on some recruiting ranking or preconceived notion.  This is my biggest problem with Vander bashers....they are seemingly blind to what he actually does when he plays basketball.

Last year, Vander guarded 4 different positions on the floor and did it well.  I expect no less this year.    Last year, Vander too often drove into traffic and attacked the rim without a plan, a la McNeal.   He also failed to finish through contact well, a la Butler as a sophomore.    If, as a junior, he can improve those two areas, attacking under control and finishing through contact, he will average 12 PPG.   

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 12, 2012, 09:57:40 AM
Why aren't you happy now?  He is the best perimeter defender on the team and rebounds extremely well for his position.  I just don't get how people can be so critical of him because he doesn't score like you expect him to.

OTOH, we have people gushing about Jake Thomas' effort and hustle, even though he didn't do much of consequence offensively either.

Judge players by what they DO ON THE FLOOR...not what you EXPECT them to do based on some recruiting ranking or preconceived notion.  This is my biggest problem with Vander bashers....they are seemingly blind to what he actually does when he plays basketball.

This.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 12, 2012, 09:57:40 AM
Why aren't you happy now?  He is the best perimeter defender on the team and rebounds extremely well for his position.  I just don't get how people can be so critical of him because he doesn't score like you expect him to.

OTOH, we have people gushing about Jake Thomas' effort and hustle, even though he didn't do much of consequence offensively either.

Judge players by what they DO ON THE FLOOR...not what you EXPECT them to do based on some recruiting ranking or preconceived notion.  This is my biggest problem with Vander bashers....they are seemingly blind to what he actually does when he plays basketball.

Well, let's see, considering he has a bigger offensive role on the team, I think it is fair to be able to scrutinize his offense.  Why scrutinize someone who only took 3 shots like Jake Thomas on the offensive end?  It may be harsh to hear Vander's offensive game scrutinized, but all the excuses are annoying as well.  I'm not asking for a great or even good offensive player, I'm asking for him to be able to finish more than occasionally.  When you're a liability offensively in big games, that is not a good thing.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 12, 2012, 08:46:38 AM
Not worried.

To meathead fans, if a player doesn't score a lot that means he's not very good.

To me it's not so much about whether he scores a lot, it's about whether he scores efficiently.  As many have pointed out, Vander scores most of his points in transition, which makes his low FG percentage even more surprising and perhaps less forgivable.  What if he didn't get those opportunities to score in transition?  He could quite easily be a 35% FG shooter.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 12, 2012, 09:57:40 AM
Judge players by what they DO ON THE FLOOR...not what you EXPECT them to do based on some recruiting ranking or preconceived notion.  This is my biggest problem with Vander bashers....they are seemingly blind to what he actually does when he plays basketball.

I see what he does on the floor, and it isn't much in the halfcourt on offense.  He's a poor shooter so he doesn't stretch the defense.  He doesn't command help.  He slashes but those slashes don't turn into points for him or others with any kind of efficiency because he doesn't finish at the rim nor is he a great passer on the move.  We rave about his FT shooting but it was 71% last year, which must be average at best for a 2G and probably a little less than average (I am admittedly talking out of my butt here but it doesn't seem that 71% is anything special for a 2G.  He did hit big FTs several times last year.).  Is he a great screener or something and I am missing it?  The one thing he did better than average in half-court offense last year is find the open guy on the interior from unorthodox angles a couple times a game.  That may be the seams you are talking about.

Look, I LIKE THE GUY.  He always plays hard, he's a plus defender and a great rebounder for a guard.  He brings a lot to the table.  He more than deserves to play.  It's just that he can't be a primary or secondary option on offense in the half court if we are going to be good unless he improves his offense a lot.  Many of you who have seen him more than in just MU games think he will.  Maybe so, but I (and apparently others) haven't seen it yet.

Can't tell anything conclusively with one game, but since we have a 3-page thread discussing it already, I'll throw in that I'm more concerned with Gardner than Blue based on the Colgate game after looking at the +/-.  

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2012/11/11/colgate-63-marquette-84/plus_minus (http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2012/11/11/colgate-63-marquette-84/plus_minus)

With Gardner on the floor, we played Colgate about even. Most of our big lead was built with Otule in the game--even though Gardner outscored Otule directly.

Again, don't know if this is a one-game aberration or not. I think we saw something similar over the past two seasons when both were healthy and splitting minutes--Gardner was stronger offensively, and Otule stronger defensively. For whatever reason, the rest of the team seems to score more easily with Otule in the game than Gardner.

I don't think Blue is going to be a problem for us this year. I don't see him developing into the next Dwyane Wade or DJO, but he's going to be solid and an asset when he's in the game. Probably time to stop obsessing over him.

An interesting thought about DG.    It did seem that every time DG was in the game, the emphasis was feeding the post, whereas with Otule it was more about the motion with the occasional feed to the post.    Plus, when DG got it, he seemed to feel obligated to go to the rack.   I don't recall him kicking it out.     But, again, it was just one game.   

Quote from: tower912 on November 12, 2012, 11:05:15 AM
An interesting thought about DG.    It did seem that every time DG was in the game, the emphasis was feeding the post, whereas with Otule it was more about the motion with the occasional feed to the post.    Plus, when DG got it, he seemed to feel obligated to go to the rack.   I don't recall him kicking it out.     But, again, it was just one game.   

Colgate let him go one-on-one...and DG made them pay.  However when they started to double, they never did off of Thomas, but always from the opposite side.  They knew Thomas well enough not to double off him.

Quote from: CTWarrior on November 12, 2012, 10:50:50 AM
I see what he does on the floor, and it isn't much in the halfcourt on offense.  He's a poor shooter so he doesn't stretch the defense.  He doesn't command help.  He slashes but those slashes don't turn into points for him or others with any kind of efficiency because he doesn't finish at the rim nor is he a great passer on the move.  We rave about his FT shooting but it was 71% last year, which must be average at best for a 2G and probably a little less than average (I am admittedly talking out of my butt here but it doesn't seem that 71% is anything special for a 2G.  He did hit big FTs several times last year.).  Is he a great screener or something and I am missing it?  The one thing he did better than average in half-court offense last year is find the open guy on the interior from unorthodox angles a couple times a game.  That may be the seams you are talking about.

Look, I LIKE THE GUY.  He always plays hard, he's a plus defender and a great rebounder for a guard.  He brings a lot to the table.  He more than deserves to play.  It's just that he can't be a primary or secondary option on offense in the half court if we are going to be good unless he improves his offense a lot.  Many of you who have seen in more than in just MU games think he will.  Maybe so, but I (and apparently others) haven't seen it yet.

+1

Few people hate the guy but he just doesn't bring much to the table on offense.  And I am worried because even against a poor team last night, he showed the same weaknesses from prior years in that he struggles mightily with shooting, decision making, ball control, and finishing.  Yesterday, he had some poor turnovers, he missed layups, and missed open shoots.  Maybe it was an off day.  Every player can have an off day and most people can live with that.  The problem is that his "off day" looked like most games from last season.  So fans, like myself, are concerned he just isn't developing.

If you think about development, I think Juan looked better, Wilson looked better, Garnder looks effecient, and Otule looked better.  Quite frankly, I think Junior's shot looked improved too.  Until Blue learns to finish around the rim, he is going to be limited on offense.  

Buzz was playing with a goofy rotation, guys that won't get many minutes were getting them. Vander was pretty passive out there, and Buzz was hardly coaching just standing off to the side. I am not worried about Vander yet. If he doesn't get to 10 pts against a SE Louisiana team that gave up 80+ to Madison then I will be very concerned.

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 11:11:04 AM
+1

Few people hate the guy but he just doesn't bring much to the table on offense.  And I am worried because even against a poor team last night, he showed the same weaknesses from prior years in that he struggles mightily with shooting, decision making, ball control, and finishing.  Yesterday, he had some poor turnovers, he missed layups, and missed open shoots.  Maybe it was an off day.  Every player can have an off day and most people can live with that.  The problem is that his "off day" looked like most games from last season.  So fans, like myself, are concerned he just isn't developing.

If you think about development, I think Juan looked better, Wilson looked better, Garnder looks effecient, and Otule looked better.  Quite frankly, I think Junior's shot looked improved too.  Until Blue learns to finish around the rim, he is going to be limited on offense.  

I don't think this is unfair, but we probably should revisit this after about 10 games and see what we think in terms of "development".

Last year at this point, a lot of people were enamored with Jamail Jones shooting.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 12, 2012, 09:57:40 AM


OTOH, we have people gushing about Jake Thomas' effort and hustle, even though he didn't do much of consequence offensively either.

Judge players by what they DO ON THE FLOOR...not what you EXPECT them to do based on some recruiting ranking or preconceived notion.  This is my biggest problem with Vander bashers....they are seemingly blind to what he actually does when he plays basketball.

Some of the experts on this board told us that Jake wouldn't/couldn't play, was basically a walk on (think Rob Frozena). Others said he was better than that and thought he could contribute. Given the disparity of opinion, it's not surprising that some are "gushing" over Thomas. It's only one game, but considering how some here valued his game I was VERY pleasantly surprised, especially with his athleticism.

Regarding Vander, I agree that people here focus on his weaknesses. They're obvious, but he's still one of the most talented/important players on the team.

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 12, 2012, 10:58:42 AM
Can't tell anything conclusively with one game, but since we have a 3-page thread discussing it already, I'll throw in that I'm more concerned with Gardner than Blue based on the Colgate game after looking at the +/-.  

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2012/11/11/colgate-63-marquette-84/plus_minus (http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2012/11/11/colgate-63-marquette-84/plus_minus)

With Gardner on the floor, we played Colgate about even. Most of our big lead was built with Otule in the game--even though Gardner outscored Otule directly.

Again, don't know if this is a one-game aberration or not. I think we saw something similar over the past two seasons when both were healthy and splitting minutes--Gardner was stronger offensively, and Otule stronger defensively. For whatever reason, the rest of the team seems to score more easily with Otule in the game than Gardner.

I don't think Blue is going to be a problem for us this year. I don't see him developing into the next Dwyane Wade or DJO, but he's going to be solid and an asset when he's in the game. Probably time to stop obsessing over him.

Gardner plays with the 2nd unit more often than not.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 12, 2012, 11:18:29 AM
I don't think this is unfair, but we probably should revisit this after about 10 games and see what we think in terms of "development".

Last year at this point, a lot of people were enamored with Jamail Jones shooting.

Very true.  But then he played more, and we all saw.  We have seen alot of Blue in the last two years.

Both the haters and lovers need to realize one thing.  He is a role player.  That's it.  He is a defensive specialist.  He isn't critical for this team's success.  If Wilson, Junior, Otule, Gardner, and Lockett can have solid seasons (which they look like they will), we will have another solid season.  I would like to see more Taylor and get him more minute before the BEast season starts.

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 11:59:04 AM
Very true.  But then he played more, and we all saw.  We have seen alot of Blue in the last two years.

Both the haters and lovers need to realize one thing.  He is a role player.  That's it.  He is a defensive specialist.  He isn't critical for this team's success.  If Wilson, Junior, Otule, Gardner, and Lockett can have solid seasons (which they look like they will), we will have another solid season.  I would like to see more Taylor and get him more minute before the BEast season starts.

Few things:

#1 We have seen the "frosh. Vander" and the "soph. Vander." We have only seen one game of "Jr. Vander." Before we roll our eyes and say "same 'ol Vander", we might want to actually let him play several games, right?

#2 Vander was a role player for the past 2 seasons, but so was every other player on this team. That's it. None of them were as critical to MU's success as Lazar, Butler, Jae or DJO. Role players. All of them. That's it.

#3 I don't think anybody is really being unfair in their evaluation of Vander at this point, but for whatever reason he is a lighting rod for commentary. If (insert player) didn't play well, I have a feeling we wouldn't be hearing as much about it from a handful of posters, including you.

Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on November 11, 2012, 07:34:41 PM
Saw nothing from him that makes me think that this year will be any different.  He needs to get more confident and just attack.

you're the same guy that wrote lockett off after the scrimmage right?

Quote from: avid1010 on November 12, 2012, 01:42:05 PM
you're the same guy that wrote lockett off after the scrimmage right?

And demanded a harem of hookers for recruits on official visits. 

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 12, 2012, 01:10:35 PM


#3 I don't think anybody is really being unfair in their evaluation of Vander at this point, but for whatever reason he is a lighting rod for commentary. If (insert player) didn't play well, I have a feeling we wouldn't be hearing as much about it from a handful of posters, including you.

Vander will always draw more scrutiny:

1. He's local
2. He originally verballed to our most hated rival
3. He's the highest rated Wisconsin player we've signed since Jim Chones in 1969 and one of the highest rated players period to come to MU in the last 40 years.
4. He's had trouble off the court.
5 His game is unorthodox.

He didn't come here claiming to be the Messiah but some won't forgive the fact that he isn't.

Quote from: Bocephys on November 12, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
And demanded a harem of hookers for recruits on official visits. 

No wonder why we weren't in the final five last week...

On subject, not worried here.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 12, 2012, 02:16:53 PM
Vander will always draw more scrutiny:

1. He's local
2. He originally verballed to our most hated rival
3. He's the highest rated Wisconsin player we've signed since Jim Chones in 1969 and one of the highest rated players period to come to MU in the last 40 years.
4. He's had trouble off the court.
5 His game is unorthodox.

He didn't come here claiming to be the Messiah but some won't forgive the fact that he isn't.

You're right, and that's dumb.

We aren't meatheads. Most people have MU degrees and took logic. Engage your brain, folks.

Understand the performance you are seeing, and comment appropriately. Let's not apply a bunch of preconceived notions when we try to discuss a player's actual production.

I hope we are better than "I told you Vander can't shoot... derp derp derp". That's the kind of great commentary you get from genius NFL fans on sports radio.

Let's aim higher.

Did'nt DJO struggle in Non-conference last year?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 12, 2012, 02:51:28 PM
Did'nt DJO struggle in Non-conference last year?

If you want to go that way........... wasn't Jae erratic and foul prone as a junior to the point that Buzz was starting EWilliams and bringing Jae off of the bench?

Kenosha Warrior, there is a lot of concern.  Vander is all about the flash, he would rather look good than be good. 

Quote from: teamdee on November 12, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
Kenosha Warrior, there is a lot of concern.  Vander is all about the flash, he would rather look good than be good. 

Perfect. Derp. Derp. Derp.

One thing I liked about Vander's game Sunday was that he didn't try to force things too much. If he does what he does best -- play decent D, get out in transition, use his athleticism to keep his man off the boards -- he's fine.

Without having read anything in this thread (don't feel like wasting my time, so I apologize to the large majority of people here who probably answered with a resounding NO to the original question), you gotta love the fans who point out that Vander looks all-world in the non-conference season and write that off as just being because we are playing cupcakes (despite the fact that he had a very solid - not spectacular, but solid - 2nd half of the Big East season last year), so it is meaningless, but then when he "struggles" in the first game of the season against Colegate, the sky is falling for him and there is some huge cause for concern.  It's hilarious the double standard people hold just to hate on a 20 year old kid...

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 04:56:55 PM
Without having read anything in this thread (don't feel like wasting my time, so I apologize to the large majority of people here who probably answered with a resounding NO to the original question), you gotta love the fans who point out that Vander looks all-world in the non-conference season and write that off as just being because we are playing cupcakes (despite the fact that he had a very solid - not spectacular, but solid - 2nd half of the Big East season last year), so it is meaningless, but then when he "struggles" in the first game of the season against Colegate, the sky is falling for him and there is some huge cause for concern.  It's hilarious the double standard people hold just to hate on a 20 year old kid...

You sir, just won the kewpie doll!

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 11, 2012, 09:07:42 PM
The only thing your opinion tell me, as in years past, is that you know very little about the game of basketball.  You admitted that Blue rebounds well, plays defense, and scores in transition, but say "He's just not that good...He never has been."

That is an absurd statement.  Completely absurd.  Especially since you freely admit that he does most things well.  (Except for your backtracking on his defense...which frankly shows you know even less than I thought you did prior to making that post.)

How am I back tracking on his defense, I said he was going to board and play solid defense. He played the 3 last year, with Locket assuming that position this year I expect his rebounding to go down a bit, less opportunity. It's not like 4.5 rebounds a game from the 3 is outstanding, but from watching him I'd say that's his greatest strength. Go through all my posts, I've never said he's a GREAT defender. You can interpret my posts any way you'd like but the stats don't lie. Vander's offensive rating was lower than Derrick Wilson last year, but it's ok to critique his game. Based on KenPom Vander was 87 out of 99 Big east players in Offensive rating and 85th out of 99 in TO% (40% minutes played). That's a liability on offense in my world Sultan. We've been through this several times before and the numbers come out the same each time. You say people are over critical because he was a top 50 recruit, I say you and many others on this board over react when he actually puts up decent numbers. Take the stud of the game thread, if Blue had Lockett's numbers I can GUARANTEE 20% of the people would have voted him. They did last year for the Villanova game because he hit 4 free throws for God's sake. 7 points, 7 RBs, 5 stls & 3 assists. Lockett got a few honorable mentions.

So back to the point of the thread, Anyone else concerned about Vander? I saw nothing from him that makes me think that this year will be any different. I agreed and said he's not very good and never has been....which remains true. You can take it out of context, but for a top 15-20 program in the best conference he isn't very good. He isn't very bad either, he does some things well and some things poor.

Quote from: brewcity77 on November 12, 2012, 05:05:18 PM
You sir, just won the kewpie doll!

...what does that even mean?! Hah.

Blue kind of reminds me of DJ where he started out hot, then flat-lined. Expectations were too high his junior year, but by his senior year he realized he didn't need to be the man and just played hard and helped the team win anyway he could. I hope Vander becomes one of those 4-year guys that may not dominate a game but are extremely pesky and opponents wonder how many years of eligibility the guy has cause he seems just a constant on the team.

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 04:56:55 PM
Without having read anything in this thread (don't feel like wasting my time, so I apologize to the large majority of people here who probably answered with a resounding NO to the original question), you gotta love the fans who point out that Vander looks all-world in the non-conference season and write that off as just being because we are playing cupcakes (despite the fact that he had a very solid - not spectacular, but solid - 2nd half of the Big East season last year), so it is meaningless, but then when he "struggles" in the first game of the season against Colegate, the sky is falling for him and there is some huge cause for concern.  It's hilarious the double standard people hold just to hate on a 20 year old kid...

Interesting...  During the second half of the BE schedule and tourney, Blue had increased minutes and increased his average by a point and change BUT saw a decrease in steals, shooting percentage, blocks, and an increase in turnovers.  

I think most people that are critical of Blue play would not say he had a solid second half of the BE schedule.  He was really inconsistent and that's that.  So there is no double standard.

Look.  We will all wait and see what Blue continues to do.  Bottom line, yesterday was more of the same and we hope he improves.

Quote from: teamdee on November 12, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
Kenosha Warrior, there is a lot of concern.  Vander is all about the flash, he would rather look good than be good. 

Says the guy Vander punched.

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 05:46:45 PM
Interesting...  During the second half of the BE schedule and tourney, Blue had increased minutes and increased his average by a point and change BUT saw a decrease in steals, shooting percentage, blocks, and an increase in turnovers.  

I think most people that are critical of Blue play would not say he had a solid second half of the BE schedule.  He was really inconsistent and that's that.  So there is no double standard.

Look.  We will all wait and see what Blue continues to do.  Bottom line, yesterday was more of the same and we hope he improves.

Huh?  Try almost 7 ppg in more in the 2nd half of the Big East season from the first half.  Try more steals in the 2nd half of the Big East season.  Try more blocks in the 2nd half of the season.  But hey, man, whatever.  You know how the saying goes..."Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."


First 9: 17-36 FG, 47.2% shooting, 1-4 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 13-25 FT, 52% FT %, 36 rebounds, 30 assists, 1 block, 6 steals, 18 turnovers, 46 points, 5.1 ppg in 24.2 mpg

Last 9: 36-82 FG, 44% shooting, 3-12 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 33-42 FT, 79% FT %, 59 rebounds, 16 assists, 2 blocks, 10 steals, 17 turnovers, 108 points, 12 ppg in 27.8 mpg

12 points, 1.8 assists, 1 steal, 1.9 turnovers, 6.6 rebounds per game in the second half of the season.  That's not solid?  I will absolutely take that from one of our starters, but not stars.  Really inconsistent?  Go look at his numbers.  He was pretty consistently getting 10-15 ppg and 5-7 rpg every night during the 2nd half of the Big East season.  But again, that's not convenient for you so pretend it didn't happen.

Beyond that, my original point was that last year when Vander had great games in the non-conference part of our season it was because we were playing cupcake teams who couldn't keep up with his athleticism so those good games meant absolutely nothing.  But now when he doesn't have a great game against Colgate in the first game of the year we should all be concerned.  If that doesn't define a double standard then I don't know what does.

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 06:34:32 PM
Huh?  Try almost 7 ppg in more in the 2nd half of the Big East season from the first half.  Try more steals in the 2nd half of the Big East season.  Try more blocks in the 2nd half of the season.  But hey, man, whatever.  You know how the saying goes..."Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."


First 9: 17-36 FG, 47.2% shooting, 1-4 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 13-25 FT, 52% FT %, 36 rebounds, 30 assists, 1 block, 6 steals, 18 turnovers, 46 points, 5.1 ppg in 24.2 mpg

Last 9: 36-82 FG, 44% shooting, 3-12 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 33-42 FT, 79% FT %, 59 rebounds, 16 assists, 2 blocks, 10 steals, 17 turnovers, 108 points, 12 ppg in 27.8 mpg

12 points, 1.8 assists, 1 steal, 1.9 turnovers, 6.6 rebounds per game in the second half of the season.  That's not solid?  I will absolutely take that from one of our starters, but not stars.  Really inconsistent?  Go look at his numbers.  He was pretty consistently getting 10-15 ppg and 5-7 rpg every night during the 2nd half of the Big East season.  But again, that's not convenient for you so pretend it didn't happen.

Beyond that, my original point was that last year when Vander had great games in the non-conference part of our season it was because we were playing cupcake teams who couldn't keep up with his athleticism so those good games meant absolutely nothing.  But now when he doesn't have a great game against Colgate in the first game of the year we should all be concerned.  If that doesn't define a double standard then I don't know what does.

Get the frack outta here with your fancy facts, don't you know message boards are for nonsense, jackassery, and places to peddle your CD's that teach people how to swear in different languages??

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 06:34:32 PMBeyond that, my original point was that last year when Vander had great games in the non-conference part of our season it was because we were playing cupcake teams who couldn't keep up with his athleticism so those good games meant absolutely nothing.  But now when he doesn't have a great game against Colgate in the first game of the year we should all be concerned.  If that doesn't define a double standard then I don't know what does.

I don't think that is a double-standard, actually. A double-standard would be 1-player be commended for his big game while dismissing another player in a similar situation. This judgement of Blue is pretty clear and on the same standards: Blue should dominate bad opponents, anything less is unacceptable. The standard may be be waaaaaay too high, but it isn't a double-standard. If the argument was non-conference games are meaningless in judging a player, than it could be a double-standard.

I look at non-conference games like NBA summer leagues. You shouldn't get too excited about a huge game by your rookie because there are so many bad players on the court. If your rookie looks lost against street FA's you need to look into it because talent level alone should set him apart. Not working? How about this? If you score with the fatty at the end of the night do you brag? No. If the fatty turns you down, you might be a little worried about your game.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on November 12, 2012, 07:06:52 PM
I don't think that is a double-standard, actually. A double-standard would be 1-player be commended for his big game while dismissing another player in a similar situation. This judgement of Blue is pretty clear and on the same standards: Blue should dominate bad opponents, anything less is unacceptable. The standard may be be waaaaaay too high, but it isn't a double-standard. If the argument was non-conference games are meaningless in judging a player, than it could be a double-standard.

I look at non-conference games like NBA summer leagues. You shouldn't get too excited about a huge game by your rookie because there are so many bad players on the court. If your rookie looks lost against street FA's you need to look into it because talent level alone should set him apart. Not working? How about this? If you score with the fatty at the end of the night do you brag? No. If the fatty turns you down, you might be a little worried about your game.

I agree with you on tempering the expectations of newcomers in non-conference. That's my point. If you can't take anything away from non-conference when a player has a good game, then why take anything away when a player plays bad? How can you come to conclusions when it's bad but not when it's good? It just doesn't make sense to me. Either non-conference means something or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 08:01:28 PM
I agree with you on tempering the expectations of newcomers in non-conference. That's my point. If you can't take anything away from non-conference when a player has a good game, then why take anything away when a player plays bad? How can you come to conclusions when it's bad but not when it's good? It just doesn't make sense to me. Either non-conference means something or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.

You can't see why it may be bad if someone struggles with an easy task, but not a big deal if someone dominates that same simple task?

I'm not arguing that playing any D-1 team is an easy task and I'm not worried about Blue's play. I just find it funny people are saying its a double-standard when its not. There's a very logic reason to think a game can mean nothing if good, but mean something if bad. It's a negative response test.

Quote from: wadesworld on November 12, 2012, 06:34:32 PM
Huh?  Try almost 7 ppg in more in the 2nd half of the Big East season from the first half.  Try more steals in the 2nd half of the Big East season.  Try more blocks in the 2nd half of the season.  But hey, man, whatever.  You know how the saying goes..."Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."


First 9: 17-36 FG, 47.2% shooting, 1-4 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 13-25 FT, 52% FT %, 36 rebounds, 30 assists, 1 block, 6 steals, 18 turnovers, 46 points, 5.1 ppg in 24.2 mpg

Last 9: 36-82 FG, 44% shooting, 3-12 3 point FG, 25% 3 point %, 33-42 FT, 79% FT %, 59 rebounds, 16 assists, 2 blocks, 10 steals, 17 turnovers, 108 points, 12 ppg in 27.8 mpg

12 points, 1.8 assists, 1 steal, 1.9 turnovers, 6.6 rebounds per game in the second half of the season.  That's not solid?  I will absolutely take that from one of our starters, but not stars.  Really inconsistent?  Go look at his numbers.  He was pretty consistently getting 10-15 ppg and 5-7 rpg every night during the 2nd half of the Big East season.  But again, that's not convenient for you so pretend it didn't happen.

Beyond that, my original point was that last year when Vander had great games in the non-conference part of our season it was because we were playing cupcake teams who couldn't keep up with his athleticism so those good games meant absolutely nothing.  But now when he doesn't have a great game against Colgate in the first game of the year we should all be concerned.  If that doesn't define a double standard then I don't know what does.

My calculation came from the last 10 games of the season. That includes the tourney. Your right though. The tourney doesn't count.

And your accusing me of using selective stats. Funny

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
My calculation came from the last 10 games of the season. That includes the tourney. Your right though. The tourney doesn't count.

And your accusing me of using selective stats. Funny

Erick, you picked up where you left off last year......bagging on Blue....to no end.

Is he a complete player yet? No. You are welcome to your opinion (obviously), but it's a bit of a broken record.

Buzz has publicly said that he tries to run off guys who he thinks cant play. He plays (starts) Blue a lot. A ton. 

Thats good enough for me. 

Buzz put Lazar, JB, DJO, and Jae in the NBA.  That's good enough for me.

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
My calculation came from the last 10 games of the season. That includes the tourney. Your right though. The tourney doesn't count.

And your accusing me of using selective stats. Funny

No, I didn't use selective stats.  I stated from my first post in here that he had a solid second half of the Big East season.  You responded that he averaged just 1 point per game higher in the 2nd half of the Big East season than he did in the first, less rebounds, etc. etc.  Which is plain out wrong.  His 2nd half of the Big East season was much better than the first half of the Big East season.

EDIT: Delete.

Great. Professor crass is back with Vander hate.

Quote from: PTM on November 12, 2012, 10:40:26 PM
Great. Professor crass is back with Vander hate.

Statistics = hate... Right

Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 12, 2012, 10:46:28 PM
Statistics = hate... Right

Cherry picking statistics = hate... Correct.

Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 12, 2012, 05:24:12 PM
How am I back tracking on his defense, I said he was going to board and play solid defense. He played the 3 last year, with Locket assuming that position this year I expect his rebounding to go down a bit, less opportunity. It's not like 4.5 rebounds a game from the 3 is outstanding, but from watching him I'd say that's his greatest strength. Go through all my posts, I've never said he's a GREAT defender. You can interpret my posts any way you'd like but the stats don't lie. Vander's offensive rating was lower than Derrick Wilson last year, but it's ok to critique his game. Based on KenPom Vander was 87 out of 99 Big east players in Offensive rating and 85th out of 99 in TO% (40% minutes played). That's a liability on offense in my world Sultan. We've been through this several times before and the numbers come out the same each time. You say people are over critical because he was a top 50 recruit, I say you and many others on this board over react when he actually puts up decent numbers. Take the stud of the game thread, if Blue had Lockett's numbers I can GUARANTEE 20% of the people would have voted him. They did last year for the Villanova game because he hit 4 free throws for God's sake. 7 points, 7 RBs, 5 stls & 3 assists. Lockett got a few honorable mentions.

This is my last time saying this because you still seem to struggle with basic basketball analysis....

There is more to the game of basketball than offense, so your statement "He's just not that good, it's pretty plain and simple. He never has been," is ABSURD when you base it only on offensive statistics.

Understand???  I'm no John Wooden, but it's pretty f*cking obvious that he's a "good" basketball player.  Buzz seems to think so.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 13, 2012, 08:04:01 AM

This is my last time saying this because you still seem to struggle with basic basketball analysis....

There is more to the game of basketball than offense, so your statement "He's just not that good, it's pretty plain and simple. He never has been," is ABSURD when you base it only on offensive statistics.

Understand???  I'm no John Wooden, but it's pretty f*cking obvious that he's a "good" basketball player.  Buzz seems to think so.

See Dennis Rodman......

Compare Gardner vs Blue.

- 1 comes in highly ranked, one doesn't.
- 1 has an NBA type body and athelticism, one doesn't.
- 1 is a guard, the other is a center.
- 1 is a very good defender, rebounder and passer, the other is a poor defender, average rebounder and average passer
- 1 is a poor shooter and finisher around the rim the other is a decent shooter and fantastic finisher around the rim
- 1 exceeds fan expectations and the other doesn't mean fan expectations
- 1 is really only effective offensively, the other is only effective defensively.

They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
Compare Gardner vs Blue.

- 1 comes in highly ranked, one doesn't.
- 1 has an NBA type body and athelticism, one doesn't.
- 1 is a guard, the other is a center.
- 1 is a very good defender, rebounder and passer, the other is a poor defender, average rebounder and average passer
- 1 is a poor shooter and finisher around the rim the other is a decent shooter and fantastic finisher around the rim
- 1 exceeds fan expectations and the other doesn't mean fan expectations
- 1 is really only effective offensively, the other is only effective defensively.

They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

Great comparison.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
Compare Gardner vs Blue.

- 1 comes in highly ranked, one doesn't.
- 1 has an NBA type body and athelticism, one doesn't.
- 1 is a guard, the other is a center.
- 1 is a very good defender, rebounder and passer, the other is a poor defender, average rebounder and average passer
- 1 is a poor shooter and finisher around the rim the other is a decent shooter and fantastic finisher around the rim
- 1 exceeds fan expectations and the other doesn't mean fan expectations
- 1 is really only effective offensively, the other is only effective defensively.

They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

It's also interesting when you put them into the context of the MU program, MU has always had some great scorers at guard and on the wings, but have rarely had consistent post scoring.  I think this definitely leads to different expectations.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
Compare Gardner vs Blue.

- 1 comes in highly ranked, one doesn't.
- 1 has an NBA type body and athelticism, one doesn't.
- 1 is a guard, the other is a center.
- 1 is a very good defender, rebounder and passer, the other is a poor defender, average rebounder and average passer
- 1 is a poor shooter and finisher around the rim the other is a decent shooter and fantastic finisher around the rim
- 1 exceeds fan expectations and the other doesn't mean fan expectations
- 1 is really only effective offensively, the other is only effective defensively.

They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

It's all about expectations. A first round draft choice or a national merit scholar has a higher bar than a free agent or a guy with 26 on his ACTs. If the two end up being the same guy (solid but not outstanding) one's a disappointment and the other's a pleasant surprise. Probably not fair - scouts couldn't get far enough past VB's athleticism to see how raw he was offensively, nor were they able to see the incredible offensive skills of DG underneath all that blubber. That said, hating on Vander because he was overrated out of high school makes no sense to me. He's a good college player who works hard - and he's ours. Cheer him for his strengths and hope that his hard work on his deficiencies pays off (already seen it with his FT shooting).

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

Good comparison, though I would call Blue an average passer for a G, and I think Gardner is a good passer for a C, at least he was last year.  He wasn't looking to pass at all against Colgate.

Besides incoming reputation, I think the other thing that makes people give Gardner a pass is that he is very unusual and fun to watch.  His offensive game is "traditional" all the way, with old-fashioned good low post footwork and body control making up for his complete lack of athleticism.  There are a lot of fans who lack athleticism and could stand to lose a few pounds (like yours truly) who get a kick out of Gardner.

But you are spot on with regards to their relative value.

Quote from: CTWarrior on November 13, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Good comparison, though I would call Blue an average passer for a G, and I think Gardner is a good passer for a C, at least he was last year.  He wasn't looking to pass at all against Colgate.

Besides incoming reputation, I think the other thing that makes people give Gardner a pass is that he is very unusual and fun to watch.  His offensive game is "traditional" all the way, with old-fashioned good low post footwork and body control making up for his complete lack of athleticism.  There are a lot of fans who lack athleticism and could stand to lose a few pounds (like yours truly) who get a kick out of Gardner.

But you are spot on with regards to their relative value.

I think Gardner could be a good passer, but he's always been a black hole. He's not good at finding the open player when he gets doubled. He has potential, but learning when he should go to the rim and when he should kick out is going to be an evolution. He has good hands and is a good ball handler, so it's just going to take some practice and some feel for him to get better at it.

Blue isn't a gifted distributor by any means, but I think his vision is good and he's not a ball hog. But, I'm ok with saying he's only average or slightly above average.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2012, 09:38:52 AM

It's all about expectations. A first round draft choice or a national merit scholar has a higher bar than a free agent or a guy with 26 on his ACTs. If the two end up being the same guy (solid but not outstanding) one's a disappointment and the other's a pleasant surprise. Probably not fair - scouts couldn't get far enough past VB's athleticism to see how raw he was offensively, nor were they able to see the incredible offensive skills of DG underneath all that blubber. That said, hating on Vander because he was overrated out of high school makes no sense to me. He's a good college player who works hard - and he's ours. Cheer him for his strengths and hope that his hard work on his deficiencies pays off (already seen it with his FT shooting).

I think you are right, but the problem is all scholarships are equal. It's not like MU spent more to get Vander than it did to have Gardner. It's the same scholarship. Once they walk in the door, it's all about production.

This isn't the draft, and this isn't free agency. They are all first round picks.

I dunno, maybe I'm just expecting too much for fans to use their heads to negate their own biases. Sometimes we just "like" a guy more than others. Human nature I suppose.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
I think Gardner could be a good passer, but he's always been a black hole. He's not good at finding the open player when he gets doubled. He has potential, but learning when he should go to the rim and when he should kick out is going to be an evolution. He has good hands and is a good ball handler, so it's just going to take some practice and some feel for him to get better at it.

Blue isn't a gifted distributor by any means, but I think his vision is good and he's not a ball hog. But, I'm ok with saying he's only average or slightly above average.

The concept of a ball hog is rather interesting - generally a ball hog tends to think he has a great chance at putting the ball in the basket on a consistent basis - Kobe comes to mind.  Gardner's offensive efficiency is one of the best in the country - Blue's is one of the worst in the Big East.  It bodes well for MU if Gardner is a ball hog, and Blue isn't a ball hog.

At the end of the day, Blue fans are going to see/evaluate things to fit their longstanding defense of him, and Gardner fans the same.  Blue is a solid college basketball player.  However,  I don't see him being close to as good as Jerel McNeal was at MU.  Gardner is a slightly more gifted Jerrod Lovette, who is simply fun to watch.  Good things usually happen with the ball in Gardner's hands....Blue's on the other hand...its been a crapshoot.  Here's to hoping Blue's halfcourt/perimeter game has improved and that his shooting is improved...by all accounts he's putting in the work, and for that alone he is to be commended/respected.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
Compare Gardner vs Blue.

- 1 comes in highly ranked, one doesn't.
- 1 has an NBA type body and athelticism, one doesn't.
- 1 is a guard, the other is a center.
- 1 is a very good defender, rebounder and passer, the other is a poor defender, average rebounder and average passer
- 1 is a poor shooter and finisher around the rim the other is a decent shooter and fantastic finisher around the rim
- 1 exceeds fan expectations and the other doesn't mean fan expectations
- 1 is really only effective offensively, the other is only effective defensively.

They are polar opposites in a lot of ways, but their net contributions to the team winning are relatively similar.

However, Gardner is often toasted while Blue is roasted.

Gardner is much better than an average passer, and better than a decent shooter. 

Saying that Vander is only effective defensively would put you in the roaster of Vander school in the opinion of some.

I wish Gardner dished the ball more. He is obviously tough to stop some nights but it really is no doubt what he will do with the ball. I also am somewhat surprised that with all the training these guys do that he could not drop 20-30lbs. Have seen him several times this school year at Broken Yoke and can confirm he does not cheated at the table.

Quote from: reinko on November 12, 2012, 06:49:35 PM

Get the frack outta here with your fancy facts, don't you know message boards are for nonsense, jackassery, and places to peddle your CD's that teach people how to swear in different languages??

And don't forget douchebaggery.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 09:56:08 AM
I think you are right, but the problem is all scholarships are equal. It's not like MU spent more to get Vander than it did to have Gardner. It's the same scholarship. Once they walk in the door, it's all about production.

This isn't the draft, and this isn't free agency. They are all first round picks.

I dunno, maybe I'm just expecting too much for fans to use their heads to negate their own biases. Sometimes we just "like" a guy more than others. Human nature I suppose.

Scholarships may technically be equal but it's unrealistic to think a fanbase's expectations aren't (or shouldn't) be colored by a player's ranking coming in. Jimmy Butler is one of the greatest success stories in MU recruiting history. If Jabari Parker becomes Jimmy Butler in college he'll be considered a disappointment. That's just reality.

Quote from: Ners on November 13, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
The concept of a ball hog is rather interesting - generally a ball hog tends to think he has a great chance at putting the ball in the basket on a consistent basis - Kobe comes to mind.  Gardner's offensive efficiency is one of the best in the country - Blue's is one of the worst in the Big East.  It bodes well for MU if Gardner is a ball hog, and Blue isn't a ball hog.

At the end of the day, Blue fans are going to see/evaluate things to fit their longstanding defense of him, and Gardner fans the same.  Blue is a solid college basketball player.  However,  I don't see him being close to as good as Jerel McNeal was at MU.  Gardner is a slightly more gifted Jerrod Lovette, who is simply fun to watch.  Good things usually happen with the ball in Gardner's hands....Blue's on the other hand...its been a crapshoot.  Here's to hoping Blue's halfcourt/perimeter game has improved and that his shooting is improved...by all accounts he's putting in the work, and for that alone he is to be commended/respected.

Comparing one of Marquette's top scorers of all time to Blue is a little off, but I get your point.

Quote from: Ners on November 13, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
The concept of a ball hog is rather interesting - generally a ball hog tends to think he has a great chance at putting the ball in the basket on a consistent basis - Kobe comes to mind.  Gardner's offensive efficiency is one of the best in the country - Blue's is one of the worst in the Big East.  It bodes well for MU if Gardner is a ball hog, and Blue isn't a ball hog.

At the end of the day, Blue fans are going to see/evaluate things to fit their longstanding defense of him, and Gardner fans the same.  Blue is a solid college basketball player.  However,  I don't see him being close to as good as Jerel McNeal was at MU.  Gardner is a slightly more gifted Jerrod Lovette, who is simply fun to watch.  Good things usually happen with the ball in Gardner's hands....Blue's on the other hand...its been a crapshoot.  Here's to hoping Blue's halfcourt/perimeter game has improved and that his shooting is improved...by all accounts he's putting in the work, and for that alone he is to be commended/respected.

Fair.

I don't mean to imply that Gardner is too much of a ball hog.

He's a gifted scorer, so he looks to get his shot (which is his job). To continue to be effective, he's going to have to watch how teams double him and know where to look for an open player. This isn't to say he's not good right now (he is), but he's not a complete player offensively. He's effective in his role, but teams are going to blitz him hard, and he's going to have to give it up sometimes.

To put this differently:

On offense, Vander is a crapshoot, Gardner is dependable.
On defense, Gardner is a crapshoot, Vander is dependable.

Each has value, but one is certainly more celebrated than the other.

Quote from: LittleMurs on November 13, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Gardner is much better than an average passer, and better than a decent shooter. 

Saying that Vander is only effective defensively would put you in the roaster of Vander school in the opinion of some.

I'm using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate the point.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2012, 11:14:19 AM

Scholarships may technically be equal but it's unrealistic to think a fanbase's expectations aren't (or shouldn't) be colored by a player's ranking coming in. Jimmy Butler is one of the greatest success stories in MU recruiting history. If Jabari Parker becomes Jimmy Butler in college he'll be considered a disappointment. That's just reality.

I know you are right, but I'm just pushing for MU fans to be better than this. We don't have to be some meat head fanbase. We can be smart, educated and understand basketball. Let UK fans be the meat heads. MU has a relatively small, loyal fanbase. We can be better than the rest if we challenge each other to use our brains.

Testify, guns and ammo!

Quote from: tower912 on November 13, 2012, 01:59:08 PM
Testify, guns and ammo!

Well, I'm up on the soapbox, and ultimately I probably should get shoved off, but I tired of fans simply choosing to be ignorant because they don't want to actually engage their brain.

Leave that to the fans of (insert NFL franchise).

Damn you, Vander, for failing to meet the lofty expectations I created because someone said something on the Internet.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
Well, I'm up on the soapbox, and ultimately I probably should get shoved off, but I tired of fans simply choosing to be ignorant because they don't want to actually engage their brain.

Leave that to the fans of (insert NFL franchise).

I love your (refreshing) passion, commitment and lack of equivocation. And I agree that those who constantly rip Vander are plain wrong about what how important he is to our team. That said, I don't think being mildly disappointed about where Vander's game is right now (considering that less than 3 years ago he was part of a three guard starting lineup on a national USA team that included Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers) make one a meathead or an ignoramus.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
I love your (refreshing) passion, commitment and lack of equivocation. And I agree that those who constantly rip Vander are plain wrong about what how important he is to our team. That said, I don't think being mildly disappointed about where Vander's game is right now (considering that less than 3 years ago he was part of a three guard starting lineup on a national USA team that included Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers) make one a meathead or an ignoramus.

Agreed. There is room for accurate critiques. He's not a good shooter, and his touch around the rim isn't natural. He's gifted, but he doesn't have the strength or built in feel for the game that great guards have.

Definitely room for improvement. He's one game into his junior year. He has time.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 13, 2012, 08:04:01 AM

This is my last time saying this because you still seem to struggle with basic basketball analysis....

There is more to the game of basketball than offense, so your statement "He's just not that good, it's pretty plain and simple. He never has been," is ABSURD when you base it only on offensive statistics.

Understand???  I'm no John Wooden, but it's pretty f*cking obvious that he's a "good" basketball player.  Buzz seems to think so.

I just gave you analysis, but that's fine. When you put it in bold and capitalize it starts to make sense...so thanks for that. I think we have a different opinion on good, that much is obvious.

Man, I can't wait until after the game tonight so we can have another 5-page thread on Vander's inadequacies!

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 13, 2012, 01:55:39 PM
I know you are right, but I'm just pushing for MU fans to be better than this. We don't have to be some meat head fanbase. We can be smart, educated and understand basketball. Let UK fans be the meat heads. MU has a relatively small, loyal fanbase. We can be better than the rest if we challenge each other to use our brains.

I'm all for it - just be careful though if you are too pro-MU and aren't critical at all, you get labeled as a fanboy, who wears gold colored glasses, drinks the kool aid etc.  Many here completely knee jerk after a loss, crap on our players and coaches...yet in my experience, if you defend them...the above labels get thrown around...which is totally fine, yet ironically funny - because when a fanboy like myself actually does criticize a player or write a less than glowing post - you then get called a hater.  Been an amusing ride here on Scoop at times..for all of us I'm sure.

Vander, punked the grinch and Wisconsin to come to MU. That alone makes him my favorite player right next to Wes.

Hairy

Great point. That alone should give him free pass.

I am super concerned with Vander.  Last night he tweeted that he got an instagram page.  INSTAGRAM.  What, now he's going to only play basketball ironically.  The program is doomed.

Quote from: JakeBarnes on November 13, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
I am super concerned with Vander.  Last night he tweeted that he got an instagram page.  INSTAGRAM.  What, now he's going to only play basketball ironically.  The program is doomed.

As long as he thinks five slappin' is ironic, we should be ok.

Quote from: JakeBarnes on November 13, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
I am super concerned with Vander.  Last night he tweeted that he got an instagram page.  INSTAGRAM.  What, now he's going to only play basketball ironically.  The program is doomed.

Dude, TWITTA TRACKA!!!!, c'mom.