this team isn't very good. Having observed them for 3/4 of the season, the lack of talent is obvious. And for that, he's responsible.
Probably not one of our greatest teams - guess we're getting kind of spoiled, since they are in the top 20. That's probably Buzz's fault, too?
I'll take this over the Majerus/Dukiet teams I had to watch as an undergrad.
This team is ranked. A testament to hard work and coaching. The problems haven't changed. Lack of elite shooting, lack of great leadership. It is a team of what are historically role players who haven't fully made the next step to being 'the guy'. The guy is the one who can demand the ball and make the play that stems the other team's run, even in their building. The guy doesn't pout when he doesn't get the ball but keeps working so that there is no choice BUT to give him the ball. The guy wants to guard the opponents best scorer and stop him. All of the players are talented, but all seem to have a hole in their game.
This is Buzz's first team without JUCO's. It is his deepest team and the first one with all of the positions defined. His instinct when things have gone wrong in years past was to play small and fast. He hasn't done that much this year. His loyalty to his upperclassmen is a double edged sword, and an issue that may be more relevant next year.
Ah, well, still ranked, still fighting, still probably going to make the tournament. Just a team with flaws.
I thought for sure this would be a rebuilding year. Instead, we are in the Top 20 and could make the NCAA tournament. Ill take it.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on February 12, 2013, 06:37:36 AM
I thought for sure this would be a rebuilding year. Instead, we are in the Top 20 and could make the NCAA tournament. Ill take it.
Yup. We are missing one shooter and one elite point guard on this team. For a "down" year I'll take it.
Better than having Mickey D's all over the court and not make the tourney ala UNC & UCLA recently.
My biggest issue with this team is the laziness in passing and at times seems like no urgency. We are not good enough to be at high level at all times. Our turnovers are often because of lazy passes or stupid decisions. I'll give Buzz credit because everytime some counts them out he finds a way to come back strong. He will need all of that the rest of the way or it could be a long month for the fella's.
The only reason this team is ranked is the favorable schedule. If we played our 2nd half of the schedule first, we wouldn't be #18.
Quote from: Goose on February 12, 2013, 06:52:15 AM
My biggest issue with this team is the laziness in passing and at times seems like no urgency.
+1
Two biggest problems yesterday were turnovers (most of which were caused by lazy passes) and not controlling the defensive boards. That's not necessarily a talent issue. Also, we go long stretches where we settle for jump shots early in the shot clock. We can get better. As a matter of fact, last night hurts most because we played a hot team, ranked 15th, on the road, played poorly and still only lost by 8. The doesn't reflect a lack of talent to me.
As for the general topic, I thought we were a bubble team going into the season and we seem to at least be safely in the field. That is not bad for a transition year.
There is plenty of talent on this team. The problem is the lack of leadership. We really needed Jamil to step up and be our go-to guy and he just hasn't done that. Junior isn't a vocal leader and simply isn't good enough to just lead by example. Vander doesn't seem to have the personality to lead (even though he's taken a big step forward with his game). Moving forward, the concern isn't that we won't have enough talent on the roster to win, its that we won't have the Jerel McNeal, Wesley Matthews, Lazar Hayward, Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder-type of leadership that we have enjoyed in the past.
Jamil needs to do some soul searching this off-season because you can't expect the void of leadership to be answered by the likes of Deonte Burton, Duane Wilson, or JuJuan Johnson.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on February 12, 2013, 06:37:36 AM
I thought for sure this would be a rebuilding year. Instead, we are in the Top 20 and could make the NCAA tournament. Ill take it.
My sentiments exactly
Junior seemed to have no sense of urgency yesterday. The whole team played slow in the second half. What happened to Marquette's aggressive offense?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 04:51:33 AM
this team isn't very good. Having observed them for 3/4 of the season, the lack of talent is obvious. And for that, he's responsible.
Buzz is responsible of course. So what are you saying? Every team goes through rebuilding years. See NC and Kentucky. As of now the team is competing for a Big East title and ranked 18. I bet you would have taken that if someone offered it in December after the FL game.
Fourth game in eight days, with two of these MU's two toughest conference road games...with this one with two days in between on one day's rest. MU actually won the second half...and played pretty good defense despite the 24-9 points off turnover lay ups...and the free throw discrepancy.
Despite the brain cramps by the guards and coach which happen, Buzz's teams seem to bounce back and he seems to make the adjustments. This bunch has no star players but they have experience and moxie. The pieces are there, and their toughest opponents they have at the BMO-BC. Good place to be.
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
Holy Crap. We lose a game on the road by 8 to the 15th ranked team in the country and all the sudden "We arent very Good" "We suck" "NIT"
this is ridiculous!!
Lost to a top 15 team, in our conference, on the road...
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
I can't disagree with any of this. And to think, the returning talent is commonly given as a reason why the freshmen won't play next year.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
1. Wilson is quick, Mayo is quick, Juan is fine for his size, Otule is fine for his size. The only ones truly below normal for quickness are Cadougan, Lockett and Gardner.
2. Agreed. Big problem
3. Otule is doing fine in the middle. The problem is more on the switches on the perimeter, leading to a collapse into the lane to stop penetration, leading to a kick-out for a wide open 3 with too long a distance to cover for a good recovery.
5. Junior and Blue had bad games last night. Saturday at home, they will probably both do well.
6. L E A D E R S H I P
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on February 12, 2013, 08:27:02 AM
Holy Crap. We lose a game on the road by 8 to the 15th ranked team in the country and all the sudden "We arent very Good" "We suck" "NIT"
this is ridiculous!!
....business(fandom) as usual.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on February 12, 2013, 08:27:02 AM
Holy Crap. We lose a game on the road by 8 to the 15th ranked team in the country and all the sudden "We arent very Good" "We suck" "NIT"
this is ridiculous!!
I'm not sure anyone said NIT. These are the same criticisms after a loss. This is clearly a team with flaws. We see them more because we are so committed to the team. It also has strengths, but last night MU did not play to its strengths.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
Don't you have a rotten tooth to deal with or a Mercedes to buy? The team is ranked 18th currently second in the Big East. They must be doing something right. The remaining road games are more than winnable and their toughest remaining games are at home.
Lets see how the season plays out. It would be very difficult to argue that the program is going in the wrong direction. If a rebuilding year has us in the top 25, and near the top of the big east standings, I will take that every time.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
#5 PG position. Junior capable and has his moments, heck he leads MU in SoGs on this board. For those of you with MU blinders on regarding Derrick Wilson as next year's point guard, just think of this. In 11 BE games, he has six points on one for 16 shooting, his only shot made being a three pointer. That is just brutal.
Everything else is just argumentative, the team is nationally ranked, but the PITT game is just huge.
Team with flaws? Yes. 18th best team in the country? Probably not.
NCAA team? Very very likely yes.
That is all I was hoping for at the beginning of this season. Color me impressed thus far.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 12, 2013, 08:40:23 AM
Team with flaws? Yes. 18th best team in the country? Probably not.
NCAA team? Very very likely yes.
That is all I was hoping for at the beginning of this season. Color me impressed thus far.
Agree, but they are not far off from 18th best. Have you watched college basketball this year. Lot of crap out there.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
I agree with #2, and think this is truly the root of all issues we have had this year. The lack of any consistent perimeter scoring threat really limits what this team can do. I disagree with #1 and #3. I think this was a tough game against a tough opponent at a tough time in the schedule. The Dr. is correct:
Fourth game in eight days, with two of these MU's two toughest conference road games...with this one with two days in between on one day's rest. MU actually won the second half...and played pretty good defense despite the 24-9 points off turnover lay ups...and the free throw discrepancy.
Despite the brain cramps by the guards and coach which happen, Buzz's teams seem to bounce back and he seems to make the adjustments. This bunch has no star players but they have experience and moxie. The pieces are there, and their toughest opponents they have at the BMO-BC. Good place to be.
Quote from: hairyworthen on February 12, 2013, 08:42:02 AM
Agree, but they are not far off from 18th best. Have you watched college basketball this year. Lot of crap out there.
Oh I agree. They are probably more in the 25-30 range, which is where they will probably end up when everything is said and done.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on February 12, 2013, 08:27:02 AM
Holy Crap. We lose a game on the road by 8 to the 15th ranked team in the country and all the sudden "We arent very Good" "We suck" "NIT"
this is ridiculous!!
I just did a term search. The first mentions of either "suck" or "NIT" were in your post, Kenosha.
The topic began with the poster quoting Buzz's contention that the team isn't very good as a way to start conversation. Most posters responded by talking about the flaws but saying they were happy with how this year has gone given that it's a rebuilding year.
Then you decided to rip everybody by misquoting and taking things out of context. Not very useful.
As for the team, I thought going in we'd be fortunate to be 9-9 in the Big East and would need to win a game or two in the conference tourney to make the NCAAs. I suppose it's still possible that we'll only win one more game to finish 9-9, but I'm guessing we'll win a few more than that and will easily make the tourney. So while, yes, this team is frustrating at times, and it is definitely flawed and limited, it has been a fun season. It already has given us a few crazy moments -- some good, some bad -- and I'm enjoying the ride, however long it lasts.
The arguments about leadership are completely ignorant. Junior Cadougan could be the second coming of General Patton but that's not going to change the fact that Marquette can't shoot and can be careless with the basketball. DJO and Crowder were considered great leaders because they were damn good college basketball players.
This team is not the 18th most talented team in the country and not in the top 5-6 most talented teams in the BE. Marquette's margin for error is very small. They can't turn the ball over 10 times in a game, let alone in a half, against a team as talented as Georgetown and expect to win.
With the exception of GB, every game that MU has lost this season has been to a more talented team. They have also beaten Georgetown, Pitt and UConn all of whom likely have more talent on their rosters.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
Last night was bad. I'm as frustrated as you are. But slow, bereft of talent and lacking in effort doesn't get you 17-6 and 8-3 in the Big East.
It is a guard's game. We don't have the elite guards we have had in the past. We have good guards who can be really good on occasion but they don't collectively have all the skills needed to be an elite group.
When you don't have the whole range of skills in your group of guards, your team is a lot easier to play because a superior game is required by someone in the group and there will be nights where that person, who may play well within their range of the game, did not or cannot put together that superior game.
We have a good team. A team that I would have been really excited about when I was a student during the Mike Deane era or for the post-Wade, pre-Amigo Crean era. If this season is our floor, then the MU program is doing things right.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
Agreed, but you're a little over-the-top on some of this. Is the talent great? No. But mid-major? Hardly.
A lot of our problems would be solved if teams respected our outside shooting - or we gave them a reason to. Would open up the lanes more for driving, give Taylor, Gardner, and Otule room to breathe below. The PG position has been a problem for more than 2 years now. Junior is nice and all sometimes, but he is a back-up on a great team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
Last night was bad. I'm as frustrated as you are. But slow, bereft of talent and lacking in effort doesn't get you 17-6 and 8-3 in the Big East.
Yup. 17-6, 8-3. Good in many ways, but not yet good enough to beat a ranked team in their gym. There are worse fates.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
I'm not really sure I agree with any of this.
1. Lockett is slow. Otherwise, if you take out our bigs, we have decent quickness.
2. Certainly could be better, but we have an adjusted FG% of 50%. Not great, but better than Oregon, Louisville, Illinois, Wisconsin to name a few.
3. Otule has been very good defensively.
4. Mid-major? Um, no.
5. Cadougan and Blue are our best players. They were not good last night but I expect them to rebound on Saturday.
6. Fair enough.
The glaring problems were rebounding and turnovers. How did they not make your top 6 points? Georgetown is a good team and I would have expected GU to win by 8-10, especially given our struggles on the road. There's no shame in that. Saturday's game is really big.
My thoughts:
The good: Vander has player better this year and Juan Anderson is also playing improved.
Surprised:I thought J Wil was going to have the same type of Jump as Vander and that has not happened, both on O and D. Still a solid player but not what I expected.
I really did think Lockett would be better, he is solid but more of a fringe starter on a good team. I'm glad he is here, but I did think he would be better.
What I expected.
Jr at a Sr is still a AVG HM PG, I was hoping but not expecting him to make a jump up. He is not very good shooter, Lacks HM quickness for a PG and cannot seperate, which makes him a Below average defender. CO has 1 eye and is always going to have bad hands and have trouble grabbing rebounds and turing the ball over. DW is a good defender but cannot shoot and does not have any OFF feel to his game. Steve T has made some really good plays but also made some mistakes on D.
On the Fence:
Davante has been fine but is really out of sink and has lost confidence. But in general he just needs to get one good game under his belt and should be fine. He seems to struggle more Vs a zone. (the whole team does)
Mayo can score but he is not someone I expect it from every game even though he has the talent. Maybe he can ge3t some more consitent.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 04:51:33 AM
this team isn't very good. Having observed them for 3/4 of the season, the lack of talent is obvious. And for that, he's responsible.
And off back to back Sweet 16's and no early NBA defectors and no major injuries...how is this possible?
Teal folks, teal, but goes to show that what you did the last few years isn't a guarantee of future success, future roster quality, etc.
Fortunately, college hoops level of quality continues to erode so we're going to be just fine. Buzz doing a very good job assembling average talent to play well. That's also on him, in a good way.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
Last night was bad. I'm as frustrated as you are. But slow, bereft of talent and lacking in effort doesn't get you 17-6 and 8-3 in the Big East.
This.
I'm the biggest drum beater of the low quality of our conference and college ball as a whole but even in down times the cream rises to the top. Programs still have to maintain and I'd much rather be in our position with all the problems we have then, say, Villanova.
I posted a thread last week on how Buzz gets this team to bounce back after a loss. Even though Pitt scares poop out of me now that Adams is playing well and they'll have Woodall this time around, the evidence is there to suggest a strong performance on Saturday.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
I disagree with 4 out of 6.
I think #2 and #5, you are correct. Shooting was my biggest concern coming into the season (which is why I was one of the lunatics who thought Jake would get 10min. per game because nobody else can shoot!)
Junior is an average PG. If he could shoot, he'd be above average. Unfortunately he can't, and that hurts.
As far as #6, that's the biggest bunch of cliched fan-BS I've read in a while. These kids bust their ass. They want to win as bad as anybody. Sometimes they will win, sometimes they won't. But, these kids are pretty tough. Look at how hard they play. Look at the close games they have won.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on February 12, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
As far as #6, that's the biggest bunch of cliched fan-BS I've read in a while. These kids bust their ass. They want to win as bad as anybody. Sometimes they will win, sometimes they won't. But, these kids are pretty tough. Look at how hard they play. Look at the close games they have won.
Part of being mentally tough is not falling prey to extended lapses in focus.
No one is questioning their desire to win, but they have a bad habit of losing their heads for minutes at a time. Especially on the road.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 09:41:07 AM
And off back to back Sweet 16's and no early NBA defectors and no major injuries...how is this possible?
Fortunately, college hoops level of quality continues to erode so we're going to be just fine. Buzz doing a very good job assembling average talent to play well. That's also on him, in a good way.
How does the declining level of quality across the country help MU?
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 12, 2013, 10:10:20 AM
Part of being mentally tough is not falling prey to extended lapses in focus.
No one is questioning their desire to win, but they have a bad habit of losing their heads for minutes at a time. Especially on the road.
Please provide examples of what you consider "losing their heads."
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 12, 2013, 10:10:20 AM
Part of being mentally tough is not falling prey to extended lapses in focus.
No one is questioning their desire to win, but they have a bad habit of losing their heads for minutes at a time. Especially on the road.
Fine, but saying that they could improve their overall concentration and be more consistent inside of a game is a lot different that saying:
"Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long."
Derp. Derp. Derp.
Truthfully, I think the guys are still learning/transitioning into new roles. Last year, when the offense looked bad, DJO or Jae would bail them out with a great defensive or offensive play. This year, they have to execute all of the time. They don't have anybody who can just bail them out. They all just have to be better. I know that sounds silly, but that's the truth. They all have to be a little better at what they do. They don't have any room for error.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2013, 10:14:36 AM
Please provide examples of what you consider "losing their heads."
Blown assignments, bad shots, turnovers.
Examples?
- First 4 minutes of the second half at Florida.
- The under 4 TO to the 10 minute mark against LSU.
- The end of regulation at Pitt.
- The last 10 minutes of the first half at UL
- The stretch last night where they had 8 TOs and 3 shots in 11 possessions.
They have had really bad spells that have killed them in games this season. Can't just chalk it up to poor shooting.
We have an elite guard in VB and playing along aside JR. does not get full effectiveness out of him. Him getting the ball 30 feet from the basket is not getting enough from him. If VB was given some room to isolate he can make things happen in half court. Problem is 90% of the time he has ball in position it is one dribble and lazy pass to another guy 30 feet from the basket.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2013, 10:14:36 AM
Please provide examples of what you consider "losing their heads."
Are you watching the games? First half Cincinnati game. Do we need any more examples?
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on February 12, 2013, 08:27:02 AM
Holy Crap. We lose a game on the road by 8 to the 15th ranked team in the country and all the sudden "We arent very Good" "We suck" "NIT"
this is ridiculous!!
Saying we aren't very good doesn't mean we aren't good, it means we aren't VERY good. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what 4ever said...the exact same thing Buzz said, by the way. Same thing a number of analysts have said doing our games this year.
We can't shoot at all, we aren't quick, we struggle defensively at times, etc. It doesn't mean we are NIT bound. We've benefited from a soft Big East schedule. We have our moments, we play hard (Buzz won't let them not play hard), we have grit. We will win some games because we merely outwill the competition. On pure talent, however, we're not very good. We're good, we're not VERY good.
This is a bit of a rebuilding year, so not all surprising. With hoops where it is, more NCAA bids now, the idea of going to the NIT in today's day and age would be really bad. Not going to happen.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 12, 2013, 10:24:35 AM
Blown assignments, bad shots, turnovers.
Examples?
- First 4 minutes of the second half at Florida.
- The under 4 TO to the 10 minute mark against LSU.
- The end of regulation at Pitt.
- The last 10 minutes of the first half at UL
- The stretch last night where they had 8 TOs and 3 shots in 11 possessions.
They have had really bad spells that have killed them in games this season. Can't just chalk it up to poor shooting.
Quote from: TJ on February 12, 2013, 10:36:36 AM
Are you watching the games? First half Cincinnati game. Do we need any more examples?
In other words, whenever the team plays poorly you guys chalk it up to the players "losing their heads."
Quote from: LAZER on February 12, 2013, 10:12:46 AM
How does the declining level of quality across the country help MU?
Because if you are half way decent, you always have a chance. There are no elite teams anymore. The second tier has dropped off as well. So if you are a competent team, you have a better chance of sticking around then in years past in the standings, in games, for post season. I thought the one national tweet last night about both G'Town and MU nailed it about the state of hoops. Neither of these teams would be top 25 material 10 to 15 years ago and no where near the top of the Big East standings. That's the state of hoops now. UCLA fans out here cringe at the level of hoops now...the fact that this UCLA team is in first place of the Pac 12, they would be a middle of the road or bottom half team in the Pac 10 from 10 years ago.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
Saying we aren't very good doesn't mean we aren't good, it means we aren't VERY good. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what 4ever said...the exact same thing Buzz said, by the way. Same thing a number of analysts have said doing our games this year.
We can't shoot at all, we aren't quick, we struggle defensively at times, etc. It doesn't mean we are NIT bound. We've benefited from a soft Big East schedule. We have our moments, we play hard (Buzz won't let them not play hard), we have grit. We will win some games because we merely outwill the competition. On pure talent, however, we're not very good. We're good, we're not VERY good.
This is a bit of a rebuilding year, so not all surprising. With hoops where it is, more NCAA bids now, the idea of going to the NIT in today's day and age would be really bad. Not going to happen.
Uh-oh .... I sense a soft bubble coming .....
I agree with Chico's for most part. This year more than any other year has really made me take notice of the quality of play. To me IU, Miami and Michigan are better than almost everyone night. The game is different and to me it is a positive. A school like MU has better chance to make FF now than ten years ago. Not saying this years team, just in general MU has better chance than in the past.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 04:51:33 AM
this team isn't very good. Having observed them for 3/4 of the season, the lack of talent is obvious. And for that, he's responsible.
Yes, it's now clear that he just can't recruit like Tom Crean. ;D
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2013, 10:44:51 AM
In other words, whenever the team plays poorly you guys chalk it up to the players "losing their heads."
Call it what you like. Those stretches of "playing poorly" usually come with a number of mental mistakes. That's my point.
I totally disagree that this team " needs to grow a pair". Thought they competed right down to final buzzer all year. We do get predictable and lazy passing around a zone but given we can't shoot, I think we have overachieved this year.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 04:51:33 AM
this team isn't very good. Having observed them for 3/4 of the season, the lack of talent is obvious. And for that, he's responsible.
Wow. Really? I'd take MU's current record as a positive. This team is admittedly not one of the most talented that Buzz has had...yet here they are at 8-3 when most of us on Dec. 1 figured would have 8 wins total in the B.East. They are ranked. They stand a great chance of making the NCAA.
What does that mean, "he's responsible"? Yes, they aren't the best team he's had, but my God, they're overachieving, wouldn't you say? Sure, they are frustrating to watch at times. But they have totally bought into the style of play Buzz has wanted in order to get them to where they are.
You do realize that MU is the only team to be over .500 in conference play the last 7 years, right? That didn't really hit me until last night's game when Bilas was - again - praising MU's success and how it really has become an annual power. Louisville has had bad seasons under Rick. Pitt was gawd awful last year. 'Nova is seeing struggles. But, through all of that, there's MU.
They've lost some games due to laziness and turnovers, no doubt. But Buzz, for the most part, has done what coaches are supposed to do - put his team in a position to succeed first and foremost, and second of all get players to continuously improve. The frustration this year is that it appears maybe not everyone is improving at a level we wanted/expected, particularly Jamil. But for the most part I think we've seen some improvement in key guys for next year - Vander especially.
I like this team, I just don't think there are any elite level players. There is nobody I truly "want" shooting when we need a basket. With that said, I think this team hustles and has achieved over it's talent. We lost two greats last year and I honestly believe we're still adjusting.
Quote from: LittleMurs on February 12, 2013, 10:54:27 AM
Yes, it's now clear that he just can't recruit like Tom Crean. ;D
I was hoping someone would finally make this thread about Crean.
Long overdue.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 10:45:24 AM
Because if you are half way decent, you always have a chance. There are no elite teams anymore. The second tier has dropped off as well. So if you are a competent team, you have a better chance of sticking around then in years past in the standings, in games, for post season. I thought the one national tweet last night about both G'Town and MU nailed it about the state of hoops. Neither of these teams would be top 25 material 10 to 15 years ago and no where near the top of the Big East standings. That's the state of hoops now. UCLA fans out here cringe at the level of hoops now...the fact that this UCLA team is in first place of the Pac 12, they would be a middle of the road or bottom half team in the Pac 10 from 10 years ago.
Exactly. And its a huge reason why I like to hear the opinions of older coaches that have been in the ncaa for a long time - they are the only ones that truly know just how much the game has dropped off. For young coaches, this is all they know. Coach K, Boeheim, Calhoun, Roy, etc...they have all said the same thing. And Knight does, too. They all say there is a lack of great talent. The freshmen that get immediate playing time nowadays would never get a chance to get on the court years ago. AAU and h.s. bball do not teach fundamentals anymore. Kids rely more on their athleticism moreso than their bball iq because most have a very poor understanding of the game...
Lack of urgency is a minor problem compared to the amount of turnovers we had last night
Quote from: We R Final Four on February 12, 2013, 07:06:59 AM
The only reason this team is ranked is the favorable schedule. If we played our 2nd half of the schedule first, we wouldn't be #18.
SOS is #15 nationally out of 347. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
Last night was bad. I'm as frustrated as you are. But slow, bereft of talent and lacking in effort doesn't get you 17-6 and 8-3 in the Big East.
Beating up on USF 2x, Seton Hall, depaul, and Prov. sure can make that record look nice in early Feb.-- doesn't mean much. We will see where we shake out in the 2nd tier of teams along with Pitt ND and Cincy.
We also won at Pitt, won against Georgetown
Quote from: slack00 on February 12, 2013, 11:16:00 AM
SOS is #15 nationally out of 347. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Pretty sure he was talking about the BE schedule, which absolutely was soft through the first 10 games.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
With hoops where it is, more NCAA bids now, the idea of going to the NIT in today's day and age would be really bad. Not going to happen.
This statement is ridiculous. Unless your in the last 4 in, getting to the NCAA or going to the NIT is no different than it was 10 years ago. These teams don't compete in a vacuum. Just because there's less talent around doesn't make it easier (or harder) to be among the top 40 at large teams. Simple math.
nm
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 09:41:07 AM
Fortunately, college hoops level of quality continues to erode so we're going to be just fine. Buzz doing a very good job assembling average talent to play well. That's also on him, in a good way.
What do you attribute this too? NBA age rule? The one and dones?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 10:45:24 AM
Because if you are half way decent, you always have a chance. There are no elite teams anymore. The second tier has dropped off as well. So if you are a competent team, you have a better chance of sticking around then in years past in the standings, in games, for post season. I thought the one national tweet last night about both G'Town and MU nailed it about the state of hoops. Neither of these teams would be top 25 material 10 to 15 years ago and no where near the top of the Big East standings. That's the state of hoops now. UCLA fans out here cringe at the level of hoops now...the fact that this UCLA team is in first place of the Pac 12, they would be a middle of the road or bottom half team in the Pac 10 from 10 years ago.
I understand that the teams relative to years past aren't as good and I totally agree with you there. But I don't see how the overall quality of NCAA bball declining gives MU a competetive edge. It's still all the same teams going after the same talent and playing each other.
I don't see how the declining quality of college bball would benefit MU, but at the same time not benefit every other program.
Quote from: Goose on February 12, 2013, 10:53:06 AM
I agree with Chico's for most part. This year more than any other year has really made me take notice of the quality of play. To me IU, Miami and Michigan are better than almost everyone night. The game is different and to me it is a positive. A school like MU has better chance to make FF now than ten years ago. Not saying this years team, just in general MU has better chance than in the past.
Seriously, it seems crazy to say it, but if a couple of our guys catch fire at just the right time -- think Vander vs. USF, Jamil vs. UWGB, maybe best-of-Mayo of last season, etc. -- maybe we can be that team that stuns everyone in March.
Highly unlikely, of course. But I don't think that before tourney time, too many people were saying VCU, George Mason, Davidson, etc. were going to have their runs of recent years.
Just trying to turn this into a positive, which is unusual for a cynic like me!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2013, 11:34:06 AM
This statement is ridiculous. Unless your in the last 4 in, getting to the NCAA or going to the NIT is no different than it was 10 years ago. These teams don't compete in a vacuum. Just because there's less talent around doesn't make it easier (or harder) to be among the top 40 at large teams. Simple math.
Exactly, It is a silly assertion. Teams may have been better 10 years ago, but we aren't playing teams from 10 years ago. (Interesting how 10 was the number of years used for comparison)
I guess if you wanted to diminish the accomplishments of a coach or team you could make such a statement, kind of like a soft bubble.
MU loses a tough road game and suddenly most of the roster is mid-major quality? The players have no balls?
C'mon guys.
Georgetown is good. It's tough to win on the road.
Let's not be meatheads. Engage your brains. Cut out the over-emotional stuff. Save that for NFL postgame radio.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on February 12, 2013, 11:24:42 AM
We also won at Pitt, won against Georgetown
Yes we did. However, I believe we are closer to the middle of the pack with the Nova STJ ND and Cincys of the conf. than those who believe we have/had a chance at a BE title.
Why do we play so different on the road. It seems as if no one was familiar with each other. With the way our scorers played, I would have accepted seeing Thomas' threes or Ferguson's floater been given a chance. Blue and Gardner were sleep. WAKE UP, you're on ESPN.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on February 12, 2013, 12:20:52 PM
Why do we play so different on the road. It seems as if no one was familiar with each other. With the way our scorers played, I would have accepted seeing Thomas' threes or Ferguson's floater been given a chance. Blue and Gardner were sleep. WAKE UP, you're on ESPN.
Why do we play so different on the road? You could ask that question of the vast, vast, vast majority of teams every single year.
That's why they call it home-court advantage. If it didn't offer a huge advantage to be home (and therefore a huge disadvantage to be away from home), there would be no such thing.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on February 12, 2013, 12:04:02 PM
MU loses a tough road game and suddenly most of the roster is mid-major quality? The players have no balls?
C'mon guys.
Georgetown is good. It's tough to win on the road.
Let's not be meatheads. Engage your brains. Cut out the over-emotional stuff. Save that for NFL postgame radio.
Sure, don't have problem with losing to a good team, especially on the road. But, Georgetown exposed MU for what it is as a basketball team. UWGB, however, is not a good team.
I'll stick by my original premise which is there is a shortage of high end talent on this team. I agree that Buzz continues to get the maximum from his team. My point is he needs to bring in better players. Maybe that happens next season, we'll see.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 01:19:09 PM
Sure, don't have problem with losing to a good team, especially on the road. But, Georgetown exposed MU for what it is as a basketball team. UWGB, however, is not a good team.
I'll stick by my original premise which is there is a shortage of high end talent on this team. I agree that Buzz continues to get the maximum from his team. My point is he needs to bring in better players. Maybe that happens next season, we'll see.
We need better players!
C'mon.
When MU wins a tough game, it doesn't mean the players are awesome. When they lose a tough game, it doesn't mean they are awful.
When they execute, the current roster is pretty good. They have some holes in 3pt shooting, ball security, and rebounding (esp. when they play zone).
But, even with those holes, it doesn't automatically mean the players aren't good enough, or that they are mid-major talent. That's BS and you know it.
This is college hoops. Sometimes guys don't play well. Remember Vanderbilt last year? Did that expose DJO and Jae? Were they mid-major talent?
Buzz has been on better players in the past. Just hasn't closed the deal. This team looks a lot different with Deng, Harrison, even the dude at Maryland on it.
Don't know how much Cadougan's Achilles injury hampered his development, but clearly he lacks speed and quickness, among other point guard skills. Otule and Gardner clearly have limitations. Gotta bring better talent in at the 5 to have any shot in March.
I supported Wilson vs Newbill on every level. In hindsight, how does that look today? Truth is switchables is a synonym for whatever position the coach hasn't been able to recruit.
No, Buzz has been able to recruit an endless supply of mid-sized switchables. He hasn't landed an elite big yet, but I bet if you combined Otule and Gardner's #'s you would have a pretty solid 5. And you always want an elite PG. Junior isn't one. He is game and I appreciate his effort, but he simply hasn't turned into 'the man'. MU has been spoiled at that position for a long time. Put a Diener, Hutchings, or even James at the point for this team and it would be special. Maybe Buzz should go back to recruiting JUCO's. ;D
Tower
Not sure if this team would be special with a much better PG but at least we would be in the neighborhood of special.
Quote from: Goose on February 12, 2013, 01:59:12 PM
Tower
Not sure if this team would be special with a much better PG but at least we would be in the neighborhood of special.
What if the PG can hit an outside shot? :D
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2013, 11:34:06 AM
This statement is ridiculous. Unless your in the last 4 in, getting to the NCAA or going to the NIT is no different than it was 10 years ago. These teams don't compete in a vacuum. Just because there's less talent around doesn't make it easier (or harder) to be among the top 40 at large teams. Simple math.
Well, your second sentence you know isn't true because there are 68 teams now and 10 years ago there were 65. So already it is easier.
If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion. 10 years ago, competent didn't get it done. A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end. The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing. Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams. Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find. Maybe that's a better way to state it.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 01:47:27 PM
Buzz has been on better players in the past. Just hasn't closed the deal. This team looks a lot different with Deng, Harrison, even the dude at Maryland on it.
Don't know how much Cadougan's Achilles injury hampered his development, but clearly he lacks speed and quickness, among other point guard skills. Otule and Gardner clearly have limitations. Gotta bring better talent in at the 5 to have any shot in March.
I supported Wilson vs Newbill on every level. In hindsight, how does that look today? Truth is switchables is a synonym for whatever position the coach hasn't been able to recruit.
If they won last night, would any of the above be true?
I'm sorry, this just seems far too reactionary.
Should Michigan recruit better players after they were exposed at UW?
This is college hoops. Teams lose. It happens.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 02:12:12 PM
Well, your second sentence you know isn't true because there are 68 teams now and 10 years ago there were 65. So already it is easier.
If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion. 10 years ago, competent didn't get it done. A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end. The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing. Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams. Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find. Maybe that's a better way to state it.
Please retread my post. In my first sentence I say UNLESS YOU ARE ONE OF THE LAST 4 TEAMS IN, thereby taking into account the increase from 64 to 65 to 68.
The rest of your post is silly. The talent pool may go up or down from year to year, but if the same % of schools are getting in then the difficulty in getting in remains constant. Pleas tell me you understand this - it's not that complex. Elite teams being hard to find is true but irrelevant.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 12, 2013, 11:26:02 AM
Pretty sure he was talking about the BE schedule, which absolutely was soft through the first 10 games.
Absolutely...last week the conference schedule MU played was ranked 12th out of 15. It's gone up considerably since then, of course we've lost 2 of 3 in the process which is not surprising considering the schedule got tougher.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on February 12, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
If they won last night, would any of the above be true?
I'm sorry, this just seems far too reactionary.
Should Michigan recruit better players after they were exposed at UW?
This is college hoops. Teams lose. It happens.
Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right? Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great? I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night. Pitt shot 50% from the line. Georgetown played terribly. But who's going to come on here and post that after a win? Why bother?
Quote from: TJ on February 12, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right? Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great? I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night. Pitt shot 50% from the line. Georgetown played terribly. But who's going to come on here and post that after a win? Why bother?
One could say that last night Georgetown played very good defense and MU had an off night. Marquette shot 64.7% from the line.
Last night Gtown had 4 more TOs than they did in the game at the BC. They also shot a worse percentage from the floor, from 3 and from the line. Did they play terribly again?
Quote from: Avenue Commons on February 12, 2013, 06:37:36 AM
I thought for sure this would be a rebuilding year. Instead, we are in the Top 20 and could make the NCAA tournament. Ill take it.
Buzz doesn't accept rebuilding years.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2013, 02:12:12 PM
If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion. 10 years ago, competent didn't get it done. A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end. The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing. Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams. Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find. Maybe that's a better way to state it.
This makes absolutely no sense. It is no harder or easier to make the tournament than it's ever been since the field expanded (increase by 4 teams aside), it's very simple math.
Every year there is talk of a soft bubble, parity...etc. These are just buzz words and don't exist. On the whole, maybe the talent is down for a year or two, or there isn't a dominant team(s); but every year teams are competing against other teams from that year only, not any other year. An argument made otherwise is done only to provide fodder for talking heads and journalists.
Quote from: TJ on February 12, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right? Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great? I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night. Pitt shot 50% from the line. Georgetown played terribly. But who's going to come on here and post that after a win? Why bother?
And if Rotnei Clarke doesn't hit a miracle shot and if Jake Thomas doesn't miss an open jumper MU is 19-4 and quite possibly in the top 10.
But Clarke made his shot, Thomas missed his, Pitt and G'Town apparently had "off nights" and MU is 17-6 (apparently without any "off nights." Only other teams have those, against MU).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2013, 02:58:50 PM
One could say that last night Georgetown played very good defense and MU had an off night. Marquette shot 64.7% from the line.
Last night Gtown had 4 more TOs than they did in the game at the BC. They also shot a worse percentage from the floor, from 3 and from the line. Did they play terribly again?
I didn't think they played all that particularly well. I thought they were certainly beatable.
GU was beatable last night for sure. We just played worse than they did.
Quote from: TJ on February 12, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right? Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great? I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night. Pitt shot 50% from the line. Georgetown played terribly. But who's going to come on here and post that after a win? Why bother?
Most of us are nerdy enough to read through the numbers and see if a team is "for real" or a "mirage". MU has been walking a tightrope most of the year. Not a secret, so your points are well taken.
But now that MU loses a game to Georgetown (ON THE ROAD) they suddenly need better players? WTF is that?
Duke/UNC/KU/UK, all have top players, but they still lose games, especially on the road.
College basketball is hard. Sometimes you lose. I don't understand how some people are so shocked by that.
The bottom line is that last night wasn't pretty. I didn't feel terrible after the Butler loss or the Cinci loss. A couple of close games, one with a great road comeback. Very little good happened last night
Quote from: Pakuni on February 12, 2013, 03:02:51 PM
And if Rotnei Clarke doesn't hit a miracle shot and if Jake Thomas doesn't miss an open jumper MU is 19-4 and quite possibly in the top 10.
But Clarke made his shot, Thomas missed his, Pitt and G'Town apparently had "off nights" and MU is 17-6 (apparently without any "off nights." Only other teams have those, against MU).
Here we go again with this ...
First, if Clarke doesn't make his shot, MU plays UNC and then, if we win, Illinois. Now, can we beat those teams? Sure, if we play great and they don't. Do we for sure beat those teams the way we beat the horrible Miss State and USC teams that we got to play in the loser's bracket? Please.
And where are the what-ifs surrounding Junior's shot against UConn and the missed FT by Georgetown in the game in Milwaukee?
Not to mention: What if the aircraft carrier game didn't get canceled?
The "what-if" game is silly and useless. We are 17-6 because we are a 17-6 team at this point in our schedule. I'd be thrilled if we go into the NCAAs with the same .739 winning percentage, but given our upcoming schedule that's very wishful thinking.
Quote from: tower912 on February 12, 2013, 03:28:32 PM
The bottom line is that last night wasn't pretty. I didn't feel terrible after the Butler loss or the Cinci loss. A couple of close games, one with a great road comeback. Very little good happened last night
How did you feel against Louisville?
I wasn't surprised by the score. Beating an elite team in their gym is tough. If the visiting team isn't perfect, it is tough to win. MU played poorly and lost.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 12, 2013, 08:22:33 AM
Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.
You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 13, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.
yes, but sometimes he is funny.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 13, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.
Please accept my endless apologies. My intent was not to insult a man of your extreme intelligence. It was in a moment of great idiotic thoughtlessness that I typed such utter folly. Your inciteful, constructive criticism is immensely appreciated and I thank you once again for making me aware of the stupidity of my ways. Surely I know better and rest assured my indiscretions shall not be repeated again.