MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on April 16, 2013, 09:20:28 AM

Title: Jake Thomas
Post by: Tugg Speedman on April 16, 2013, 09:20:28 AM
Now that we are two under the schollie limit, does he reconsider and stay?

My impression is he is leaving so he does not have to pay.  I understand his parents did not want to shell out 30k so he can ride the bench.  But if Buzz can offer him a schollie, will he stay?
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Ellenson Guerrero on April 16, 2013, 09:26:02 AM
Let's not waste another scholarship year on the great white experiment. Try to grab Black and find a 6'10 body to redshirt.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: warriorchick on April 16, 2013, 09:28:15 AM
Let's not waste another scholarship year on the great white experiment. Try to grab Black and find a 6'10 body to redshirt.

Pun intended?
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: g0lden3agle on April 16, 2013, 09:39:20 AM
Let's not waste another scholarship year on the great white experiment. Try to grab Black and find a 6'10 body to redshirt.

I'm ok with grabbing a project to redshirt, but I'm thinking we need to worry more about positions 1-3 rather than getting Black who plays the 4-5.  
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 09:42:58 AM
I would like Thomas to return.  Right now our backcourt options are simply based on potential.  No idea if any of the freshman can come in and contribute.  Can they pick up the defense?

I would not mind having a two guard that has spent two years in Buzz's system that can help to mentor the incoming players.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Ellenson Guerrero on April 16, 2013, 09:55:00 AM
I'm ok with grabbing a project to redcrap, but I'm thinking we need to worry more about positions 1-3 rather than getting Black who plays the 4-5. 

We just play bigger than we have in the past. Wilson and Taylor are more than capable of playing the 3 and I'm confident the frosh guards we have will be able to produce from day 1.

C: Otule/Gardner
PF: Black/McKay
3: Wilson/Taylor/Burton
2: Mayo/Johnson/Burton
1: Duane/Derrick/Dawson
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 10:02:11 AM
We just play bigger than we have in the past. Wilson and Taylor are more than capable of playing the 3 and I'm confident the frosh guards we have will be able to produce from day 1.

C: Otule/Gardner
PF: Black/McKay
3: Wilson/Taylor/Burton
2: Mayo/Johnson/Burton
1: Duane/Derrick/Dawson


"Contribute?"  Definitely.

"Play a leading role on a team that potentially is pre season top 10?"  Not too sure about that.

That being said, I am sure someone will emerge but all we are talking about is potential here.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Ellenson Guerrero on April 16, 2013, 10:06:41 AM

"Contribute?"  Definitely.

"Play a leading role on a team that potentially is pre season top 10?"  Not too sure about that.

That being said, I am sure someone will emerge but all we are talking about is potential here.

They don't have to play a leading role. Gardner, Wilson, McKay, Mayo and potentially Black can handle the majority of the scoring load. The tradeoff isn't really between frosh guards and a stud transfer, but frosh guards and whatever Lockett-type we would be able to find.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
They don't have to play a leading role. Gardner, Wilson, McKay, Mayo and potentially Black can handle the majority of the scoring load. The tradeoff isn't really between frosh guards and a stud transfer, but frosh guards and whatever Lockett-type we would be able to find.


Black's not coming here and I don't think Mayo can be counted on for much IMO.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: BCHoopster on April 16, 2013, 10:07:55 AM
He still rides the bench, not good enough
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Goose on April 16, 2013, 10:08:27 AM
The freshmen will have to make immediate impact and I have no problem with that. Makes no different what year you are if you can play the game. I no longer believe we are top 15 team going into next year, but if young guys play big it could still happen.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: brewcity77 on April 16, 2013, 10:13:28 AM
Looking at the current transfer list, I'm not sure what the best option would be. I don't think Thomas would get many more minutes next year than he did this past year. Guys like JJJ and Mayo will still be ahead of him. The guy that might be missing the opportunity more is Jamal Ferguson, who probably would have projected to more minutes with both Blue and Juan gone.

I see names out there like Jeremy Adams and Lasan Kromah that do nothing for me. Maybe Jerron Granberry would be a good option to play immediately, but how much could be expected from a guy that averaged 10.6 ppg in 3 years at North Florida?
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 10:16:50 AM
Look, here is how I view it.  MU has *two* openings for next year.  I would take a one year player for one of them, but would rather have Jake Thomas than someone like a Granberry.  Then you still have the scholarship for 2014.

I wouldn't mind using the other one on some sort of project big man.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Goose on April 16, 2013, 10:17:21 AM
Jake Thomas? Time to move on and replace a potential AA that is leaving. This major college ball and you need to upgrade talent and retaining jake is not getting that done.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 10:19:30 AM
Jake Thomas? Time to move on and replace a potential AA that is leaving. This major college ball and you need to upgrade talent and retaining jake is not getting that done.


With what Goose?  A JUCO transfer who can play immediately?  That is something I would be fine with.

But another 2013 guard?  Eh....I would rather have a guy back with some experience and still use the scholie in 2014.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Goose on April 16, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Terror

Get another Juco.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: oshkoshbgosh on April 16, 2013, 10:23:57 AM
I'd rather get a project who could redshirt a year and contribute for four more down the road. I'm excited about Duane Wilson's potential, but don't see Derrick Wilson as more than a 10-15 minute a game player. Hope Buzz is searching his JC contacts for a point guard who could contribute immediately.

Are we sure Todd Mayo will be back? He had a turbulent and not productive season.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: keefe on April 16, 2013, 10:24:26 AM
Jake Thomas? Time to move on and replace a potential AA that is leaving. This major college ball and you need to upgrade talent and retaining jake is not getting that done.

Well put, Goose. Thinking Jake Thomas adds anything is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: BCHoopster on April 16, 2013, 10:26:46 AM
How about getting nobody and play with the 11, 11 kids that can play.  Now you will only have one or two upset with no playing time plus you have Swanson a walk-on, give him the
schooly if he is any good.  MU will be fine next year, Duane Wilson will have to grow up quickly.  I see Derrick playing D and Duane playing O, much like this year with Derrick probably
getting some more O opportunites if he improves this summer.   Mayo and Johnson might be better than Blue, and any person taking Juans place will be better.  They will be fine.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GooooMarquette on April 16, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
IMHO, Jamal Ferguson > Jake Thomas.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Groin_pull on April 16, 2013, 10:59:22 AM
Someone needs to explain the fascination with Jake Thomas.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 10:59:52 AM
Thomas is terrible! I seriously hope people are joking about bringing him back. He was a shooter who was afraid to shoot and couldn't make his own shot.

We might as well bring Roseboro or Mcmorrow!
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 11:00:59 AM
This thread needs to be deleted.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: chapman on April 16, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
How about getting nobody and play with the 11, 11 kids that can play.  

Then you have a mid-season transfer, two injuries, and somebody who struggles and you're down to 7 kids that can play.  I pray we're done with the days of self-imposing scholarship penalties on our program for our own failures to retain and recruit for open spots.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: BCHoopster on April 16, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Then you have a mid-season transfer, two injuries, and somebody who struggles and you're down to 7 kids that can play.  I pray we're done with the days of self-imposing scholarship penalties on our program for our own failures to retain and recruit for open spots.

I think Al only played about 7 players a year.  You do have Swanson so that is 12 on the team.  He probably is a good mid-major player.  If what you says happens, they will be trouble
anyway.  More importantly you need a another good recruiting year with only 8 players back the following year, need to sign at least 4 players, and 2 of them will get solid PT time in
the rotation.  One center and one power forward.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 11:25:49 AM
I think Al only played about 7 players a year.  


What Al did isn't relevant to what Buzz is going to do.  Buzz won a number of games because he went deep into his bench last year.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: MU82 on April 16, 2013, 12:25:35 PM

What Al did isn't relevant to what Buzz is going to do.  Buzz won a number of games because he went deep into his bench last year.

He also won a number of games the previous four years when he didn't have anywhere near as much depth, including two Sweet 16 runs with 7-man rotations.

Buzz has become quite adept at working with what he has.

That being said, our depth will be just fine next season -- maybe even excellent -- as long as the newcomers are as good as advertised.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: UticaBusBarn on April 16, 2013, 12:28:52 PM
Thinking about the recent "movement", it strikes me that the "loser" (as in lost opportunity) in all this is Jamal Ferguson.

He would now be in a great position to advance himself and his career. He played the right position and he had the speed for offensive transition and defense. In addition, Ferguson seemed to be an instinctive player. Instinctive players are rare and different than physically gifted ones - think Crowder and Gardner as instinctive players.

Anyway, all this is water over the proverbial dam. No doubt Coach Williams will take whatever hand he has been dealt and make it work.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Eldon on April 16, 2013, 12:45:04 PM
Thinking about the recent "movement", it strikes me that the "loser" (as in lost opportunity) in all this is Jamal Ferguson.

He would now be in a great position to advance himself and his career. He played the right position and he had the speed for offensive transition and defense. In addition, Ferguson seemed to be an instinctive player. Instinctive players are rare and different than physically gifted ones - think Crowder and Gardner as instinctive players.

Anyway, all this is water over the proverbial dam. No doubt Coach Williams will take whatever hand he has been dealt and make it work.

I would bet that Ferguson knew that this stuff was going to happen.  Presumably, he knew that Thomas and Juan were gone before we all did.  Also, he probably also knew that Van was leaning toward the draft.  Even with all that, he still decided to leave.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 02:02:23 PM
It would be really great if we could bring Jake back to sit on the bench for us. He worked really hard during practice. ::)
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Lennys Tap on April 16, 2013, 02:13:51 PM
I would bet that Ferguson knew that this stuff was going to happen.  Presumably, he knew that Thomas and Juan were gone before we all did.  Also, he probably also knew that Van was leaning toward the draft.  Even with all that, he still decided to leave.

I hope it's because he played enough open gym with Du Wilson, JJJ and Deonte Burton to know that all that movement wouldn't help him.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 08:27:00 PM
It would be really great if we could bring Jake back to sit on the bench for us. He worked really hard during practice. ::)


You know, I know people love to rip on players here who don't perform or live up to expectations, but having a guard that has gone through two years of Buzz's practices...who is smart...who understands what Buzz wants on the defensive end, etc. can be very valuable with three young guards coming in.

I fully expect that if Jake returns that he won't play much.  However that doesn't mean he wouldn't bring value. 
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 08:55:12 PM

You know, I know people love to rip on players here who don't perform or live up to expectations, but having a guard that has gone through two years of Buzz's practices...who is smart...who understands what Buzz wants on the defensive end, etc. can be very valuable with three young guards coming in.

I fully expect that if Jake returns that he won't play much.  However that doesn't mean he wouldn't bring value. 

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy...
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 09:02:05 PM
No...Rudy was a liar and a fraud.

I have portrayed Thomas as nothing more than he is.  (And I can't believe that *I* am the one who is actually sees some value in him.)
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: real chili 83 on April 16, 2013, 09:21:24 PM
This was Jake's "freshman" year in high level D1 ball. 

If he returns, he will be better.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
This was Jake's "freshman" year in high level D1 ball. 

If he returns, he will be better.

He is not good. He did not show one game of potential. We are in the Buzz Williams era. Maybe if we were in the Mike Deane era and MU was mediocre I would advocate for this.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: real chili 83 on April 16, 2013, 09:32:28 PM
He is not good. He did not show one game of potential. We are in the Buzz Williams era. Maybe if we were in the Mike Deane era and MU was mediocre I would advocate for this.

You may be right.  I will trust Buzz's judgement.  If JT gets offered, good enough for me.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2013, 09:35:09 PM
He is not good. He did not show one game of potential. We are in the Buzz Williams era. Maybe if we were in the Mike Deane era and MU was mediocre I would advocate for this.


Is reading something that is foreign to you?  Did you see that I said this:

"I fully expect that if Jake returns that he won't play much.  However that doesn't mean he wouldn't bring value."

The point is that I would rather have Jake there than some no-name project because of the intangibles that he can bring to a team.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Lennys Tap on April 16, 2013, 09:45:40 PM

Is reading something that is foreign to you?  Did you see that I said this:

"I fully expect that if Jake returns that he won't play much.  However that doesn't mean he wouldn't bring value."

The point is that I would rather have Jake there than some no-name project because of the intangibles that he can bring to a team.

When you (rightly) predicted that Jake wouldn't do much in 2012-13, you got ripped. Now you (also rightly) point out that he'd be a better bench player next year than just some new guy who's "just a guy" and you get ripped again. Sometimes you just can't win.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Eldon on April 16, 2013, 09:46:30 PM
This was Jake's "freshman" year in high level D1 ball. 

If he returns, he will be better.

Whoop there it is!  

I would not be mad if Buzz brought Thomas back.  Not mad at all.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: bilsu on April 16, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
Jake was on the wrong team for him to be effective. We do not run screens to get three point shooters open. When we played Notre Dame in the Big East tournament their white guy had 6 or 7 threes against us and he was wide open on every shot. Jake was never that wide open in our offense. Actually, I think that is one of the reasons why we were not a good three point shooting team.  Almost half of the threes we attempted were when the shot clock was running out and someone had to shoot. UW shoots a lot of threes with the clock winding down, but they have a shooter with his feet set ready to catch the ball and shoot. Our players are always looking to pass the ball first and are not set to take threes. Having said that we did not have great outside shooters, but I could see the shooters we had being more effective, if the offense had been designed to shoot threes. Gardner hit a three at the end of the Syracuse game, which I believe made him one out four for the year. Gardner probably would have shot at least 30 threes, if he played for the Badgers and I think he would of shot better than 35% on those threes. Three point shooting teams have an offense designed around the three. Last years offense was not designed to take threes.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: chapman on April 16, 2013, 10:03:43 PM
The point is that I would rather have Jake there than some no-name project because of the intangibles that he can bring to a team.

+1.  If Buzz can find serviceable players with good upside, great.  If the 2013-14 team can have Thomas or Mbao 2.0 which it may come down to with two spots to fill, I'll take Thomas.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Stretchdeltsig on April 16, 2013, 10:35:35 PM
This thread should be stopped.  Jake is gone. Period.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Rockmic87 on April 16, 2013, 10:46:52 PM

The point is that I would rather have Jake there than some no-name project because of the intangibles that he can bring to a team.



The point is that MU is no longer bringing in "some no-name project" player anymore. Buzz will no do that, nor will he waste a scholly on Jake. Jake can be a walk-on or the team manager.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Sunbelt15 on April 17, 2013, 06:04:36 AM
Thinking about the recent "movement", it strikes me that the "loser" (as in lost opportunity) in all this is Jamal Ferguson.

He would now be in a great position to advance himself and his career. He played the right position and he had the speed for offensive transition and defense. In addition, Ferguson seemed to be an instinctive player. Instinctive players are rare and different than physically gifted ones - think Crowder and Gardner as instinctive players.

Anyway, all this is water over the proverbial dam. No doubt Coach Williams will take whatever hand he has been dealt and make it work.

So, So True!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: keefe on April 17, 2013, 09:31:32 AM
When you (rightly) predicted that Jake wouldn't do much in 2012-13, you got ripped. Now you (also rightly) point out that he'd be a better bench player next year than just some new guy who's "just a guy" and you get ripped again. Sometimes you just can't win.

That's a bit obtuse, Lenny...Is it not empirically better to have someone who can contribute something on the court than a guy who demonstrated an inability to perform at the level Marquette plays? Not sure what a "bench player" is, frankly 
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: mugrad99 on April 17, 2013, 09:50:44 AM
That's a bit obtuse, Lenny...Is it not empirically better to have someone who can contribute something on the court than a guy who demonstrated an inability to perform at the level Marquette plays? Not sure what a "bench player" is, frankly 
Bench player= good at practice, makes his teammates better every day at practice. Good off the court guy, motivates his teammates to do better in practice, in the classroom, etc... As a caveat, I have no idea if Jake Thomas fits this role...just doing my dialy job of Providing defintiions. ;D

In terms of it being "empirically better"...not sure...what if a bench/practice player can help improve the other players by X%...which would exceed what another player could actually provide in game situations?
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: keefe on April 17, 2013, 10:32:52 AM
Bench player= good at practice, makes his teammates better every day at practice. Good off the court guy, motivates his teammates to do better in practice, in the classroom, etc... As a caveat, I have no idea if Jake Thomas fits this role...just doing my dialy job of Providing defintiions. ;D

In terms of it being "empirically better"...not sure...what if a bench/practice player can help improve the other players by X%...which would exceed what another player could actually provide in game situations?

I am fairly certain from what we have seen from Buzz that players are good at practice or else...

I would think that a player improves at a greater rate scrimmaging against better rather than lesser players. Butch Lee said he thought he was good until he showed up at Marquette and had to go up against Lloyd Walton in practice every day.

Scholarships should be for players who will make game time contributions. Would you rather fly a brand new MiG 21 or an old, beat up F 16 leaking hydraulic fluid? I would take the Falcon 8 days a week. 
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 17, 2013, 10:42:56 AM
Jake Thomas, with his experience, could very well be better than any project that Buzz brings in next year.  He's smart...been in the system for two years now...and has three total years of D1 ball under his belt.  He clearly is overmatched at this level now, but what project-type player wouldn't be?  Would you rather have the next Mbao here?

I am not expecting anything out of Jake.  I wouldn't expect anything out of another player that is brought here now either.  He can at least bring experience and a knowledge of what Buzz wants to the practice floor, and that does have value.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 18, 2013, 02:50:01 PM
The point is that MU is no longer bringing in "some no-name project" player anymore. Buzz will no do that, nor will he waste a scholly on Jake. Jake can be a walk-on or the team manager.


Heh...
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: LloydMooresLegs on April 18, 2013, 03:15:16 PM

Heh...

good call sultan!
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: GGGG on April 18, 2013, 03:16:32 PM
To be fair, I never called anything.  I simply stated that he would provide value if he returns.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: Sunbelt15 on April 18, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
To be fair, I never called anything.  I simply stated that he would provide value if he returns.

Phillies or Black and Mild. HE'S NOT THAT GOOD.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: We R Final Four on April 18, 2013, 05:37:29 PM
He is not good. He did not show one game of potential.

Wasn't he 3 for 3 from long range one game?  Not saying anything more than....well, that was one game.
Title: Re: Jake Thomas
Post by: We R Final Four on April 18, 2013, 05:45:51 PM
This thread should be stopped.  Jake is gone. Period.

Not so fast my friend.  I think that they removed that period.  Jake is back.  Period.