http://painttouches.com/2013/05/13/nba-scout-blue-can-be-a-poor-mans-tony-allen/ (http://painttouches.com/2013/05/13/nba-scout-blue-can-be-a-poor-mans-tony-allen/)
We were able to talk to an NBA scout who believes Vander Blue's prime comparison in the NBA would be Tony Allen. After comparing their college numbers, that analysis seems quite strong.
Absolutely awesome article. Thanks for the read.
"The next few Marquette talents have a lot to be grateful for as Wes (Mathews), (Jimmy) Butler and Jae (Crowder) have all established a brand name for the type of PERSON and player Marquette produces."
Marquette is a brand again - for the first time since the late 70s - and a very positive one at that.
"When asked whether Iman Shumpert would be a good comparison, the scout flatly rejected it, saying it was too optimistic."
LOL...another reason I am not a NBA scout.
More of a reason to root for the Grizzlies: the longer they go in the playoffs, the more exposure it is for Tony Allen (who was already a heralded defender in Boston), the better it is for Vander and the comparison made to Allen.
Vander could do a lot, lot worse. Tony Allen has been a solid NBA contributor for a decade. He was a valuable member of the Celtics' most recent title team and is very valuable for an outstanding Grizzlies team. Oh, and he's a very wealthy man.
As I always say when talking about this kind of stuff:
We'll see.
If at some point Vander finds himself in possession of a 2 year/$6.3M contract he will prove all the doubters, including myself, very, very wrong.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 13, 2013, 10:39:32 AM
"The next few Marquette talents have a lot to be grateful for as Wes (Mathews), (Jimmy) Butler and Jae (Crowder) have all established a brand name for the type of PERSON and player Marquette produces."
Marquette is a brand again - for the first time since the late 70s - and a very positive one at that.
Started about 10 years ago
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 13, 2013, 05:39:03 PM
Started about 10 years ago
Crean (like O'Neill) moved us in the right direction but we're only now becoming a brand again.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 13, 2013, 02:05:12 PM
"When asked whether Iman Shumpert would be a good comparison, the scout flatly rejected it, saying it was too optimistic."
LOL...another reason I am not a NBA scout.
LOL hell no. Tony Allen!? Remember that they said "a poor man's version of Tony Allen." And neither one of them can shoot. I thought he was supposed to be a point guard?
Vander is nowhere near Tony Allen in any way shape or form. This scout is just throwing out a name. Allen is more physical.
But he did say a 'poor man's version. I think he could end up being a bit like Avery Bradley though. Which is nice...
Quote from: MUHoopsFan2 on May 14, 2013, 01:48:06 AM
LOL hell no. Tony Allen!? Remember that they said "a poor man's version of Tony Allen." And neither one of them can shoot. I thought he was supposed to be a point guard?
Vander is nowhere near Tony Allen in any way shape or form. This scout is just throwing out a name. Allen is more physical.
But he did say a 'poor man's version. I think he could end up being a bit like Avery Bradley though. Which is nice...
Avery Bradley is pretty damn generous too, remember he was the number 1 player coming out of high school a couple years back and played just one college season, plus he's a true PG
Draft Express today re Vander:
www.draftexpress.com/article/Trending-Prospects-Vander-Blue-4173 (http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Trending-Prospects-Vander-Blue-4173)
Tony Allen = fringe NBA player / one skill player
Poor man's Tony Allen = not an NBA player!
Problem here is someone's told Vander he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook.
Quote from: jtbh6b1 on May 14, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
Tony Allen = fringe NBA player / one skill player
Poor man's Tony Allen = not an NBA player!
Problem here is someone's told Vander he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook.
I wouldn't call a 9 year vet who plays 27 minutes a game a fringe NBA player - especially one who has led the entire NBA in steals per game and made the all NBA defensive 2nd team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 13, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
Crean (like O'Neill) moved us in the right direction but we're only now becoming a brand again.
In your opinion, but I'd say the strongest brand statement we made was in 2003 and it's repeated often when Mr. Wade takes the court. We have continued to build on that brand with various successes, but it started in 2003....that was the break through moment.
Gonzaga had their defining moment, Butler had theirs, MU had it and lost it and got it back...it's all about building on it now.
KO didn't build the brand...KO helped to prevent it from going extinct...threw it a lifeline. If anything, leaving MU for a women's basketball school and crapping on MU in the media every chance he got hardly helped to build MU's brand.
Quote from: jtbh6b1 on May 14, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
Tony Allen = fringe NBA player / one skill player
Poor man's Tony Allen = not an NBA player!
Problem here is someone's told Vander he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook.
Funny. It's all about Vander finding the right system. He needs a up-tempo offense. A half court offense will expose is shooting ability IF it doesn't improve. Still think he's a better shooter than Tony Allen.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2013, 01:50:39 PM
In your opinion, but I'd say the strongest brand statement we made was in 2003 and it's repeated often when Mr. Wade takes the court. We have continued to build on that brand with various successes, but it started in 2003....that was the break through moment.
Gonzaga had their defining moment, Butler had theirs, MU had it and lost it and got it back...it's all about building on it now.
KO didn't build the brand...KO helped to prevent it from going extinct...threw it a lifeline. If anything, leaving MU for a women's basketball school and crapping on MU in the media every chance he got hardly helped to build MU's brand.
I disagree that puts too much stock in a single tournament run. I think that the brand has was somewhat rebuilt during the 90s, even in 95 an NIT championship appearance is a fairly successful year compared to where we were in the 80s and pre 93.
I think it's arguable that the modern MU brand began in 02, and began it's transition to a powerhouse under Buzz. Being ranked is nice (Crean) but making it out of the first weekend 1 of 6 times isn't the modern brand. The modern brand is making it out of the first weekend 3 of 5 times whether ranked or not (Buzz).
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on May 15, 2013, 10:09:01 AM
I disagree that puts too much stock in a single tournament run. I think that the brand has was somewhat rebuilt during the 90s, even in 95 an NIT championship appearance is a fairly successful year compared to where we were in the 80s and pre 93.
I think it's arguable that the modern MU brand began in 02, and began it's transition to a powerhouse under Buzz. Being ranked is nice (Crean) but making it out of the first weekend 1 of 6 times isn't the modern brand. The modern brand is making it out of the first weekend 3 of 5 times whether ranked or not (Buzz).
Let's be honest, most people don't remember Sweet 16 runs. Case in point, and this should scare you guys. I was at the Kings-Sharks game last night with someone from Fox Sports One. Now mind you, this is the network that will be carrying our games starting this year. We were talking college sports and got to Marquette and he asked...."how did you guys do this year?". This is a sports executive that is going to carry our games.
People remember Final Fours, the standard, casual fan. They don't remember Sweet 16's, they just don't. We all do on this board, but to be a "brand", you have to meet the masses, otherwise you're just niche.
When people come to my office they see all the Marquette stuff and I'll bet you 8 out of 10 times they say the same thing. "Marquette...where Wade went to school". That's what they know MU as...the common basketball fan out here that knows we went that far and produced a great talent. They aren't saying, "wow...three straight Sweet 16's". We're too myopic on this board here to view things through our tiny lens of the world.
Marquette, the school Crean put on the map.
Chicos - you're insane. Wade did not make Marquette a "brand." The poster was talking about "brand" in terms of a type of player that we put out...a Matthews, a Crowder, a Butler...something NBA people can identify with. Wade is no more a "brand" of player that we put out than Travis Diener. Is he a hall of fame player? Of course! So is Robert Parrish and I don't think Centenary was using him as the type of player they were putting out. The bizarre thing is that I think you know that but in your desperation to keep things focused on a total and complete jackass you throw out ridiculous strawman arguments just to be a douche bag.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 15, 2013, 07:53:18 PM
Marquette, the school Crean put on the map.
No. Wade! Crean has to win championships before he can put schools on the map. Players just have to be superstars on the court. Example: Stephan Curry. Who cared about Davidson before him?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 15, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Chicos - you're insane. Wade did not make Marquette a "brand." The poster was talking about "brand" in terms of a type of player that we put out...a Matthews, a Crowder, a Butler...something NBA people can identify with. Wade is no more a "brand" of player that we put out than Travis Diener. Is he a hall of fame player? Of course! So is Robert Parrish and I don't think Centenary was using him as the type of player they were putting out. The bizarre thing is that I think you know that but in your desperation to keep things focused on a total and complete jackass you throw out ridiculous strawman arguments just to be a douche bag.
Did Centenary go to the Final Four? Does Centenary have a brand that is nationally known for hoops? No. I thought we were talking about what got the brand started...please go back and read and not be such a jackass and a douchebag.
Do you think most people in this country know where Jimmy Butler went to school? No. Do most people know where Jae Crowder went? No. Novak? No. Diener? No. If you paid attention, I was talking about the Final Four being the turning point where the brand was recreated and then built on since with the work of Buzz, Crean, and the various successes of the players and teams. But the Final Four is what established things again from a branding perspective.
Chicos, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The last few years under Buzz, MU has developed a brand that goes beyond Wade and the Final Four.
The recent UCLA transfer, Allerik Freeman, was labelled a "Marquette-type wing" player. People who follow college basketball know exactly what that means. A long, athletic wing that attacks the basket and plays with intensity. That brand didn't exist before Buzz.
Furthermore, you have studio hosts like Barkley going on and on about Buzz and how hard Marquette plays.
*That* is a brand. That brand extends to the players that have gone to the pros under Buzz. Even if you could go somehow from the Deane era straight to the Buzz era, that brand would still exist now. Crean had nothing to do with this current brand of MU basketball...outside of the fact that he brought Buzz here.
And I'm not a Crean hater.
Name the players on George Mason's Final Four team? A brand is built on repeatable success and interest. Michael Jordan is a part of UNC's brand, he is not THE brand even at UNC. Same with Marquette and Wade. Nonsense to think otherwise.
2003 was magical, a perfect storm season with a once in a lifetime player, but one season (out of 9) does not a brand make. When 4 tournament wins are bookended by 3 with none and 4 with only one it's more like a fluke (see George Mason). Five straight tournament appearances, 7 tourney wins in the last 3 years with his own players, scouts identifying "Marquette type" players, analysts repeating the "nobody plays harder than Marquette" mantra and NBA coaches praising the type of person/player MU sends them - that's the stuff that brands are made of.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 16, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
Name the players on George Mason's Final Four team? A brand is built on repeatable success and interest. Michael Jordan is a part of UNC's brand, he is not THE brand even at UNC. Same with Marquette and Wade. Nonsense to think otherwise.
When I think of UNC I think of Jordan. Same as when people think of Marquette they think of D. Wade.
Quote from: Dreadman24 on May 16, 2013, 10:58:23 AM
When I think of UNC I think of Jordan. Same as when people think of Marquette they think of D. Wade.
I also think of Dean Smith and Walter Davis and Vince Carter and Maurice Lucas and Dean Meminger and Al McGuire...and Rick Majerus and Doc Rivers, and Roy Williams and Tyler Hansbrough. And Buzz Williams and Jimmy Butler.
Crean was right when he said "It's Indiana, It's Indiana". He then went to trying to jumpstart recruiting by snuggling up to Wade then, but I said it would backfire at the time as the alums will eventually want to see the IU brand restored with IU stars, not other schools'.
So, what does Crean do? He tries to put up his own banner to establish the Tom Crean Brand. And it backfired big time as IU fell flat, and now he is exposed to criticism because of it. Dumb long-term branding moves when CTC had it right to start with I4.
Quote from: Nukem2 on May 14, 2013, 10:03:40 AM
Draft Express today re Vander:
www.draftexpress.com/article/Trending-Prospects-Vander-Blue-4173 (http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Trending-Prospects-Vander-Blue-4173)
This is a comprehensive, accurate view of Vander, from all of his strengths, right down to the call that he's a borderline prospect.
My only nit was in this line:
"He has very little finishing ability with his off hand, however ... "Over the course of the season, Vander's left-handed layups became very reliable -- capped by a most memorable, impressive, buzzer-beating shot over a 6-10 guy from Davidson!
I feel as though several people here are arguing two different things.
Crean did help build the brand of the MU bball program. Correct. The brand of the program would not be where it is without him. But he really has nothing to do with the brand of the "Marquette player" as we are seeing now save for the fact that he did hire Buzz. The brand we are talking about now refers the physical switchables who play aggressive (Crowder, Butler, Wes, etc.). I dont think this brand applies to current MU NBA players Novak and Wade, mostly because they did not play under Buzz.
Additionally, when it comes to the brand of the program, I think it really depends who you talk to. If someone asks where I went to school and they were around in the 70's and so on, the instant reply is "you guys had that head coach..." sometimes they remember Al's name right away, or if I mention it they light up. Today's younger generation knows it as where D-Wade went. I do agree not many know the school where Wes, Jimmy, Novak, and co. went, yet.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 16, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
Name the players on George Mason's Final Four team?
Wasn't there some guy named Jai (spelled like that)? Ok, that's all I got.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 16, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Chicos, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The last few years under Buzz, MU has developed a brand that goes beyond Wade and the Final Four.
The recent UCLA transfer, Allerik Freeman, was labelled a "Marquette-type wing" player. People who follow college basketball know exactly what that means. A long, athletic wing that attacks the basket and plays with intensity. That brand didn't exist before Buzz.
Furthermore, you have studio hosts like Barkley going on and on about Buzz and how hard Marquette plays.
*That* is a brand. That brand extends to the players that have gone to the pros under Buzz. Even if you could go somehow from the Deane era straight to the Buzz era, that brand would still exist now. Crean had nothing to do with this current brand of MU basketball...outside of the fact that he brought Buzz here.
And I'm not a Crean hater.
You're missing the point I think on what the discussion. This was about when it "the brand" re-STARTED...I never said it hasn't been leveraged even further in the last few years. Quite the contrary. My point, which remains, is the brand kicked off with the Final Four and Wade. That was the defining kickoff moment. That was the moment that casual fans said "Marquette" for the first time in years. This is also why I used my Fox Sports One example from Tuesday night's hockey game. We all know we went to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, but most casual fans have no idea. You become a viable brand when you are recognized by the masses. Wade has helped us further that brand, obviously so has the performance the last few years (but not to the casual fan), but the Final Four was THE MOMENT to restart the brand nationally that we lost after Al left. The last few years didn't start it, the Final Four did and that was entirely my point.
And for those understating the Wade brand, I can only laugh. The proof is in our actions. We leverage Wade often, in our business decisions, marketing decisions, etc. We do it to this day still. Whether it is taking out full page ads in the USA Today to congratulate the Miami Heat on a world title, whether it is switching from Converse to Nike, whether it is reporting on Wade coming back to campus (yes, we do this for other players, too, but it doesn't come close to the media value that Wade brings). Wade's impact today on Marquette is still felt and that is terrific. MU should leverage it because of who he is. He and the Final Four started the new brand for MU basketball excellence and what can be achieved.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/51040212.html
http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/recent.php?subaction=showfull&id=1254346269
http://midwestballers.com/?p=2217
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1583821-how-dwyane-wade-and-marquette-helped-launch-the-mid-major-revolution
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2013, 12:42:42 PM
You're missing the point I think on what the discussion. This was about when it "the brand" re-STARTED...I never said it hasn't been leveraged even further in the last few years. Quite the contrary. My point, which remains, is the brand kicked off with the Final Four and Wade. That was the defining kickoff moment. That was the moment that casual fans said "Marquette" for the first time in years. This is also why I used my Fox Sports One example from Tuesday night's hockey game. We all know we went to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, but most casual fans have no idea. You become a viable brand when you are recognized by the masses. Wade has helped us further that brand, obviously so has the performance the last few years (but not to the casual fan), but the Final Four was THE MOMENT to restart the brand nationally that we lost after Al left. The last few years didn't start it, the Final Four did and that was entirely my point.
And for those understating the Wade brand, I can only laugh. The proof is in our actions. We leverage Wade often, in our business decisions, marketing decisions, etc. We do it to this day still. Whether it is taking out full page ads in the USA Today to congratulate the Miami Heat on a world title, whether it is switching from Converse to Nike, whether it is reporting on Wade coming back to campus (yes, we do this for other players, too, but it doesn't come close to the media value that Wade brings). Wade's impact today on Marquette is still felt and that is terrific. MU should leverage it because of who he is. He and the Final Four started the new brand for MU basketball excellence and what can be achieved.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/51040212.html
http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/recent.php?subaction=showfull&id=1254346269
http://midwestballers.com/?p=2217
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1583821-how-dwyane-wade-and-marquette-helped-launch-the-mid-major-revolution
You could make an NFL team's secondary with those back-peddling skills.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2013, 12:42:42 PM
This is also why I used my Fox Sports One example from Tuesday night's hockey game. We all know we went to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, but most casual fans have no idea. You become a viable brand when you are recognized by the masses.
Anybody who has no idea of the teams in the Sweet 16 or the Elite 8 is not a college basketball fan, casual or otherwise.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 16, 2013, 01:00:51 PM
You could make an NFL team's secondary with those back-peddling skills.
Well, it's either that or admit he was wrong about something.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2013, 12:42:42 PM
You're missing the point I think on what the discussion. This was about when it "the brand" re-STARTED...I never said it hasn't been leveraged even further in the last few years. Quite the contrary. My point, which remains, is the brand kicked off with the Final Four and Wade.
The current brand with regards to Marquette basketball has nothing to do with the Final Four era.
MU's brand today is completely different appeal than the FF era. Inner city folks are identifying with the program and Buzz in different way and younger people as well. IMO our brand is more Oregon football tha anything else. We are becoming more flashy and think that people are enjoying this brand in different manner. Would think that our appeal is highest level than it has been in years.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on May 16, 2013, 09:38:45 AM
No. Wade! Crean has to win championships before he can put schools on the map. Players just have to be superstars on the court. Example: Stephan Curry. Who cared about Davidson before him?
Well, in that case:
Marquette, the school that put Crean on the map.
So Cheeks, is DirectTV's brand about Captain Kirk, Beyonce, the Genie, the Russian Mafia guy or Charlie Sheen? Or something else? I say Charlie Sheen.
still surprised that DirecTV advetises the Genie but never used this image - esp. since they used to use actual film clips in ads
(http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/i-dream-jeannie-c.jpg)
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 16, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
Name the players on George Mason's Final Four team? A brand is built on repeatable success and interest. Michael Jordan is a part of UNC's brand, he is not THE brand even at UNC. Same with Marquette and Wade. Nonsense to think otherwise.
If you were to ask people, casual fans (which is where a brand resonates), name the single most memorable moment in Marquette basketball in the last 20 years...or name the single person you associate with Marquette the last 20 years, what would it be?
I'd bet my life's savings it would be Final Four and Dwyane Wade for those two answers. That's what restarted the brand...it was then continued with success from the three amigos, the Buzz tenure, some guys going to the NBA and doing well there. But let's not kid ourselves, 99% of casual fans have no idea where Jimmy Butler went to school, or Lazar Hayward or Steve Novak. A lot of fans know where Wade went to school.
This is inescapable.
Quote from: Red Stripe on May 16, 2013, 03:05:13 PM
still surprised that DirecTV advetises the Genie but never used this image - esp. since they used to use actual film clips in ads
(http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/i-dream-jeannie-c.jpg)
Those were ad campaigns from yesteryear, a lot of fun to do...Tommy Boy was one....we needed to freshen it up with the new product, keep that brand awareness going. Believe me, it was one of many ideas to bring Jeannie into this, but many ideas don't make it to production. We're pretty good at that over the years and have made a bunch of memorable stuff and won a number of awards over the years. Fun stuff, great agencies.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 17, 2013, 02:49:50 PM
If you were to ask people, casual fans (which is where a brand resonates), name the single most memorable moment in Marquette basketball in the last 20 years...or name the single person you associate with Marquette the last 20 years, what would it be?
I'd bet my life's savings it would be Final Four and Dwyane Wade for those two answers. That's what restarted the brand...it was then continued with success from the three amigos, the Buzz tenure, some guys going to the NBA and doing well there. But let's not kid ourselves, 99% of casual fans have no idea where Jimmy Butler went to school, or Lazar Hayward or Steve Novak. A lot of fans know where Wade went to school.
This is inescapable.
Seeing as every game Jimmy plays defending against Wade or Matthews or Jae or anybody the announcers always talk about how it's a Marquette on Marquette matchup, I'm going to say they know. Beyond that I have a comment to an earlier comment of yours. People do remember sweet16s if they didn't then Xavier wouldn't be talked about as having tremendous success in the NCAA tournament these past few years. You can barely turn on the TV during a game with X on where they don't mention "well Xavier has made 4 of the last 6 sweet 16s"
Beyond that I once again reiterate that the brand is different. Would you say that the brand of MU ball stayed the same from Al McGuire to Hank Raymonds? What about O'Neil to Mike Deane? Both those we went from successful to a new coach who had success. I'd say it was different. Same thing here Crean had his own brand of MU ball but it's rebranded with Buzz. It's more about toughness than it was before, I never heard of MU ball being called the toughest team in the early amigos era or anybody say that about the 02 and 03 years. Yet every year Buzz has been here we get more and more known for being tough and physical.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on May 17, 2013, 06:31:36 PM
Seeing as every game Jimmy plays defending against Wade or Matthews or Jae or anybody the announcers always talk about how it's a Marquette on Marquette matchup, I'm going to say they know. Beyond that I have a comment to an earlier comment of yours. People do remember sweet16s if they didn't then Xavier wouldn't be talked about as having tremendous success in the NCAA tournament these past few years. You can barely turn on the TV during a game with X on where they don't mention "well Xavier has made 4 of the last 6 sweet 16s"
Beyond that I once again reiterate that the brand is different. Would you say that the brand of MU ball stayed the same from Al McGuire to Hank Raymonds? What about O'Neil to Mike Deane? Both those we went from successful to a new coach who had success. I'd say it was different. Same thing here Crean had his own brand of MU ball but it's rebranded with Buzz. It's more about toughness than it was before, I never heard of MU ball being called the toughest team in the early amigos era or anybody say that about the 02 and 03 years. Yet every year Buzz has been here we get more and more known for being tough and physical.
That's a sliver, a tiny sliver. How many times do those teams play each other? How many casual fans bother to watch those games? I can tell you Laker fans out here, have no clue where Jimmy Butler went. Neither do Clipper fans or Suns fans or Rockets fans, etc, etc. It's such a tiny sliver. It would be like you knowing where did Steve Blake play or Chauncey Billups on the Clippers. I'm sure Maryland fans and some fans will know Blake went to Maryland, but most don't know or care. Nor do most know or care where Billups went or most other starters.
I had some Laker fans the other day ask me if I was rooting for the Heat in the series because Wade played for the Heat. Again, an example of them knowing Wade went to MU and I'm an MU guy. I said to them, why not the Bulls and Jimmy Butler...he went to MU. They had absolutely no idea. There are special players that everyone knows that can carry a brand...maybe someday Butler gets there, but Wes, Jimmy, Steve, Lazar, etc aren't those type of household names, especially when you get outside 100 miles from Chicago and Milwaukee where people pay attention to it.