If and only if John Dawson, Todd Mayo, and Steve Taylor Jr. play at least 20 minutes a game.
I agree with the last two, and think we will going forward. Of course, Steve has to make some of those layups he works so hard to get..... and maybe play some defense.
Mayo agree. Stj close. But maybe not 20 if deonte shows up.
Quote from: denverMU on January 26, 2014, 02:11:04 PM
If and only if John Dawson, Todd Mayo, and Steve Taylor Jr. play at least 20 minutes a game.
+100
I think more accurate statement is
Jake Thomas, Derrick Wilson, Chris Otule and Juan Anderson playing for no more than 30 minutes....combined.
Btw, I think Derrick and Jake should get about 15 minutes each. Sums up what I think about the other 2.
Quote from: denverMU on January 26, 2014, 02:11:04 PM
If and only if John Dawson, Todd Mayo, and Steve Taylor Jr. play at least 20 minutes a game.
RPI basically says something very similar, problem is it won't move us much.
In the next 8 games, we are favored in the RPI to win 5, two pick 'ems, a clear dog in another (Creighton).
7-1 is possible, so is 8-0. We just don't move much as a result.
Try 6-3 or 5-4. Theres nothing this team does that suggest 8-0 or 7-1 is even Possible.
I don't see us getting by Prov, much less 8 straight but we can put our head in the sand and believe all is ok with this team.
I don't know of a conference in the country where this team could rattle off 8 straight.
More likely to see COMarquette worship at the altar of Digger before this happens.
8 game winning streak? Pass the mushrooms please-or the Colorado bought maryjane.
I think they could win a bunch in a row, and it won't be because of magical line-up changes.
MU has been REALLY close to beating some good teams, but for whatever reason, they can't seem to close.
The schedule gets a softer for the rest of the year, so some of those close losses should turn into wins.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 08:35:52 AM
I think they could win a bunch in a row, and it won't be because of magical line-up changes.
This season has a staleness to it. The same lineups, same issues, same style of loss. Give up open threes, let their top scorer go off. Fall behind, fight back, lose by 5-10 points. Not once on Saturday did I feel that MU would win. Frankly, it's become a chore to watch this team.
Something needs to change the tone, and who knows if shaking up the lineup is it. Even if it doesn't work, it'd be nice to see them at least try something new.
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 27, 2014, 08:56:44 AM
This season has a staleness to it. The same lineups, same issues, same style of loss. Fall behind, fight back, lose by 5-10 points. Not once on Saturday did I feel that MU would win. Frankly, it's become a chore to watch this team.
Something needs to change the tone, and who knows if shaking up the lineup is it. Even if it doesn't work, it'd be nice to see them at least try something new.
Nope.
The competition will just get a little easier, and they should be able to win some games.
I LOVE Steve Taylor, but the odds that Taylor and Dawson are somehow magical solutions is grasping at straws, IMO.
Everybody LOVED Burton 5 games ago and thought he was "the answer". After the AZ game, people loved JJJ. He's not the answer either.
This team can get better, but people shouldn't look for some sort of magically plug and play solution. This isn't fantasy football.
They will win some games because they have some winnable games. Not because Dawson/Taylor/Mayo are magical and Buzz has kept them as his secret weapon.
Where in my post did I say there was a magical answer? I even acknowledged the fact that it might not work. Read before you quote.
All I'm saying is as a fan, I'd like to see a different look just to see what happens. Because this is painful to watch.
So, Sofia Vergara isn't gonna magically appear naked on your doorstep one day, hey?
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 26, 2014, 03:27:16 PM
Try 6-3 or 5-4. Theres nothing this team does that suggest 8-0 or 7-1 is even Possible.
I
guarantee that Marquette will not go 6-3 or 5-4 over their next 8 games.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 27, 2014, 09:30:57 AM
I guarantee that Marquette will not go 6-3 or 5-4 over their next 8 games.
Does your guarantee make it a fact?
The next 8 games are winnable. At least 6 of them are also very losable. In our last four games against a pretty representative sample of the conference, 3 have gone into OT and we got a 1 point win. Not a track record that suggests that we are about to go on a big run.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 09:03:38 AM
Nope.
The competition will just get a little easier, and they should be able to win some games.
I LOVE Steve Taylor, but the odds that Taylor and Dawson are somehow magical solutions is grasping at straws, IMO.
Everybody LOVED Burton 5 games ago and thought he was "the answer". After the AZ game, people loved JJJ. He's not the answer either.
This team can get better, but people shouldn't look for some sort of magically plug and play solution. This isn't fantasy football.
They will win some games because they have some winnable games. Not because Dawson/Taylor/Mayo are magical and Buzz has kept them as his secret weapon.
Someone needs to create a Big East Bball fantasy league.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 27, 2014, 09:30:57 AM
I guarantee that Marquette will not go 6-3 or 5-4 over their next 8 games.
Okay...since we've failed to reach a bet previously and it now looks like Buzz is going to continue to ride Derrick 30+ minutes - I'll bet that if Derrick averages 27+ minutes per game from in the next 9 games, we will not go 7-2, which is what you essentially have posted above. To the loser goes a 3 month ban from Scoop.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 09:03:38 AM
This team can get better, but people shouldn't look for some sort of magically plug and play solution. This isn't fantasy football.
They will win some games because they have some winnable games. Not because Dawson/Taylor/Mayo are magical and Buzz has kept them as his secret weapon.
Nice lingo - plug and play. Actually, basketball is absolutely a plug and play game. You plug in Dawson, Mayo and Taylor - and play them instead of Derrick, Jake, Juan/Otule - and you have a much different team.
I kind of thought Dawson looked "magical" in OT at G'Town, and thought Todd pulled a rabbit out of his hat and also was pretty, "magical" down the stretch against Villanova. Why did Jake Thomas not score our last 10 of regulation?? Or why did he not score in the previous 30 minutes of the game? (Yet, I don't hate Jake being on the floor nearly as much as Derrick - because Jake actually has a + high major talent - shooting the 3 which does help space the floor.) I've yet to see a game where Derrick simply takes over and outright gets us a win. So, yeah, pardon me if I feel basketball is a plug and play game and we'd get some different results if we made the obvious lineup changes necessary.
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 09:42:06 AM
Okay...since we've failed to reach a bet previously and it now looks like Buzz is going to continue to ride Derrick 30+ minutes - I'll bet that if Derrick averages 27+ minutes per game from in the next 9 games, we will not go 7-2, which is what you essentially have posted above. To the loser goes a 3 month ban from Scoop.
Just an FYI.. and I think this is what Merritt was getting at... it is impossible 6-3 or 5-4 or even 7-2 when you only play 8 games... the math doesn't work.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 27, 2014, 09:44:54 AM
Just an FYI.. and I think this is what Merritt was getting at... you can't go 6-3 or 5-4 or even 7-2 when you play 8 games... the math doesn't work.
Thanks, jesmu84. At least someone hasn't let MU's tough season ruin his basic math skills.
I'm feeling 7-1
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 27, 2014, 09:27:50 AM
So, Sophia Vergara isn't gonna magically appear naked on your doorstep one day, hey?
Who is Sophia Vergara? Oh, I lead such a sheltered life. We need pictures, please.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 27, 2014, 11:39:40 AM
Who is Sophia Vergara? Oh, I lead such a sheltered life. We need pictures, please.
Ever heard of Google image search?
Quote from: willie warrior on January 27, 2014, 11:39:40 AM
Who is Sophia Vergara? Oh, I lead such a sheltered life. We need pictures, please.
[/quote
Sorry Bro, It's Sofia. Distracted while checkin' out her pic.
What kind and how much Juice have been consuming.
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 27, 2014, 09:07:15 AM
Where in my post did I say there was a magical answer? I even acknowledged the fact that it might not work. Read before you quote.
All I'm saying is as a fan, I'd like to see a different look just to see what happens. Because this is painful to watch.
I think we're just missing something in translation.
My Opinion:
- MU can/will win more often in the next 8-10 games. (lets say 8-2)
- Some people will extrapolate that it's because of (insert player). "SEE! Buzz finally figured it out!!! He needs to play (X)"
MY POINT:
MU's opponents and softer schedule will have more to do with the wins than any sort of line-up change. I certainly think Taylor/Dawson/Mayo could help with increased minutes... but I also think that a softer schedule will really help a team that has been so close to a handful of wins against good teams.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 27, 2014, 11:41:31 AM
Ever heard of Google image search?
Thank you, I had already done it. She raises a huge question in life: Sofia Vergara or Kate Upton? Now there is a question for the ages. Sort of like Derrick Wilson or John Dawson.
Both
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
I think we're just missing something in translation.
My Opinion:
- MU can/will win more often in the next 8-10 games. (lets say 8-2)
- Some people will extrapolate that it's because of (insert player). "SEE! Buzz finally figured it out!!! He needs to play (X)"
MY POINT:
MU's opponents and softer schedule will have more to do with the wins than any sort of line-up change. I certainly think Taylor/Dawson/Mayo could help with increased minutes... but I also think that a softer schedule will really help a team that has been so close to a handful of wins against good teams.
LOL - Nice way to hedge...so if MU does improve and go 8-2 and it coincides with lineup changes, it will be the result of a softer schedule, and not the lineup changes? Tell me, which games have we been so close to winning against good teams? Villanova? Who else? If you want to throw out Wisconsin, that's fine, even though we got dominated the whole game only to make a futile run in the last 2:30 of the game - but anyone watching that game knew MU wasn't going to win.
But is it really a softer schedule? We see Creighton again, albeit at home. See Xavier again, albeit at home. Have Nova on the road. Georgetown at Home. Providence home and away.
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 02:06:38 PM
LOL - Nice way to hedge...so if MU does improve and go 8-2 and it coincides with lineup changes, it will be the result of a softer schedule, and not the lineup changes? Tell me, which games have we been so close to winning against good teams? Villanova? Who else? If you want to throw out Wisconsin, that's fine, even though we got dominated the whole game only to make a futile run in the last 2:30 of the game - but anyone watching that game knew MU wasn't going to win.
But is it really a softer schedule? We see Creighton again, albeit at home. See Xavier again, albeit at home. Have Nova on the road. Georgetown at Home. Providence home and away.
Close/winnable games with good teams:
ASU
SDSU
Xavier
Butler
Nova
Now, you take this same MU team, and put them up against lesser opponents (STJ, Butler (home). SH, Xaver(home), DePaul, Georgetown (home), StJ, and we'll should see some more wins.
AND, for the record, I'm not against line-up changes, I'm just saying that the schedule gets softer, so I'm expecting some more wins, regardless of line-up.
Quote from: denverMU on January 26, 2014, 02:11:04 PM
If and only if John Dawson, Todd Mayo, and Steve Taylor Jr. play at least 20 minutes a game.
DenverMU is by far my favorite fan on this board. I love your optimism. Time to believe in this team! (I agree with your suggestions regarding the playing time as well) ;)
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
Close/winnable games with good teams:
ASU
SDSU
Xavier
Butler
Nova
Now, you take this same MU team, and put them up against lesser opponents (STJ, Butler (home). SH, Xaver(home), DePaul, Georgetown (home), StJ, and we'll should see some more wins.
AND, for the record, I'm not against line-up changes, I'm just saying that the schedule gets softer, so I'm expecting some more wins, regardless of line-up.
Add Wiscy to that list. We were within one bucket with a minute left.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
Close/winnable games with good teams:
ASU
SDSU
Xavier
Butler
Nova
Now, you take this same MU team, and put them up against lesser opponents (STJ, Butler (home). SH, Xaver(home), DePaul, Georgetown (home), StJ, and we'll should see some more wins.
AND, for the record, I'm not against line-up changes, I'm just saying that the schedule gets softer, so I'm expecting some more wins, regardless of line-up.
So is Butler a 'good team' or a 'lesser opponent'?
Record on the left side shows them at 1-7 in conf., in last place. They are good at home/lesser on the road?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
I think we're just missing something in translation.
My Opinion:
- MU can/will win more often in the next 8-10 games. (lets say 8-2)
- Some people will extrapolate that it's because of (insert player). "SEE! Buzz finally figured it out!!! He needs to play (X)"
MY POINT:
MU's opponents and softer schedule will have more to do with the wins than any sort of line-up change. I certainly think Taylor/Dawson/Mayo could help with increased minutes... but I also think that a softer schedule will really help a team that has been so close to a handful of wins against good teams.
Exactly. We trotted out the same "stale" lineup and beat DePaul and Seton Hall. Didn't beat 'em easily but we beat 'em. Why? Because they weren't Villanova or even Butler. Lots of winnable games ahead, regardless of the lineup we use.
I do hope we modify the backcourt minutes some, however. It does get tiring listening to my wife scream at Derrick and Jake! Mrs. MU82 has a mean streak, especially when her starting guards combine for 6 points in an OT game.
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 27, 2014, 04:30:16 PM
So is Butler a 'good team' or a 'lesser opponent'?
Record on the left side shows them at 1-7 in conf., in last place. They are good at home/lesser on the road?
Well, I don't think winning at Hinkle is very easy, so I consider that a tough game/good team.
But, we can throw that one out.
MU was tight with UW until the last few minutes, so you could add that one into the list.
I also didn't include Providence in any list. They are an unknown to me right now. Their record is pretty good, but I just don't know enough about them.
Anyways, my point is that MU has been close and not able to get over the hump (to use a cliche). If/when the competition gets a little weaker, I think MU can/should win some games.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
Close/winnable games with good teams:
ASU
SDSU
Xavier
Butler
Nova
Now, you take this same MU team, and put them up against lesser opponents (STJ, Butler (home). SH, Xaver(home), DePaul, Georgetown (home), StJ, and we'll should see some more wins.
AND, for the record, I'm not against line-up changes, I'm just saying that the schedule gets softer, so I'm expecting some more wins, regardless of line-up.
Butler? Good? And St. John's a lesser opponent? After St. Johns just ripped Butler at Butler by 19? Okay. And SDSU - we were in that game? I recall Burton went on a nice scoring binge to get us back to -4, and then was relegated to the bench..and there was no suspense down the stretch as to if we win. Xavier? Dawson helped get us back in that game in the 2nd half, only to turn over to Derrick and our 1- deficit went to -8 in 2:45. And as for Nova....we pretty much were dominated the whole game...ont the perimeter, if not for Todd Mayo's heroics at the end...
I'd agree that we were in the game at ASU throughout....and of course that was Derrick's best game as a collegiate - no where near what his other games have been...but we certainly were competitve against what's proven to be a decent ASU team (34 in Pomroy.)
A good start to any possible win streak would be Buzz having his "lockdown defender" on Cotton. Should be interesting as to who guards him, Dwil or Thomas. Other quality guards have lit up MU, so we'll see. Then of course have to deal with Batts and Henton. The Friars will be a test.
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 05:00:58 PM
Butler? Good? And St. John's a lesser opponent? After St. Johns just ripped Butler at Butler by 19? Okay. And SDSU - we were in that game? I recall Burton went on a nice scoring binge to get us back to -4, and then was relegated to the bench..and there was no suspense down the stretch as to if we win. Xavier? Dawson helped get us back in that game in the 2nd half, only to turn over to Derrick and our 1- deficit went to -8 in 2:45. And as for Nova....we pretty much were dominated the whole game...ont the perimeter, if not for Todd Mayo's heroics at the end...
I'd agree that we were in the game at ASU throughout....and of course that was Derrick's best game as a collegiate - no where near what his other games have been...but we certainly were competitve against what's proven to be a decent ASU team (34 in Pomroy.)
Fine.
MU is going to win 8 out of their next 10 because Buzz is going to play (Player B) a ton of minutes. (Player B) is really good, but Buzz has held him back out of loyalty to (Player A).*
*Posters are welcome to substitute in whoever they want for "Player B"... a lot of guys have worn that "held back" crown this year, including Burton, JJJ, Dawson, Taylor and Mayo... so rage on, pissed off basketball scholars!
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 05:11:08 PM
Fine.
MU is going to win 8 out of their next 10 because Buzz is going to play (Player B) a ton of minutes. (Player B) is really good, but Buzz has held him back out of loyalty to (insert A).*
*Posters are welcome to substitute in whoever they want for "Player B"... a lot of guys have worn that "held back" crown this year, including Burton, JJJ, Dawson, Taylor and Mayo... so rage on, pissed off basketball scholars!
Nice. Thanks for at least not trying to suggest that we face a softer schedule the next 10 games than we have the previous 10.
As for your Player B scenario - you do realize PG is the most important position on the basketball court, correct?? Having said that, yes, of all the above "Player B's" you mention above - I'll vote Dawson would be the one to make the biggest difference. Then Mayo. Then Steve Taylor. Then Burton.
Play Dawson and Todd 30 minutes a game, and I guarantee you our starting backcourt will no longer be consistently getting outscored 35-10 (or worse.)
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 05:15:30 PM
Nice. Thanks for at least not trying to suggest that we face a softer schedule the next 10 games than we have the previous 10.
As for your Player B scenario - you do realize PG is the most important position on the basketball court, correct?? Having said that, yes, of all the above "Player B's" you mention above - I'll vote Dawson would be the one to make the biggest difference. Then Mayo. Then Steve Taylor. Then Burton.
Play Dawson and Todd 30 minutes a game, and I guarantee you our starting backcourt will no longer be consistently getting outscored 35-10 (or worse.)
Choose your own adventure, bro.
That's the beauty of "Player B". We can ALL be right!
Buzz is clearly holding back "Player B", and once he figures that out, the sky is the limit.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 27, 2014, 05:19:08 PM
Choose your own adventure, bro.
That's the beauty of "Player B". We can ALL be right!
Buzz is clearly holding back "Player B", and once he figures that out, the sky is the limit.
Thanks "bro." What's your vote? Or do you feel the status quo, as has Buzz felt, is still the best option?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 27, 2014, 09:30:57 AM
I guarantee that Marquette will not go 6-3 or 5-4 over their next 8 games.
If the starting back court plays +70 Minutes a game... Marquette is gonna lose more games than they win... period
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
Thanks "bro." What's your vote? Or do you feel the status quo, as has Buzz felt, is still the best option?
I think players get the minutes they earn.
#1 Play well in practice.
#2 Play to the scouting report.
#3 Produce in games.
You'll get minutes.
Miss on any 3 of those, and you might find yourself with a reduced role.
I'm an optimist and think MU will go 8-3 so 11-7 in BE. And 19-12 overall. But does that get them in? Even with 1-1, 2-1 in BE tourney... that's 20-13, 21-13...i don't think so. What do you think?
Quote from: jsheim on January 28, 2014, 11:18:10 PM
I'm an optimist and think MU will go 8-3 so 11-7 in BE. And 19-12 overall. But does that get them in? Even with 1-1, 2-1 in BE tourney... that's 20-13, 21-13...i don't think so. What do you think?
19-12 leaves us on the outside looking in, unless we win the BET. Gotta go 20-11 with 2 BET wins to make the tourney. Even then, it is close.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2014, 09:14:26 AM
19-12 leaves us on the outside looking in, unless we win the BET. Gotta go 20-11 with 2 BET wins to make the tourney. Even then, it is close.
If they go 20-11 (meaning 12-6 in conference), I'm not sure why they would need 2 BET wins. Maybe one. Probably too early to tell, but 12-6 would probably mean a top-4 finish in the conference.
20 - 11 - what are you smoking?
they are 11 - 9 / 3 - 4 right now... that means you think they could could 9 - 2?
High Probable losses: @Villanova, Creighton
Winnable / Losable - tossup Games: vs Prov, @STJ, @SH, vs Xavier, @Depaul, vs GT, @Providence, vs StJ
High Probable Wins: Butler
You think the current team - what has shown to date can go 8 - 0 in the the Winnable / Losable games?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2014, 09:14:26 AM
19-12 leaves us on the outside looking in, unless we win the BET. Gotta go 20-11 with 2 BET wins to make the tourney. Even then, it is close.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 29, 2014, 09:25:52 AM
20 - 11 - what are you smoking?
they are 11 - 9 / 3 - 4 right now... that means you think they could could 9 - 2?
High Probable losses: @Villanova, Creighton
Winnable / Losable - tossup Games: vs Prov, @STJ, @SH, vs Xavier, @Depaul, vs GT, @Providence, vs StJ
High Probable Wins: Butler
You think the current team - what has shown to date can go 8 - 0 in the the Winnable / Losable games?
Simple answer. Yes
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 29, 2014, 09:25:52 AM
20 - 11 - what are you smoking?
they are 11 - 9 / 3 - 4 right now... that means you think they could could 9 - 2?
High Probable losses: @Villanova, Creighton
Winnable / Losable - tossup Games: vs Prov, @STJ, @SH, vs Xavier, @Depaul, vs GT, @Providence, vs StJ
High Probable Wins: Butler
You think the current team - what has shown to date can go 8 - 0 in the the Winnable / Losable games?
It's funny reading some of this stuff. Many of the same people bitching a month or two ago that MU 'should have beaten' the likes of SDSU, ASU, Wisconsin, etc., because they were the better team, are now complaining that MU is incapable of even going .500 the rest of the way.
Note to madtown: I don't know if you were one of those or not, just using your post because it made me think of it.
For the record, I don't know about 8 in a row, but if they finished up 9-2, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. I wouldn't predict it either, as I have not yet seen anything to convince that that this collection of players has the mental makeup to get it done. The good news there is that can change at any time.
Well, we got one straight--Providence.