Wojo met with Cody Schwartz on friday. Scholarship is still on the table for him. SORRY if this has been posted already!
Mark Miller is the source
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 14, 2014, 09:42:28 AM
Wojo met with Cody Schwartz on friday. Scholarship is still on the table for him. SORRY if this has been posted already!
Mark Miller is the source
Not familiar with that name. Can someone help?
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 14, 2014, 09:44:11 AM
Not familiar with that name. Can someone help?
Google is my best friend
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 14, 2014, 09:44:11 AM
Not familiar with that name. Can someone help?
Cody is a senior-to-be at West DePere HS (GreenBay area). He is 6'8", runs the court well and is a very good outside shooter. Creighton is very interested in him.
Nice to see a coach value the 3 point shot. Go get him Wojo!
How many paint touches does he average per game? Deflections?
Quote from: esotericmindguy on April 14, 2014, 09:52:00 AM
Nice to see a coach value the 3 point shot. Go get him Wojo!
He could be our Kyle Syngler. Yes Im serious
Good, we should be bringing in guys every other year that are probably 4 year players with upside. They don't have to make an immediate impact (and I don't know, maybe he is an impact player as a freshman, but I doubt it). A guy that can pay PF that can run and shoot and can compliment other players. Can't build a team off these guys, but they should be sprinkled in and can help open it up for some stud wings.
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 14, 2014, 09:57:27 AM
He could be our Kyle Syngler. Yes Im serious
He could also be our Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Dunleavy, Greg Paulus, or Jon Scheyer. No, Im not serious.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on April 14, 2014, 09:52:00 AM
Nice to see a coach value the 3 point shot. Go get him Wojo!
This. I think it is very difficult to have sustained success in college bball without deliberately utilizing the 3 point shot.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on April 14, 2014, 10:01:34 AM
He could also be our Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Dunleavy, Greg Paulus, or Jon Scheyer. No, Im not serious.
LOL good one
http://247sports.com/PlayerInstitution/Cody-Schwartz-at-West-De-Pere-37386/CurrentExpertPredictions
Three Creighton picks at the end of February, and a UW pick yesterday. Would not mind this pick up one bit.
Quote from: MUSF on April 14, 2014, 10:03:22 AM
This. I think it is very difficult to have sustained success in college bball without deliberately utilizing the 3 point shot.
We do not agree with your statement.
Sincerely,
Kentucky
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 14, 2014, 10:06:38 AM
We do not agree with your statement.
Sincerely,
Kentucky
Kentucky utilized the three never before. What are you saying??
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 14, 2014, 10:06:38 AM
We do not agree with your statement.
Sincerely,
Kentucky
Sure, there are exceptions. You could argue that MU has enjoyed sustained success without featuring the 3 point shot.
That's why I said very difficult, not impossible.
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 14, 2014, 10:07:48 AM
Kentucky utilized the three never before. What are you saying??
They were only middle of the pack with 203 3PM, duh.
Quantity over quality for MDDG.
Quote from: GOO on April 14, 2014, 09:59:53 AM
Good, we should be bringing in guys every other year that are probably 4 year players with upside. They don't have to make an immediate impact (and I don't know, maybe he is an impact player as a freshman, but I doubt it). A guy that can pay PF that can run and shoot and can compliment other players. Can't build a team off these guys, but they should be sprinkled in and can help open it up for some stud wings.
And Wojo did say there would be an emphasis on player development. As long as his idea of development isn't to tear them down and re-build them, ala Brent, then this kid would be a very good fit.
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 14, 2014, 10:07:48 AM
Kentucky utilized the three never before. What are you saying??
Every team utilizes the 3 point shot in some form. They didn't rely upon it. Their mantra was to pound the ball inside to their bigs and score in the paint.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 14, 2014, 10:06:38 AM
We do not agree with your statement.
Sincerely,
Kentucky
Good thinking. Let's compare Marquette to UK getting 5 top 15 recruits who can't shoot. Sure, if you can lead the nation in rebounding, then the 3 pointer isn't as necessary. Marquette won't be getting 3 McD All-American front court players....all of which will likely be in the NBA.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on April 14, 2014, 10:30:59 AM
Good thinking. Let's compare Marquette to UK getting 5 top 15 recruits who can't shoot. Sure, if you can lead the nation in rebounding, then the 3 pointer isn't as necessary. Marquette won't be getting 3 McD All-American front court players....all of which will likely be in the NBA.
The question needs to be rephrased in terms of utilizing the 3 point shot. Are we referring to a team that lives and dies by the 3 point shot like Creighton? I think that was the intent. I honestly, don't want a team that plays this way. This type of style rarely makes deep tournament runs.
Quote from: MUSF on April 14, 2014, 10:09:19 AM
Sure, there are exceptions. You could argue that MU has enjoyed sustained success without featuring the 3 point shot.
That's why I said very difficult, not impossible.
I think we hit three three point shots in last 1:30 to beat Davidison. Not a good three point shooting team, but we hit the shots. O-22 against Uconn when we hit three to send game in overtime. Even bad three point shooting teams need to hit threes.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 14, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
The question needs to be rephrased in terms of utilizing the 3 point shot. Are we referring to a team that lives and dies by the 3 point shot like Creighton? I think that was the intent. I honestly, don't want a team that plays this way. This type of style rarely makes deep tournament runs.
That's the type of team that chokes away a 16 point lead against Washington with 5 minutes left in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: PunchingPiper on April 14, 2014, 11:04:21 AM
That's the type of team that chokes away a 16 point lead against Washington with 5 minutes left in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
That team may have been the smallest MU team ever. I remember looking on KenPOM and sorting the teams out by height. MU was the smallest team out of all the power conferences, by far, at the time. No low post presence, really, nor a guy who could create his own shot off the dribble.
And this ADHD moment on three point shooting and Kentucky was brought to you by...
Any news on this Schwartz kid? It is the topic of the thread, right?
Here's Sandy going at him
(http://i.imgur.com/BgOhWVa.jpg)
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 14, 2014, 11:10:21 AM
That team may have been the smallest MU team ever. I remember looking on KenPOM and sorting the teams out by height. MU was the smallest team out of all the power conferences, by far, at the time. No low post presence, really, nor a guy who could create his own shot off the dribble.
DJO could. Butler and Hayward really couldn't I'll give you that. Outside of those three it's not even worth talking about that team but the point is Acker, Cubi, DJO, Butler, Hayward everybody went cold on threes and choked. What did we learn? Three point shooting is great but didn't help in the end.
Quote from: bilsu on April 14, 2014, 10:53:19 AM
I think we hit three three point shots in last 1:30 to beat Davidison. Not a good three point shooting team, but we hit the shots. O-22 against Uconn when we hit three to send game in overtime. Even bad three point shooting teams need to hit threes.
There's a difference between being able to hit threes and utilizing the three point shot as a key component of your offense. The three was never really a deliberate part of Buzz's offensive system. He took the shoot it if it's open approach over setting up three point opportunities. That philosophy shifted a little bit in the later half of this season with Jake.
For the most part, Buzz's system served MU well during his tenure, but I am excited to see a new system that uses the three, or the threat of the three more consistently.
Over the course of a season, it would benefit Marquette if the team didn't begin each game trailing by 18-21 points from the 3-point line. That was the case all too often last season. We knew we had zero chance to compete from behind the arc against a majority of opponents.
There is a happy medium between being the kind of rely-on-3 team Creighton was last season and the kind of can't-make-a-3 team Marquette was.
Finally, it would be nice if the guy who has the ball in his hands most of the game could hit a 3 when the defense dares them to shoot.
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 14, 2014, 09:46:57 AM
Google is my best friend
Was hoping someone could offer some insight, rather than the standard recruit profile info found when you google.
But thanks for the suggestion. ::)
Just tuned in and didn't read anything on page 2 about the subject Cody Schwartz!
Quote from: MU82 on April 14, 2014, 02:33:44 PM
Over the course of a season, it would benefit Marquette if the team didn't begin each game trailing by 18-21 points from the 3-point line. That was the case all too often last season. We knew we had zero chance to compete from behind the arc against a majority of opponents.
There is a happy medium between being the kind of rely-on-3 team Creighton was last season and the kind of can't-make-a-3 team Marquette was.
Finally, it would be nice if the guy who has the ball in his hands most of the game could hit a 3 when the defense dares them to shoot.
Nitpicking here but this is one of my biggest pet peeves. You should not count every extra 3 pointer made as 3 extra points for a team, because they do not get an extra possession by making a 3 pointer. So my point is a team gets an "extra" 1 point out of making a 3 pointer, not an extra 3 points. So you'd need to make 18-21 more 3 pointers than another team to have an extra 18-21 points because of 3 point field goals made. You get 1 extra point per 3 point field goal made when comparing field goals, not 3 extra points.
If I'm making sense at all...
Quote from: wadesworld on April 14, 2014, 02:40:45 PM
Nitpicking here but this is one of my biggest pet peeves. You should not count every extra 3 pointer made as 3 extra points for a team, because they do not get an extra possession by making a 3 pointer. So my point is a team gets an "extra" 1 point out of making a 3 pointer, not an extra 3 points. So you'd need to make 18-21 more 3 pointers than another team to have an extra 18-21 points because of 3 point field goals made. You get 1 extra point per 3 point field goal made when comparing field goals, not 3 extra points.
If I'm making sense at all...
I'd hear what you were saying if I knew we were gonna make the 2-pointer!
Seriously, I'm not necessarily talking about a point differential that's reflected in the final score -- being behind 18 points from the 3-point line doesn't have to translate to losing by 18. I'm talking more about an easy way to measure the difference between teams' likelihood of making 3s in a game.
So when I say we're behind Georgetown 18-0 from the 3-point line before the game even starts, I'm looking at six 3s they're going to get that we aren't. And even if we get a 2 on every one of those trips downcourt, we're still "losing" that metric by 6 points -- which is too many.
Bottom line: I'd like us to have 2 or 3 guys on the court at all times who are serious threats.
Quote from: MU82 on April 14, 2014, 02:54:28 PM
I'd hear what you were saying if I knew we were gonna make the 2-pointer!
Seriously, I'm not necessarily talking about a point differential that's reflected in the final score -- being behind 18 points from the 3-point line doesn't have to translate to losing by 18. I'm talking more about an easy way to measure the difference between teams' likelihood of making 3s in a game.
So when I say we're behind Georgetown 18-0 from the 3-point line before the game even starts, I'm looking at six 3s they're going to get that we aren't. And even if we get a 2 on every one of those trips downcourt, we're still "losing" that metric by 6 points -- which is too many.
Bottom line: I'd like us to have 2 or 3 guys on the court at all times who are serious threats.
I get what you're saying and I agree that we at least need a threat or 2 to hit a 3 pointer on the court. I'm just saying that just because a team makes 5 more 3 pointers than another team does not mean that they are +15 points as a result of that. Analysts say things like that all the time, but different teams use different methods to put the ball in the basket.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 14, 2014, 03:07:13 PM
I get what you're saying and I agree that we at least need a threat or 2 to hit a 3 pointer on the court. I'm just saying that just because a team makes 5 more 3 pointers than another team does not mean that they are +15 points as a result of that. Analysts say things like that all the time, but different teams use different methods to put the ball in the basket.
We are in agreement.
Obviously intellectually superior guys, you and I!
Creighton lived and died by the three, you need a happy medium, much like the Badgers. Last year you had Jake in a few games, not consistent and Jamil totally in consistent. Most of the Badgers can make the three and that opens up driving lanes. Last year most teams packed it in against MU, hard to always win with two's now. In a minute, the other team can hit 3 threes
for 9 points. MU had to make 5 2's to be up one. Very hard.
I like the idea of combining basketball players with skills along with the athletic freaks. Need a mixture of both, in my opinion. Obviously, you want both in a package, but the last few years we have lacked guys with basketball skills and basketball feel/IQ too often.
Need a little of both type of players on a team to take advantage of what is lacking in the other team. Give me some guys that can drive it and some that can shoot it.
Cody, if he can play PF, could develop into a nice outside inside threat.
BTW: I sure do miss the days of having the deadly shooters, who if given an inch and a second, will make you pay (e.g. Diener), Acker, Hutch, Wardle, etc. Having one of those guys on the court sure does open things up.
Quote from: GOO on April 14, 2014, 03:39:28 PM
I like the idea of combining basketball players with skills along with the athletic freaks. Need a mixture of both, in my opinion. Obviously, you want both in a package, but the last few years we have lacked guys with basketball skills and basketball feel/IQ too often.
Need a little of both type of players on a team to take advantage of what is lacking in the other team. Give me some guys that can drive it and some that can shoot it.
Cody, if he can play PF, could develop into a nice outside inside threat.
BTW: I sure do miss the days of having the deadly shooters, who if given an inch and a second, will make you pay (e.g. Diener), Acker, Hutch, Wardle, etc. Having one of those guys on the court sure does open things up.
I agree. A lot of people in basketball are starting to change how they view players and positions. Getting the right combination of skill sets on the court at the right time is more nuanced than classifying players by conventional positions 1-5.
See the link below for some fascinating analysis on the real bball positions. I think the research and theories discussed in the article debunk both sides of the "athletic switchables" vs. "traditional" debates that have occurred here in the past.
BTW: I think this article may have been linked on scoop before. I would give credit to the poster that found it originally, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
http://www.wired.com/2013/03/basketballs-hidden-positions/
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 14, 2014, 02:37:03 PM
Was hoping someone could offer some insight, rather than the standard recruit profile info found when you google.
But thanks for the suggestion. ::)
It wasn't actually a suggestion, he was just trying to explain to you why he spends all his time on MuScoop.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 14, 2014, 11:31:53 AM
Here's Sandy going at him
(http://i.imgur.com/BgOhWVa.jpg)
He's using the Schwartz there.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 14, 2014, 08:32:27 PM
He's using the Schwartz there.
(http://screeninvasion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/spaceballs-schwartz.jpeg)
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 14, 2014, 11:31:53 AM
Here's Sandy going at him
(http://i.imgur.com/BgOhWVa.jpg)
That's a foul. I don't want someone that can't play defense without fouling.
Where's WadeATKBurton? I need to ask him if Wojo has someone better lined up.
I watched this guy play probably 6 times in the last year and a half. He is an excellent shooter. When he is on he splashes them in. I don't see this guy playing a power forward as I can barely remember him touching the paint on offense. This isn't a dude that is going to hit the post an drop step dunk or rebound and dunk on anyone. Maybe that is the sign of the times for power forward though. Sometimes he disappears in big games and then he will start hitting. When you read the paper the next day he will have 20 in the second half.
I believe he may have led the conference in rebounding. He was 6'8"going against mostly 6'4"ish stiffs. As with any player, he needs to work on his handle as in their game at state Wisco just pressured the crap out of him. He didn't seem to have the handles to blow by that pressure.
If I could compare him to any player at Marquette then it would have to be a Steve Novakish type of player.
Quote from: lohaus on April 15, 2014, 06:19:06 AM
I watched this guy play probably 6 times in the last year and a half. He is an excellent shooter. When he is on he splashes them in. I don't see this guy playing a power forward as I can barely remember him touching the paint on offense. This isn't a dude that is going to hit the post an drop step dunk or rebound and dunk on anyone. Maybe that is the sign of the times for power forward though. Sometimes he disappears in big games and then he will start hitting. When you read the paper the next day he will have 20 in the second half.
I believe he may have led the conference in rebounding. He was 6'8"going against mostly 6'4"ish stiffs. As with any player, he needs to work on his handle as in their game at state Wisco just pressured the crap out of him. He didn't seem to have the handles to blow by that pressure.
If I could compare him to any player at Marquette then it would have to be a Steve Novakish type of player.
Thanks for the first hand report. IIRC, Novak brought the ball up the court for his HS team, so while he obviously had a much better handle than what you've seen from Schwartz, Novak was probably just as unfamiliar with the paint.
I think that it says a lot about styles of play when Creighton and Wisconsin are his biggest interests right now. At either place, I'd think that he end up taking two years or so to develop. I don't see a McDermott or a Kaminsky, but with some work, maybe he could be a Wragge.
Quote from: MUSF on April 15, 2014, 01:41:48 AM
That's a foul. I don't want someone that can't play defense without fouling.
Where's WadeATKBurton? I need to ask him if Wojo has someone better lined up.
Hes a three point threat that we desparately NEED. He could be the 5th player off my bench
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 15, 2014, 07:51:11 AM
Hes a three point threat that we desparately NEED. He could be the 5th player off my bench
I know who you are now!
Why the name change?
Quote from: WadeATKBurton on April 15, 2014, 07:51:11 AM
Hes a three point threat that we desparately NEED. He could be the 5th player off my bench
That's a very deep rotation you have there.
Quote from: PTM on April 15, 2014, 07:59:54 AM
I know who you are now!
Why the name change?
Rat him out!
Snitches get cupcakes and hugs!
Quote from: PTM on April 15, 2014, 07:59:54 AM
I know who you are now!
Why the name change?
Still ATK baby!! Don't get it twisted im always reppin
Quote from: LittleMurs on April 15, 2014, 07:39:49 AM
I don't see a ... Kaminsky, but with some work, maybe he could be a Wragge.
Well, I'm not sure how much Wisconsin saw "a Kaminsky" in Kaminsky.
He averaged 7.7 mpg as a freshman and 10.3 mpg as a sophomore. So he wasn't impressing the hell out of Bo his first two years on campus.
I see getting a guy like this every couple of years or maybe one a year. He could be really good, but is a year or two of college away from getting to the point of a high school senior who is already really good. If he wants to come here, you get him and in a year or two he develops into a starter. The question is where will he be in two to three years versus the competition. Get some four year guys who will develop and stay four years and don't expect to start in year one.
Committed to San Jose State today. Maybe the spartans will be able to recruit in the Mountain West after all. Don't think this kid was ever a priority for Wojo. Maybe if HE fell through he might have got a look.
Wojo was supposedly looking at him early on, but my understanding is that he didn't have a real good summer.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on October 08, 2014, 07:37:01 AM
Wojo was supposedly looking at him early on, but my understanding is that he didn't have a real good summer.
In other words ... Wojo
literally cooled on him.
Congrats to Schwartz and good luck. I was starting to think he might wait for a better offer in the spring but there is also some risk in missing out on a spot that currently exists but might not in the spring.