small ball rulz. Butch scared me in the 1st half, but went back to old habits in 2nd half.
did Nankevil redshirt? I think the Butch/Nankevil losses have been overstated over the years
Butch is a douche,
I especially liked his dunk in the first half followed up by the "I'm gonna cry" look he displayed while running back down the court. Real tough Bri, you look like you spilled your milk...Even when he's trying to look tough he looks like a total wuss.
he looked slightly challenged after that dunk and he was raising the roof. I thought he might poke his eye out
It will not be dead when larger BE teams play zone and force us to shoot, meanwhile outrebound us.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 08, 2007, 11:58:28 PM
It will not be dead when larger BE teams play zone and force us to shoot, meanwhile outrebound us.
Name one BE team that is larger than UW-Madison.
You almost sound a bit upset we won tonight.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2007, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 08, 2007, 11:58:28 PM
It will not be dead when larger BE teams play zone and force us to shoot, meanwhile outrebound us.
Name one BE team that is larger than UW-Madison.
You almost sound a bit upset we won tonight.
Just not getting my hopes high for this season.
Teams with 6'8" or taller players:
MARQ - 3
RUTGERS - 3
WVU - 3
CINCY - 4
PITT - 4
SETON - 4
PROV - 4
USF - 4
SJU - 4
UCONN, DEPAUL, GEORGETOWN, and NOVA have the same number of players as
UW 6'8" and taller: 5.
LOUISVILLE - 6
ND - 7
CUSE - 7
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 09, 2007, 12:34:04 AM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2007, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 08, 2007, 11:58:28 PM
It will not be dead when larger BE teams play zone and force us to shoot, meanwhile outrebound us.
Name one BE team that is larger than UW-Madison.
You almost sound a bit upset we won tonight.
Just not getting my hopes high for this season.
Teams with 6'8" or taller players:
MARQ - 3
RUTGERS - 3
WVU - 3
CINCY - 4
PITT - 4
SETON - 4
PROV - 4
USF - 4
SJU - 4
UCONN, DEPAUL, GEORGETOWN, and NOVA have the same number of players as UW 6'8" and taller: 5.
LOUISVILLE - 6
ND - 7
CUSE - 7
Dude what the hell we come off a huge win in madison where we havent won since 1997 and all you can do is say how we still arent that good give me a frickin break
Wiscy was playing a matchup zone on us half the first half, we looked fine then...actually moved of the ball and got open looks. Hell, we shot over 60% for a fairly large portion of the half.
Throw in the fact that we shot around 28% from beyond the arc while Bucky shot nearly 50% and I think you have to be happy with all aspects of the game regardless of what defense they played against us. Despite missing shots, which we would have done against teh zone too, we still hit the glass hard and made up for lack of height with effort and hustle. (and athleticism) If teams play zone its more difficult for them to box out a man as they're playing an "area" so as long as we produce the effort to attack the glass like last night we should be alright. And if teams want to play man on us, well we just kill them with penetration by our guards... :)
Yes, it was a quality win. Props to the Warrior players and coaches. But, if anyone thinks you can do damage in the BE or play deep into March without good tall players, then they just don't know basketball. Without a doubt it is fanastic to beat UW, but if you saw ND and Hangrody this week vs. KSU or have seen UCLA play with Love, MU has no one to check these guys.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 09, 2007, 07:14:32 AM
Yes, it was a quality win. Props to the Warrior players and coaches. But, if anyone thinks you can do damage in the BE or play deep into March without good tall players, then they just don't know basketball. Without a doubt it is fanastic to beat UW, but if you saw ND and Hangrody this week vs. KSU or have seen UCLA play with Love, MU has no one to check these guys.
Do you think our bigs are not good? After seeing us do well against two good teams playing extremely contrasting styles of basketball, I predict we will do damage in both the BE AND the NCAA tournament this year.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 09, 2007, 07:14:32 AM
Yes, it was a quality win. Props to the Warrior players and coaches. But, if anyone thinks you can do damage in the BE or play deep into March without good tall players, then they just don't know basketball. Without a doubt it is fanastic to beat UW, but if you saw ND and Hangrody this week vs. KSU or have seen UCLA play with Love, MU has no one to check these guys.
GT Starts 3 guards and 2 Forwards (sound familiar) and neither of those forwards has the offensive productivity of Lazar and they seemed to do alright against Notre Dame.
Texas' productive big man is only 6'7" and they did fine against UCLA.
MU doesn't possess a "shut down" big man but their defensive philosophy seems to be disruption on all areas of the floor and if you have a deep team like we do you can platoon guys in to swarm the ball wherever it goes. IMO Continous effort and quickness will help make up for lack of height.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 09, 2007, 07:14:32 AM
Yes, it was a quality win. Props to the Warrior players and coaches. But, if anyone thinks you can do damage in the BE or play deep into March without good tall players, then they just don't know basketball. Without a doubt it is fanastic to beat UW, but if you saw ND and Hangrody this week vs. KSU or have seen UCLA play with Love, MU has no one to check these guys.
My point exactly. While this is a great win, it's still a long season.
IMO, I would have been a whole lot happier beating Duke - a team that had the same number of bigs 6'8" or taller as MU (3). :/
And it took only one big - Singler, 6'8" - to kill us sans the calls.
doubters still exist - at least you are consistently negative.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 09, 2007, 07:14:32 AM
Yes, it was a quality win. Props to the Warrior players and coaches. But, if anyone thinks you can do damage in the BE or play deep into March without good tall players, then they just don't know basketball. Without a doubt it is fanastic to beat UW, but if you saw ND and Hangrody this week vs. KSU or have seen UCLA play with Love, MU has no one to check these guys.
Having Mbakwe this year would have made us legit contenders but we just went into someone elses house who had a very tall and talented team, full of "good tall players" and beat them with great games out of our bigs. And that was without Hayward who was saddled with early foul trouble who is probably our best inside scorer. So I don't know what game you were watching but WE WILL DO DAMAGE IN THE BE. Our guards are too good and our bigs are not great players but "good tall players".
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 09, 2007, 12:34:04 AM
MARQ - 3
RUTGERS - 3
WVU - 3
CINCY - 4
PITT - 4
SETON - 4
PROV - 4
USF - 4
SJU - 4
UCONN, DEPAUL, GEORGETOWN, and NOVA have the same number of players as UW 6'8" and taller: 5.
LOUISVILLE - 6
ND - 7
CUSE - 7
First, for the record, MU has 4 players 6' 8" or taller.
1. Blackledge 6' 8'
2. Fitzgerald 6' 9'
3. Ooze 6' 10"
4. Burke 6' 8"
Source: http://gomarquette.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/marq-m-baskbl-mtt.html
Second, the distribution of good and bad teams based on your height chart suggests that there is little correlation between height and success. Based on non-conference play so far, MU and WVU and Pitt are going to be very good teams this season. Syracuse, DePaul and Louisville are not very good.
Third, was your choice of 6'8" intentionally made so that you could exclude Landry from UW's list of bigs? I think most of us would consider Landry a very good big and would have loved him on our front line. However, it would appear that you don't think a player like Landry is of much help in the Big East because he lacks height. Correct?
I think most people would agree that height is certainly not a bad thing, but the chart fails to take into account the quality of the bigs each team has. For example, if MU had only one guy 6'8" or over and his last name was Hibbert, that would make us a final four team.
Marquette 84 raises a good point as well, because some players play either "taller" or "shorter" than their height indicates. If you need evidence of that, just compare Landry at UW to Fitz.
Well, our bigs are better at catching and dunking than they have been the past couple of years, but still can't create their own offense.
Bu there is no sense worrying about what we DON'T have however, because what we DO have is pretty good. Burke and Barro can give us enough inside if our guards can create turnovers and create on offense. I still think Hayward is vulnerable at the 4 against bigger, athletic teams, but how many of those are there?
One thing though, this team is fun to watch, and they have a bit of attitude, which we haven't seen around here since TD graduated.
biggest problem with our bigs is depth over quality. In the beginning of the season i woulda said the opposite. I can quarantee that we will lose a few games this year because of foul trouble to ooze and burke. Hayward is undersized but a descent option. Fitz and blackledge down low? - nightmare. Hazel? - maybe by a prayer he can atleast rebound or maybe defend a bit but youd think crean would give him more PT if he believed in him, maybe in the schedule weakness coming up.
I think we can hold our own quality wise- and by that i mean get beat but not completely dominated but some of the better 'big' teams, but yah if mbakwe really is as good as people were saying he could be we are missing out on a big opportunity.
Still better than we thought the bigs would be overall at this point
We lost to Duke, because of some poor shots at the end of the game and by shooting a lower percentage at the free throw line than Duke. It was not due to lack of size.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 09, 2007, 09:39:31 PM
Well, our bigs are better at catching and dunking than they have been the past couple of years, but still can't create their own offense.
Bu there is no sense worrying about what we DON'T have however, because what we DO have is pretty good. Burke and Barro can give us enough inside if our guards can create turnovers and create on offense. I still think Hayward is vulnerable at the 4 against bigger, athletic teams, but how many of those are there?
One thing though, this team is fun to watch, and they have a bit of attitude, which we haven't seen around here since TD graduated.
Yep, I'm not worried about that, just saying that having more bigs is only an advantage if those guys can play.