I just feel like we are one talented big man away from a Final Four type team. There has got to be one talented big man that would come here.
No it doesn't. We came up against the best, or maybe 2-3rd best big man in the country and we came within 1 point in an OT loss. -- Had we got a last second bucket, would it have proven we don't need a big man? No, not that either.
Sorry MU_Hilltopper, but I am going to have to completely disagree with you. There would be no overtime in this game if we had one talented big man. Our guards are just talented enough to almost take us past a team with big guys. Clearly, if we are giving up 31 points to Brook Lopez, we need a good big guy. We were giving him extremely easy looks. If we would have fronted their big men half the time we could have came up with some steals. This loss hurts but helps us realize how having a talented big man would dramatically improve interior defense and scoring.
Defan your totally wrong
We took the tree to OT
Look what ND did with thir talented Big Man
You got it Jamil. Also, don't forget how that would help against Louisville, Georgetown, UConn etc... We were close to winning, but in the end that only means you lost by a little. A big man could have slowed down the twins more.
Quote from: MU_83_florida on March 22, 2008, 08:26:34 PM
Defan your totally wrong
We took the tree to OT
Look what ND did with thir talented Big Man
If I correctly understand what you said, I can defend myself. First of all, like I said, we were giving the Lopez brothers easy looks, especially Burke down the stretch. I don't know why the announcers were praising him. Sure, he tried hard, but he is not good enough. On the other hand, Harangody and his fellow bigs were actually defended well, something we did not do very well. Also, like I said, we took the trees to overtime because of McNeal's stellar play.
We definately need one big man.
Sure, if we had the #3 big man in the country, maybe. Let's say we have, a "talented" big man. Say, the 20th best big man. You think ANY great big man would have been able to shut the Lopezs down? No way. -- We didn't have much trouble scoring, so a "talented big man" wouldn't have helped much there. AND, we out rebounded them, so no need for a big man in that department.
Sorry, there's just no way one player could have helped with Lopezes.
Of course .. no one can deny we would be a better team with a more talented 5. No doubt. But this game didn't prove that, it just added a smidgen to the body of evidence.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 22, 2008, 08:32:44 PM
Sure, if we had the #3 big man in the country, maybe. Let's say we have, a "talented" big man. Say, the 20th best big man. You think ANY great big man would have been able to shut the Lopezs down? No way. -- We didn't have much trouble scoring, so a "talented big man" wouldn't have helped much there. AND, we out rebounded them, so no need for a big man in that department.
Sorry, there's just no way one player could have helped with Lopezes.
Of course .. no one can deny we would be a better team with a more talented 5. No doubt. But this game didn't prove that, it just added a smidgen to the body of evidence.
You barely touched on the defensive aspect of a big man. We're not going to shut the twins down even with a better big man, but we're more than likely going to give him worse looks with one, especially down the stretch. The reason we lost is that we could not defend Brook Lopez at all in the 2nd half and overtime. I am not refuting our efforts on the glass or our scoring, just simple saying that having a talented big man defensively would more than likely have decreased the Lopez' points by a good amount.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 22, 2008, 08:32:44 PM
Sure, if we had the #3 big man in the country, maybe. Let's say we have, a "talented" big man. Say, the 20th best big man. You think ANY great big man would have been able to shut the Lopezs down? No way. -- We didn't have much trouble scoring, so a "talented big man" wouldn't have helped much there. AND, we out rebounded them, so no need for a big man in that department.
Sorry, there's just no way one player could have helped with Lopezes.
Of course .. no one can deny we would be a better team with a more talented 5. No doubt. But this game didn't prove that, it just added a smidgen to the body of evidence.
Our 4 and 5 position was just outscored 59-25 in an 82-81 overtime loss and you don't think a good big man would have made a difference? Are you serious?
Something as simple as FRONTING the low post rather than playing 3/4 on the high side would have been an easy solution. Stanford got 4-6 easy points to start overtime because we gave him a layup each possession. Either front or play behind and make him take a tough shot. Don't just let him get it on the low block 2 ft from the bucket. A good big man or poor big man, doesn't make a difference, Crean has to make sure they're playing better position. (ie we're going to front or play behind...)
UGGGGGHHH this sucks
I give up on this conversation, a talented big man would not have given up so many points to the lopezs dorks. There I am done, now blow that theory out of the water.
Brook Lopez matched his career high after scoring only 2 in the first half. Robin Lopez also bullied us around. Then again, we only really struggled with both on the floor. We played fairly well after Brook sat in the first half and went on a run when they both went to the bench in the second. Burke managed to force some difficult shots, but they still were too dominant for him. Fitz, Ooze, and Hayward were just manhandled. If we have enough interior presence to draw just a couple more fouls on offense or get one more stop on defense we win the game. Instead our best effort is giving up 48 points to two players, and 30 in 28 minutes to one. So I have to agree, 1 talented on both ends big man would do wonders. The 100th best big man in the country could probably get one or two more stops or draw one or two more fouls.
Exactly...if we would have fronted it would have been a much different story. Burke stands no chance otherwise. I'm glad others agree with me here.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 22, 2008, 08:32:44 PM
Sure, if we had the #3 big man in the country, maybe. Let's say we have, a "talented" big man. Say, the 20th best big man. You think ANY great big man would have been able to shut the Lopezs down? No way. -- We didn't have much trouble scoring, so a "talented big man" wouldn't have helped much there. AND, we out rebounded them, so no need for a big man in that department.
Sorry, there's just no way one player could have helped with Lopezes.
Of course .. no one can deny we would be a better team with a more talented 5. No doubt. But this game didn't prove that, it just added a smidgen to the body of evidence.
To add to this -- who is that "talented big man" replacing? Because if he's replacing any one of Matthews, McNeal or James, that's a lateral move at best. And if he's replacing someone like Cubillan... well then we're not talking about anybody a whole lot different than Burke or Barro, as those types aren't any more talented than the guys we already have.
If anything, I was more disappointed in whoever on the coaching staff was having Burke 'half-front' Lopez during overtime. At that point in the game it appeared to me that Lopez (Brook) didn't have much when he was forced to make a spin-move towards the lane.
This one's tough to take. Marquette got extremely unlucky in that McNeal had some outstanding looks down the stretch within 15 feet of the basket and couldn't bury them. Don't get me wrong -- McNeal had a phenomenal game -- you'd just think that he'd've been able to hit those open looks inside the arc.
How disappointing to see Mbakwe make zero contribution in the post-season. I thought he might be our talented big man, or at least another big body that we could throw out there. Hard to argue that the "un-redshirt" decision was a good one.
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 08:42:14 PM
To add to this -- who is that "talented big man" replacing? Because if he's replacing any one of Matthews, McNeal or James, that's a lateral move at best. And if he's replacing someone like Cubillan... well then we're not talking about anybody a whole lot different than Burke or Barro, as those types aren't any more talented than the guys we already have.
He's playing for Barro sometimes and catching those passes for dunks in the low box and forcing the Lopezes to play defense and possibly foul trouble. Sometimes, he's replacing Hayward or Fitzgerald and helping stop the easy 6 foot bank shots. Hayward in turn plays more at the 3 and lessens Cubillan's minutes, as Matthews could play the two when McNeal sits.
Quote from: Jamil_toMU09 on March 22, 2008, 08:40:35 PM
Exactly...if we would have fronted it would have been a much different story. Burke stands no chance otherwise. I'm glad others agree with me here.
I think Burke is too short to have fronted either Lopez.
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 08:42:14 PM
This one's tough to take. Marquette got extremely unlucky in that McNeal had some outstanding looks down the stretch within 15 feet of the basket and couldn't bury them. Don't get me wrong -- McNeal had a phenomenal game -- you'd just think that he'd've been able to hit those open looks inside the arc.
Perhaps if we had a big guy who could catch and score McNeal could've laid the ball off for a dunk.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2008, 08:47:25 PM
He's playing for Barro sometimes and catching those passes for dunks in the low box and forcing the Lopezes to play defense and possibly foul trouble. Sometimes, he's replacing Hayward or Fitzgerald and helping stop the easy 6 foot bank shots. Hayward in turn plays more at the 3 and lessens Cubillan's minutes, as Matthews could play the two when James sits.
Nicely put. There is no doubt in my mind that having 2 solid defenders down low would have helped. Please tell me that nobody here is going to argue that they are satisfied with Burke and Fitzgerald's defense down low. They both worked hard, and I was loving Fitz's threes this game, but I can't overlook the fact that he gets bullied down low with ease.
Quote from: mufanatic on March 22, 2008, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Jamil_toMU09 on March 22, 2008, 08:40:35 PM
Exactly...if we would have fronted it would have been a much different story. Burke stands no chance otherwise. I'm glad others agree with me here.
I think Burke is too short to have fronted either Lopez.
That may be the case, but Barro is not too short. Even then, we could have at least tried with either Burke or Barro because it's better than letting them score the same way every play...
Quote from: Jamil_toMU09 on March 22, 2008, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: mufanatic on March 22, 2008, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Jamil_toMU09 on March 22, 2008, 08:40:35 PM
Exactly...if we would have fronted it would have been a much different story. Burke stands no chance otherwise. I'm glad others agree with me here.
I think Burke is too short to have fronted either Lopez.
That may be the case, but Barro is not too short. Even then, we could have at least tried with either Burke or Barro because it's better than letting them score the same way every play...
You can't front effectively when there is another Lopez on the other block. The only way fronting will work is with help when the ball gets thrown over the top. You can't do that when the other post is defending Lopez dos.
Bilas was dead on, you have to push them off the block before the pass goes in. Tough to do when the game is being called tightly, as it was.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2008, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 08:42:14 PM
To add to this -- who is that "talented big man" replacing? Because if he's replacing any one of Matthews, McNeal or James, that's a lateral move at best. And if he's replacing someone like Cubillan... well then we're not talking about anybody a whole lot different than Burke or Barro, as those types aren't any more talented than the guys we already have.
He's playing for Barro sometimes and catching those passes for dunks in the low box and forcing the Lopezes to play defense and possibly foul trouble. Sometimes, he's replacing Hayward or Fitzgerald and helping stop the easy 6 foot bank shots. Hayward in turn plays more at the 3 and lessens Cubillan's minutes, as Matthews could play the two when McNeal sits.
You took what I wrote the wrong way. I meant scholarship-wise, not playing time. Because if he's devoting so much time to finding this "talented big man", that may lead to being a little skimpy on the guards, i.e. the three that led us today.
The recruiting complaint is a valid one, don't get me wrong, but like mu_hilltopper, it doesn't seem extremely valid here.
I wouldn't trust Robin Lopez nearly as much with the ball if I were Stanford though.
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 09:00:23 PM
You took what I wrote the wrong way. I meant scholarship-wise, not playing time. Because if he's devoting so much time to finding this "talented big man", that may lead to being a little skimpy on the guards, i.e. the three that led us today.
The recruiting complaint is a valid one, don't get me wrong, but like mu_hilltopper, it doesn't seem extremely valid here.
We'd be better off with a top 50 big guy type than Hazel, Cubillan, Fitzgerald, Acker, Cubillan, or Christopherson. Also Blackledge, Barro or Burke, but replacing them wouldn't have the same affect because we're trying to add to our stock of interior players in this exercise.
Not a knock on those guys, btw, they're all fine players. Just not enough variety in there. Too many wings.
I agree that we need a big man that can score at ease and defend without fouling. I hope the big man we have coming in next year will be an overall talented player on both ends of the floor. Our guards should be really good again but our season will depend upon our down low presence. I would also like to say that the Big East Tournament is the best conference in America and this can be shown in the NCAA Tournament. The Big East is 8-2 overall and both teams that lost from our conference lost by one point with a last second shot. Many of the players in the Big East should be returning next year so it should be another fun season next year. Let's just hope Marquette finishes on top. Let's start looking forward to next year and keep in mind around the nation We are Marquette!
Why didn't anyone attack the Lopez's when they both had 3? At least take one of them out of the game
You guys are funny...Kevin Love couldn't stop either of these guys either and they are perhaps the best team in America.
I just got back home...what a game. Draining. Don't know what to say...incredible game. They have two of the best big men in the country other then Kevin Love and Hibbert and we were there to very end. What a game.
There's a reason why the absolute best big men in the country go to UCLA, Stanford, etc and not the 320 other schools.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2008, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 09:00:23 PM
You took what I wrote the wrong way. I meant scholarship-wise, not playing time. Because if he's devoting so much time to finding this "talented big man", that may lead to being a little skimpy on the guards, i.e. the three that led us today.
The recruiting complaint is a valid one, don't get me wrong, but like mu_hilltopper, it doesn't seem extremely valid here.
We'd be better off with a top 50 big guy type than Hazel, Cubillan, Fitzgerald, Acker, Cubillan, or Christopherson. Also Blackledge, Barro or Burke, but replacing them wouldn't have the same affect because we're trying to add to our stock of interior players in this exercise.
Not a knock on those guys, btw, they're all fine players. Just not enough variety in there. Too many wings.
Indeed, way too many wings. I don't think that recruiting big guys will hinder our ability to get top-tier guards at all. On a different thought, I think Bo Ryan would have handled our team much better this game, specifically on defense.
Fact is, you drop either one of those Lopez gals on our team, and we're probably playing in SanAntonio in a couple weeks.
"We'd be better off with a top 50 big guy type than Hazel, Cubillan, Fitzgerald, Acker, Cubillan, or Christopherson."
No S**t!
We'd also be better off if we still had DWade or if Lebron decided to wait on the NBA and come to MU. Look, it's hard to get a top 50 big guy type, otherwise we would have one.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 22, 2008, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: CWSKeith on March 22, 2008, 09:00:23 PM
You took what I wrote the wrong way. I meant scholarship-wise, not playing time. Because if he's devoting so much time to finding this "talented big man", that may lead to being a little skimpy on the guards, i.e. the three that led us today.
The recruiting complaint is a valid one, don't get me wrong, but like mu_hilltopper, it doesn't seem extremely valid here.
We'd be better off with a top 50 big guy type than Hazel, Cubillan, Fitzgerald, Acker, Cubillan, or Christopherson. Also Blackledge, Barro or Burke, but replacing them wouldn't have the same affect because we're trying to add to our stock of interior players in this exercise.
Not a knock on those guys, btw, they're all fine players. Just not enough variety in there. Too many wings.
I don't disagree with you, but that's like saying you'd rather have Tyler Hansborough than Patrick Hazel -- it's a statement that could be made at any point in the season. Again -- the recruiting complaint is a valid one, it's just not really on my mind right now. I think if Marquette and Stanford played 50 times, both teams would win about 25 times. It just sucks that today Marquette was on the losing side...
This whole thread started with someone stating that if we had one more top notch interior player we would be final four material. Somehow, there were those who argued with it and the thread devolved into me making an stupidly obvious statement like I'd rather have a top 50 interior player than Christopherson. That's pretty funny. We didn't need a top 50 guy though. If we had a guy like Steinsma instead of any of those guys we win tonight.
But anyway, I strongly agree with the original poster's statement and I'll leave it at that.