According to this, he was officially released earlier this week but giving Buzz the chance to re-recruit. I was under the impression he had not been released yet.
http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/stories/041108aan.html
"Tyshawn Taylor 6-foot-3 PG Jersey City St. Anthony's - Just released from Marquette earlier this week, the floor leader of the Friars will meet with new Golden Eagles head coach Buzz Williams on April 11. If he doesn't re-commit, look for his list of schools to include Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Texas, Kansas, Florida, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Saint Josephs' and Seton Hall."
let him go. Hurley will steer him whereever he wants.
He has not been released yet. He is giving MArquette the oppourtunity to rerecruit him then MU can decide whether or not to give him a release. They did not release him earlier this week.
Right - I don't think he's been released yet. Otherwise I would have expected it announced at the same time that Rosiak said Williams and Christopherson have been released.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/muhoops/archive/2008/04/10/mu-releases-scott-christopherson-nick-williams.aspx
Especially since Seton Hall is on that list...no way that could happen
So based on what Taylor mentioned in his interview, we will know if he intends to come to MU by Monday, right?
I personally don't really want to wait to long on this guy. I think he would be a great get but getting Butler in his place would not be the end of the world and might actually be better for the team next year if everyone else stays. You got to like his 3 point fg percentage from last year. He would be number 2 on the team behind Hayward.
Shooting 42% on treys in the BE is a lot more difficult than shooting 42 % in JUCO ball!
Usually takes JUCO's their 2nd year in Div 1 BB to reach expectations----usually very poorly grounded on fundamentals and court savvy (Blackledge, Lott, MJax, Kinsella, etc)!
An open look is an open look,and it doesn't matter where in the world it is.Whether he gets a shot off in a different division is something else.Even when teams claim to have great defense,if you watch usually the other teams have plenty of open three's they just miss.So they call it great d.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 11, 2008, 03:34:26 PM
Shooting 42% on treys in the BE is a lot more difficult than shooting 42 % in JUCO ball!
Usually takes JUCO's their 2nd year in Div 1 BB to reach expectations----usually very poorly grounded on fundamentals and court savvy (Blackledge, Lott, MJax, Kinsella, etc)!
How dare you insult the good name of "Scary" Marcus Jackson. He was a excellent player that Marquette wishes was currently their starting center. He woudl have been a perfect fit. MJAX was a pretty good player.
Quote from: Toughmover1016 on April 11, 2008, 03:41:37 PM
Quote from: Murffieus on April 11, 2008, 03:34:26 PM
Shooting 42% on treys in the BE is a lot more difficult than shooting 42 % in JUCO ball!
Usually takes JUCO's their 2nd year in Div 1 BB to reach expectations----usually very poorly grounded on fundamentals and court savvy (Blackledge, Lott, MJax, Kinsella, etc)!
How dare you insult the good name of "Scary" Marcus Jackson. He was a excellent player that Marquette wishes was currently their starting center. He woudl have been a perfect fit. MJAX was a pretty good player.
Besides, there was a time when MJax was Marquette's best (or only) hope for getting the ball over the half-court line without a turnover.
Ugh.
Are you all talking about the first year Marcus Jackson or the second year Marcus Jackson? If the latter, that is exactly what Murf was saying. Their first year, JUCO's (at least recent MU JUCO's) have struggled and looked lost.
jackson had a fair amount of injury problems his 1st yr which is the difference between the years he played at MU. Yes I think the adjustment from JUCO to BEast is tough and will take like 6-8 games into conference play if not more. Fortunately we have a senior led team to help out with the learning curve.
If Taylor is adamant in asking for his release, not only will MU have wasted the airfare to fly Buzz out to Jersey, but they will grant an unconditional release. The precedent has already been set with Nick Williams. Smart move by Marquette not to pee off anyone. Besides, Buzz probably has someone he will plug in his place for the scholarship.
Quote from: Fox Valley Warrior on April 11, 2008, 03:40:17 PM
An open look is an open look,and it doesn't matter where in the world it is.Whether he gets a shot off in a different division is something else.Even when teams claim to have great defense,if you watch usually the other teams have plenty of open three's they just miss.So they call it great d.
Can you explain then how Jon Harris' FT % dropped 25 some odd points from HS to college?
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on April 11, 2008, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: Fox Valley Warrior on April 11, 2008, 03:40:17 PM
An open look is an open look,and it doesn't matter where in the world it is.Whether he gets a shot off in a different division is something else.Even when teams claim to have great defense,if you watch usually the other teams have plenty of open three's they just miss.So they call it great d.
Can you explain then how Jon Harris' FT % dropped 25 some odd points from HS to college?
I think Murff said it was too much bulking up. ;)
Quote from: Murffieus on April 11, 2008, 03:34:26 PM
Shooting 42% on treys in the BE is a lot more difficult than shooting 42 % in JUCO ball!
Usually takes JUCO's their 2nd year in Div 1 BB to reach expectations----usually very poorly grounded on fundamentals and court savvy (Blackledge, Lott, MJax, Kinsella, etc)!
Good to see Murf back over here on MUScoop! Welcome back Murf!!
I just meant if a guy was open in the corner for a three,do you think he stops and says to himself,this shot was a lot easier in Texas then in Milwaukee.
Fox Valley-----that's the problem-----the "open look". In JUCO open looks are a great deal more previlant than in Div 1. JUCO teams average 90 to 100 ppg------reason being lousy defnese.
BYW ----every year in the state of Wisconsin there are 30-40 players who hit 3's over 40%----are you trying to tell me that all of them will have the same looks in the BE against quicker, bigger, and stronger defenders?
If so, they'd all have high Div 1 careers----but the reality is that maybe one or two of them end up at that level!
Murf, I'm not debating that the fact that all them kids can hit that shot.You're right about the 30 to 40 kids shooting that high.But what about the kids hitting that shot with division 1 talent.If they have the talent to play at the next level
and they're open shouldn't they continue with the same percentage? Maybe with good coaching even improve.
we were worried about you.
I believe the three point line is moved out next year. Which is probably good for Mu, since we are not a good three point shooting team.
Fox Valley------Joe Chapman is a good example of what I'm talking about. He shot 56% on treys in HS----and at MU 42%-----the difference is because of much fewer good looks in Div1 as he's playing against bigger, faster, and stronger bodies, which deny him the frequency of good looks he had in HS.
That's why Crean took Chapman over Tucker-----he thought he had another Chris Mullins in Chapman based on the 56%. What he didn't factor in is the different shooting environment in Div 1.
Take a look at Justin Johnson's number with Iowa. He transfered to Iowa from Tyler JC a couple years ago. His numbers at Tyler (15pt, 8reb) were very similiar to Fulce's although Johnson spent two years at the Juco level.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=31981
Avg. 20 min in his first year at Iowa, 45% from 3pt. and really blossomed his senior season.
Reason that Joon Crean took Chapman over Tucker was while watching Joe play he got excited about his hard nose defense as Joe would dive and hit the floor if he ad to. Yes he could shoot but Crean stated defense was the differentiator.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 13, 2008, 04:05:22 AM
Fox Valley------Joe Chapman is a good example of what I'm talking about. He shot 56% on treys in HS----and at MU 42%-----the difference is because of much fewer good looks in Div1 as he's playing against bigger, faster, and stronger bodies, which deny him the frequency of good looks he had in HS.
That's why Crean took Chapman over Tucker-----he thought he had another Chris Mullins in Chapman based on the 56%. What he didn't factor in is the different shooting environment in Div 1.
By that logic of thinking then just about every recruit from high school and JC will see their numbers decrease when they play high major basketball so your argument really doesn't make sense.
Quote from: bilsu on April 12, 2008, 09:14:16 PM
I believe the three point line is moved out next year. Which is probably good for Mu, since we are not a good three point shooting team.
it is being moved out around a foot I think, this will change nothing, if a kid can shoot the three now, he will be able to shoot the three next year. I really don't understand the reason for moving it out, seems silly, should we raise the basket since so many people are dunking now? Should we move the free throw line up since there are so many poor FT % now?
Either leave it alone, ar move it to NBA 3 point line. What is the idea of moving it a foot? It's crazy. Good analogy with the FT line and basket height
They are moving it to the international distance...
Quote from: spartan3186 on April 13, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
They are moving it to the international distance...
I know, and really think it is a bad idea, the only new thing college needs to adapt is the little bubble under the basket, the "no charge" bubble, because that call is getting out of hand.
You'll like it next year when defenses have to space more to cover shooters, thus leaving more open lanes for DJ and McNeal to get to the hoop.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on April 13, 2008, 04:19:17 PM
You'll like it next year when defenses have to space more to cover shooters, thus leaving more open lanes for DJ and McNeal to get to the hoop.
Don't you have to have a credible outside shooting threat to make that strategy effective?
If this strategy was going to help MU, they should have been doing it last season. Just make an imaginary line and tell your three point shooters to spread the floor more. Nothing says you have to shoot from the closest point possible that is still considered a three.
I think the question is, who will this change hurt the least? Since floor spacing for driving to the basket is not affected (could have been doing it this year), in my opinion it hurts the skilled shooters the least. The best shooters have the form and skill to make an effortless release from a step back, whereas shooters with poor form will end up flinging it more.
Because of the increased arc distance, there will be more zones as trey shooting percentages will drop. Now if these zones stretch then there will be more space to drive through on the penetration. if I were coaching today, I'd stay compact----make them prove they can beat me with perimeter shooting-----points in the paint wins games!
Anyone who doesn't think that trey shooting against teams stocked with bigger, quicker, and stronger personnel doesn't drop trey shooting percentages doesn't understand what obstacles this presents. In this case there are fewer open looks by virtue of those characteristics------fewer good looks means more marginally accurate trey shooting, which results in lower percentages.
e.g------we had a guy on the 1958 MU BB team by the name of Mike Moran who still is tied for the MU single game scoring record (45 points). That year he lined up against wilt Chamberlin in a game against Kansas who he gave away 3-4 inches to and came away with only one FT.
Shooting over increased size either inside or on the perimeter is an obstacle!
Quote from: Murffieus on April 13, 2008, 06:44:53 PM
Because of the increased arc distance, there will be more zones as trey shooting percentages will drop. Now if these zones stretch then there will be more space to drive through on the penetration. if I were coaching today, I'd stay compact----make them prove they can beat me with perimeter shooting-----points in the paint wins games!
Anyone who doesn't think that trey shooting against teams stocked with bigger, quicker, and stronger personnel doesn't drop trey shooting percentages doesn't understand what obstacles this presents. In this case there are fewer open looks by virtue of those characteristics------fewer good looks means more marginally accurate trey shooting, which results in lower percentages.
e.g------we had a guy on the 1958 MU BB team by the name of Mike Moran who still is tied for the MU single game scoring record (45 points). That year he lined up against wilt Chamberlin in a game against Kansas who he gave away 3-4 inches to and came away with only one FT.
Shooting over increased size either inside or on the perimeter is an obstacle!
I would think spreading the floor, making it more open on the inside, would provide more open looks for 3 shooters... when defenses play a zone, there will be more space to cover, hence making it easier to space the floor on offense. It all comes down to spacing, in which MU sometimes falls into problems with (the whole stand around offense and watch DJ dribble, gotta love it)... really, this change won't affect much, shooters are shooters, and can hit from 30 feet if need be...
your use of Mike Moran scoring, and then being put on Wilt and not scoring is a very poor one. Not only was Wilt 3-4 inches taller, he was a great defender and a top 5 player ever in the game of basketball. Now if you would have said that Moran played Joe Lunchbucket who was 3-4 inches taller then Moran, and Moran still couldn't score, would work, just my opinion