This article says it was written by hoyasincebirth. Isn't that the Hoya fan who posts on here?
Read this and died -
gardner
has to top my list of "guys i’m glad are out of the league". don’t really hate hate the guy but he ate our lunch for years
by hoyafan03 on Oct 21, 2014 | 1:09 PM reply
I'm sure many fans at other schools feel the same about Gardner being gone. Devante will be missed a ton on this year's team. Think Jamil, Otule, Jake and even the loss of Todd can all be offset fairly well with Steve Taylor, Luke Fisch, JJJ and Duane - yet nobody will play with the efficiency and effectiveness Gardner did. Was a travesty to see his senior year wasted as it was by Buzz.
Must agree. He could have had an nba defining season if it wasn't for buzz.
Must agree. He could have had an nba defining season if it wasn't for buzz.lol. he's not even close to capable of playing in the NBA. Unless Buzz was forcefeeding him I don't think he had much to do with it.
Must agree. He could have had an nba defining season if it wasn't for buzz.
We might be eliminated from the NCAA tourney before the new year? This dude serious? We're gonna lose 3 maybe 4 games in the non conference and then as he points out we'll be scary once Luke is eligible (vs. ASU and beyond) and our team finds its identity.I thought this was incorrect also, because losses without Steve Fischer will be discounted by the selection committee. However, we would need to finish in the top 4 of the Big East and win a first round game in the Big East tournament to have a chance at a bid.
Soneone get this guy a jump to conclusions mat.
I thought this was incorrect also, because losses without Steve Fischer will be discounted by the selection committee. However, we would need to finish in the top 4 of the Big East and win a first round game in the Big East tournament to have a chance at a bid.
Devante scored points in bunches against non-athletic bigs, but he was a one-trick pony. I thank him for his time at MU, I am glad that Buzz wrestled him away from South Florida, but he wasn't misused.
lol. he's not even close to capable of playing in the NBA. Unless Buzz was forcefeeding him I don't think he had much to do with it.
Hmmm... Gardner was MVP of the Portsmouth Invitational, the same tournament Jimmy B used to springboard himself to a first round pick. He might never be an NBA player, but to say he's "not even close to capable" is a bit of an exaggeration.
Which of the 32 teams extended him a contract?
As for Gardner being misused - its kind of like how people said Dean Smith was the only guy who could hold Jordan under 20ppg. Buzz should have been playing Gardner 30 minutes a night every night as a senior. And we won't rehash how Buzz's coaching decision last season absolutely and totally hampered Gardner's ability to operate.
He does not have an NBA body or NBA skills. He is a center who can't defend, rebound or jump. He's a mediocre passer and ballhandler. He can score inside but not so easily against long, quick defenders.
And yet, despite Dean Smith, NBA GMs somehow were able to decide that Michael Jordan was going to be a halfway decent pro.
Believe me, every NBA GM knew who Gardner was. They watched him closely his last two years at Marquette. He went to Portsmouth and was the MVP. They all knew what he was capable of doing -- and, unfortunately for him, what he wasn't capable of doing.
He does not have an NBA body or NBA skills. He is a center who can't defend, rebound or jump. He's a mediocre passer and ballhandler. He can score inside but not so easily against long, quick defenders.
The NBA had more information about him than you or I do and every GM passed on him twice. Some actually passed on him more than that because they had multiple picks.
Is every NBA GM stupid?
They find guys at Central Arkansas and Southeast Oklahoma State. They find guys in Croatia and Brazil.
They have thick books on every major college player.
They knew Davante. They weren't impressed.
He averaged 26.6 minutes as a senior. Had Buzz played him 3.4 more minutes per game, would NBA GMs gotten some kind of information they lacked?
Come on, Ners, you know basketball. You're better than this.
Was a travesty to see his senior year wasted as it was by Buzz.
I'm not saying he should have been drafted. Not saying he'll ever make the NBA - as you point out - 32 teams passed. I'm simply saying that he is not light years away from being an NBA player/prospect....and there are many guys who have worked their way into the league without catching on as a prospect right out of college.
Keep in mind Scouts as you point out often do get caught up in the whole NBA Body thing...and combine measurables. A guy like Gardner never looks as pretty/sexy as a more fluid athlete, yet those fluid athletes still had their hands full with Gardner on the block. 290lbs is a lot to contend with. As I said in a previous thread, Gardner was in the Top 100 of all college basketball players in 9 different offensive categories.
I personally like production over potential...yet many GMs draft based on potential...and that's just the way it is. Gardner stands zero chance of ever being an NBA superstar...unlike perhaps a guy like Inglis (Bucks 2nd round pick), yet Inglis could very well be a bust and a guy like Gardner would give you a solid end of the bench 10 minute a game type of guy that could get you instant offense.
I'm getting real sick of the "we'll see if these top 100 players finally live up to the hype." You mean the ones that barely played?
| Total Ave Max Duane Wilson 0 0.0 0 John Dawson 245 7.7 31 Sandy Cohen 0 0.0 0 Juan Anderson 417 13.0 26 Derrick Wilson 987 30.8 47 Matt Carlino 954 29.8 44 Jajuan Johnson 283 8.8 27 Steve Taylor Jr 237 7.4 23 Deonte Burton 402 12.6 26 Luke Fischer 130 4.1 19 |
Look at it this way, what is the one thing that Gardner does at an elite level? Novak can shoot at an elite level, that's the only reason he was in the league as long as he was, Gardner does things well, but not nearly at an elite level to stick.
In college he was a very good low block scorer. But he simply isn't tall or athletic enough to do that in the NBA. Not to mention that NBA teams don't run those type of offenses much any longer - and certainly aren't going to modify them for Davante.
Right but he wasn't so good a low block scorer that he was above all other low block scorers that were available.
Exactly. And I really am struggling with those who are saying that it is somehow Buzz's fault. What exactly should they have done? As Lennys said, he tried to play him at the 4 and it didn't work at all.
I guess I don't understand the mindset that Gardner's growth and development was all on him...but his limitations were all on Buzz. That makes no sense.
The reason that NBA GMs like "potential over production" is because the history of the league is filled with people like that who are busts. And yeah while there are plenty who are the opposite that are also busts, the latter guys at least have a chance to burst onto the scene with good coaching, dedication and hard work. The former guys are going to have limitations no matter what they do.
There is really nothing wrong with saying "Davante was a very good college basketball player, who is going to make a lot of money overseas, but will likely not be in the NBA." A lot of players have done that.
And the idea that Buzz was his limiting factor in that regard is beyond dumb.
Good post...
However, I never said anywhere Buzz was his limiting factor in making the NBA
Shh, you're gonna trip up the narrative bro
There is no narrative 03...seriously. I don't think Buzz hampered Gardner from making the NBA...at ALL. I think Buzz hampered what should have been a breakout senior year for Devante by his stubborn insistence to max minute Derrick and Jake when it was clear as day how difficult it was making things for the most talented guys on the team - Jamil and Devante.
Also pretty sure Jamil and Devante felt the same way...as we all know...they both mentioned and thanked every other person associated with the basketball program...OTHER THAN BUZZ in their Senior Night speeches. If that didn't speak volumes...I'm not sure what more does...as to their state of mind on their senior campaign.
To be fair there is narrative the other way, that Buzz wasn't the problem and a reflex to disagree with anything you and Willie and others say.
Oh Buzz was a problem. Not so much with Davante but other things. My dad, who has no MU connections at all and has coached forever was stunned by some of the rotations Buzz used.I am not debating whether Buzz was a problem or not, but I am not sure why your dad " who has no MU connections" being stunned by the rotations has anything to do with this. Now, if you had said he had MU connections he might have known some of the inside stuff that would make his observation valid.
To be fair there is narrative the other way, that Buzz wasn't the problem and a reflex to disagree with anything you and Willie and others say.
Is every NBA GM stupid?
They find guys at Central Arkansas and Southeast Oklahoma State. They find guys in Croatia and Brazil.
They have thick books on every major college player.
And yet, they always seem to miss some people. One guy from Marquette comes to mind, could you name him?
I'm getting real sick of the "we'll see if these top 100 players finally live up to the hype." You mean the ones that barely played?
Exactly. And I really am struggling with those who are saying that it is somehow Buzz's fault. What exactly should they have done? As Lennys said, he tried to play him at the 4 and it didn't work at all.
I guess I don't understand the mindset that Gardner's growth and development was all on him...but his limitations were all on Buzz. That makes no sense.
If they lived up to the hype in the first place, they would have played more. I think that's the point the article is trying to make.
I know...TheBurrEffect did.
Are you telling me that Buzz who subbed players in like it was hockey, had Derrick and Jake in the back court and had zero offensive rhythm all game, along with possibly the most stagnant offense I've ever seen at Marquette, did zero things to effect the production of Gardner?
"Must agree. He could have had an nba defining season if it wasn't for buzz."
No where in there does it blame Buzz for stopping him from going to the nba.
Are you telling me that Buzz who subbed players in like it was hockey, had Derrick and Jake in the back court and had zero offensive rhythm all game, along with possibly the most stagnant offense I've ever seen at Marquette, did zero things to effect the production of Gardner?
Marquette was dogcrap all season long last campaign and were two choke jobs in the last week away from finishing 11-7 and a stand alone third place finish. Color me unimpressed with any of the squads that finished around us then and/or picked ahead of us now based on recruiting hype alone. Warriors finish fourth and sneak in with a good performance in NYC.
Actually, that's not quite fair. Tower, Sultan and I (and many others) don't say Buzz wasn't the problem. We readily acknowledge that Buzz the GM was caught short last year and therefore WAS the problem. Blue's early departure, McKay's transfer and injuries to STjr and Du Wilson left him with no experience in the backcourt other than Derrick, Jake and Todd. JJJ was highly ranked but obviously not ready. Dawson wasn't ready either. It's a guard's game and last year ours weren't good enough. And that's on Buzz.
We won't, however, go along with the fiction that Williams coached last year's team differently than previous ones. Defense/offense substitutions? Yep, as done before. Heavy minutes for the most experienced. Yep, as always. Difference? Due to a weaker than usual backcourt we lost tight games that we won in the past. No conspiracies, no thrown games - that's just total BS.
The frustration I had and 80% of the fanbase had was....Buzz absolutely refused to make changes at the 2 positions that were most in question: PG and SG. He had choices...he simply refused to make them for whatever reasons....
The reasons were very simple and not the mystery you think it was. He thought that the choices he made at those positions put him in a better position to win games. You (and others) disagreed. It retrospect, you may have been correct. Or it could have been worse.
It really is that simple. No conspiracies. Nothing untoward. That's it.
I disagree that there was nothing untoward or shady about Buzz's decision - particularly when he bolted at the end of the year. Either that or his ego was so incredibly large, that he felt he was a superior enough coach to overcome playing 4 on 5. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Buzz knew of the grumbling of this board and the fanbase over his coaching decisions - and when he finally made the change (Dawson in Georgetown) that worked - he simply couldn't allow for it to appear he was wrong up to that point in the season. There is zero explanation for how Dawson could play so solidly for 30 minutes on the road against GTown and then return home against Nova and get 8 minutes...and never see more than 17 the rest of the year...as the losses continued to rack up. You'd think he'd have earned at least a little more look than that after GTown performance.
I do feel Buzz should have played Gardner 30 minutes a night, period.
If they lived up to the hype in the first place, they would have played more. I think that's the point the article is trying to make.
Yeah that's the point, I just disagree with that as the actual reason.
The reasons were very simple and not the mystery you think it was. He thought that the choices he made at those positions put him in a better position to win games. You (and others) disagreed. It retrospect, you may have been correct. Or it could have been worse.
It really is that simple. No conspiracies. Nothing untoward. That's it.
LOL - Scored against non-athletic bigs? He scored against anybody he was matched up with one on one. Abused Zeller and UNC as a sophomore in the tourney. His O-Rating/Efficiency were some of the best in college basketball, and I'd surmise if you take his career O-Rating, he'd arguably rate in the Top 5% of all college basketball players. Wish we had more "one trick ponies" like Gardner.
As for Gardner being misused - its kind of like how people said Dean Smith was the only guy who could hold Jordan under 20ppg. Buzz should have been playing Gardner 30 minutes a night every night as a senior. And we won't rehash how Buzz's coaching decision last season absolutely and totally hampered Gardner's ability to operate.
There you go.
Actually, that's not quite fair. Tower, Sultan and I (and many others) don't say Buzz wasn't the problem. We readily acknowledge that Buzz the GM was caught short last year and therefore WAS the problem. Blue's early departure, McKay's transfer and injuries to STjr and Du Wilson left him with no experience in the backcourt other than Derrick, Jake and Todd. JJJ was highly ranked but obviously not ready. Dawson wasn't ready either. It's a guard's game and last year ours weren't good enough. And that's on Buzz.
We won't, however, go along with the fiction that Williams coached last year's team differently than previous ones. Defense/offense substitutions? Yep, as done before. Heavy minutes for the most experienced. Yep, as always. Difference? Due to a weaker than usual backcourt we lost tight games that we won in the past. No conspiracies, no thrown games - that's just total BS.
I disagree that there was nothing untoward or shady about Buzz's decision - particularly when he bolted at the end of the year. Either that or his ego was so incredibly large, that he felt he was a superior enough coach to overcome playing 4 on 5. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Buzz knew of the grumbling of this board and the fanbase over his coaching decisions - and when he finally made the change (Dawson in Georgetown) that worked - he simply couldn't allow for it to appear he was wrong up to that point in the season. There is zero explanation for how Dawson could play so solidly for 30 minutes on the road against GTown and then return home against Nova and get 8 minutes...and never see more than 17 the rest of the year...as the losses continued to rack up. You'd think he'd have earned at least a little more look than that after GTown performance.
I disagree that there was nothing untoward or shady about Buzz's decision - particularly when he bolted at the end of the year. Either that or his ego was so incredibly large, that he felt he was a superior enough coach to overcome playing 4 on 5. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Buzz knew of the grumbling of this board and the fanbase over his coaching decisions - and when he finally made the change (Dawson in Georgetown) that worked - he simply couldn't allow for it to appear he was wrong up to that point in the season. There is zero explanation for how Dawson could play so solidly for 30 minutes on the road against GTown and then return home against Nova and get 8 minutes...and never see more than 17 the rest of the year...as the losses continued to rack up. You'd think he'd have earned at least a little more look than that after GTown performance.
So let me get this straight. There are two possible explanations why Derrick got more playing time than Dawson.
1. Buzz thought Derrick was better.
or
2. Buzz knew that Dawson was better, but Buzz was being "shady" and "untoward," knowing that he was going to leave after the year, and that he had a massive ego that prevented him from making the change even though it was painfully obvious to everyone (even though it wasn't) that a change needed to be made.
Really the answer can be #1, even if you think he was wrong. But if you think the answer is #2, you are just a tin foil hat wearing "Buzz Truther" in my book. It's simply irrational.
really ners...about time to put you back on ignore. After being in the game for 4 or more minutes davante would appear to be on the verge of passing out and in many cases our very slow offense even had to wait long periods of time for him to get up court. when tired he would put up tired shots and is normally poor defense went o atrocious. 30 minutes? for a guy that calls himself a former player many of you diatribes would indicated that either you didnt play or you were one of theose players with a low BBAll IQ
We've been down this rabbit hole too many times. If you feel better clinging to wacky conspiracy theories than facing reality (Dawson will likely be behind Derrick again this year - will Wojo be throwing games if that's the case?) then any discussion is fruitless.
Do what you need to do Rat. But please, if you are going to come with an argument - please do so like Kangaroo did..with his list of other centers and their minutes. But to use the lame cop out of a reason as in using Gardner's size/weight/stamina as an easy target to try to justify your point - the problem with it is that Gardner's O-Rating/efficiency/effectiveness went up and was higher for the year in games he played 30+ versus less than 30. Somehow...it would seem really odd that if a guy was on "the verge of passing" out due to playing 4+ minute stretches in games....it would seem odd that he produced at a better level playing more minutes.
As for my low BBall IQ...somehow that low IQ predicted back in November of last season that the season was going to be a disaster if Buzz didn't make changes at PG/SG. And I got fought on that by a handful of people all season long saying Buzz's teams always get better as the year goes on, etc., etc., etc., - it was plain as day that wasn't going to happen if we rolled with Derrick and Jake..not to mention playing them more minutes than any two other guys.
I'm not saying he should have been drafted. Not saying he'll ever make the NBA - as you point out - 32 teams passed. I'm simply saying that he is not light years away from being an NBA player/prospect....and there are many guys who have worked their way into the league without catching on as a prospect right out of college.
Keep in mind Scouts as you point out often do get caught up in the whole NBA Body thing...and combine measurables. A guy like Gardner never looks as pretty/sexy as a more fluid athlete, yet those fluid athletes still had their hands full with Gardner on the block. 290lbs is a lot to contend with. As I said in a previous thread, Gardner was in the Top 100 of all college basketball players in 9 different offensive categories.
I personally like production over potential...yet many GMs draft based on potential...and that's just the way it is. Gardner stands zero chance of ever being an NBA superstar...unlike perhaps a guy like Inglis (Bucks 2nd round pick), yet Inglis could very well be a bust and a guy like Gardner would give you a solid end of the bench 10 minute a game type of guy that could get you instant offense.
this post is why i will be ignoring you. I simply no longer want to read the posts of someone so unintelligent, it makes me feel dumber. Your basis that Buzz did not listen to you and your lack of the simple grasp of logic are a psychologists dream case. maybe only a psychologist could get you to understand that logically Buzz could have played Dawson and the team done worse? you have never admitted that. even in the face that Dawson stunk, i mean stunk 9 times out of 10. like others have said dawson will play less than derrick again this year. is wojo conspring against MU too. I dont think Dawson will make it 4 years at MU but you wanted him to start as a freshman
Why do I picture John Nash off his meds on a keyboard when I read your posts?
LOL - Have you re-read any of your posts? Do you feel you articulate yourself well? Or exhibit a high level of intelligence? Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick questions others intelligence.
Please, help me understand how the team could have done worse if Dawson started? I won't ever admit that, because it simply isn't true. There is zero basis to think that a team would perform worse if it has a player at the most critical position who needs to be guarded everywhere on the floor, and shoots better than 7% from 3 the 3 and 44% from the FT line. There is particularly no basis for it, when the one time ALL SEASON the alternative option is played 30 minutes and has a large hand in our victory.
We missed the f'in NIT last season with the choice Buzz made - if that isn't a colossal failure after being a pre-season Top 20 team...I'm not sure what is...and how it could have gotten worse...yet you argue it could have been worse??!
Call me crazy, but I feel a basketball team has a better chance to win, when it plays 5 on 5. I look forward to your logical explanation as to how a team that plays 4 on 5 stands a better chance to win. LOL.
Umm well u got in before i have ignored you. And the simple answer is were u not paying attention to Dawson trying to bring the ball up the floor or when he would simply throw the ball away? sure he would have scored a few more points and in the exchange of the offense being even worse, him making fewer assists, ie good passes on time on target that lead to scores and turning the ball over more that lead to more run out layups and dunks. Sorry that Buzz, Wojo, and pretty much everyone else see nothing in dawson than you do. your dead wrong, so wrong that a guy like Derrick beats the pants off Dawson and that says alot. Dawson is not even a PG IMO
I think it's safe to say that had Gardner continued the trajectory of improvement he displayed from his first three years, he would have been squarely in the conversation as a 2nd round draft pick.No no no no no.
However, his senior year almost seems like he plateaued in November and, while he was still a good and effective player for the duration of the season, I think we grew to expect much more from him.
Granted, the development of any player has a lot to do with the coach, but also with the players around him. It seems that as soon as Davante became the best player on the team, his development curtailed; this isn't to say that Buzz should or shouldn't be on the hook for Davante's lack of a stand-out senior campaign, but it would be irresponsible to dismiss the role the coaching staff played considering that, in hindsight, the head coach checked out before the final buzzer sounded.
No no no no no.
He can't run, he can't jump. He couldn't defend anybody at the college level...how many guys like that get serious consideration from NBA teams?
His physical limitations are not something that can be overcome. If he lost 70 lbs I doubt any of those things would improve all that much.
He is what he is. An efficient low-block scorer because he learned to use his big body and has great hands. Good for him. He made the most of what he has to work with.
And yet, they always seem to miss some people. One guy from Marquette comes to mind, could you name him?
We've been down this rabbit hole too many times. If you feel better clinging to wacky conspiracy theories than facing reality (Dawson will likely be behind Derrick again this year - will Wojo be throwing games if that's the case?) then any discussion is fruitless.
No no no no no.
He can't run,
You know I've always been quite perplexed at this "can't run" thing about Gardner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07tpyW-Q_Q
He's done things like this multiple times.
In the short-run, yes. GMs don't take a gamble on a guy and then lo and behold, the guys is good (Wes). But in the long-run, the guy always makes it into the NBA. The system is efficient. If you are good enough to play in the NBA, you will...eventually.
Since Carlino will be our starting point guard, it's fairly easy to interpret that Wilson will get more time then Dawson due to his defense.
If Carlino starts at the point (I think Derrick starts and Carlino plays the 2) the 2nd best ALL AROUND player will back him up. If that means Derrick or Dawson, I expect Wojo to pick Derrick.
And BTW - Not sure why our fans here get all hyper critical on a guy who wrote the original piece. It was actually pretty well written and informed.
I'll be the first to say I couldn't dream of writing an in depth article on the state of the Georgetown program for the upcoming season. We all know MU inside out, but let's get real...most of us have very limited in depth knowledge of our other conference teams roster composition..with regard to number of Top 100 players, what went right/wrong the prior year, etc.
Thanks. I thought I did a decent job for an outsider. I don't claim to be an excellent writer in terms of syntax, or sentence structure, etc, but I thought my info was solid. I'm writing these at a pretty fast paste. I don't have thaaaat much free time to edit them over and over again. Glad it sparked some discussion here.
Thanks. I thought I did a decent job for an outsider. I don't claim to be an excellent writer in terms of syntax, or sentence structure, etc, but I thought my info was solid. I'm writing these at a pretty fast paste. I don't have thaaaat much free time to edit them over and over again. Glad it sparked some discussion here.
Thanks. I thought I did a decent job for an outsider. I don't claim to be an excellent writer in terms of syntax, or sentence structure, etc, but I thought my info was solid. I'm writing these at a pretty fast paste. I don't have thaaaat much free time to edit them over and over again. Glad it sparked some discussion here.
I agree that it was a pretty fair assessment... except the part where you tried to paint MU fans as total crackpots:
"Some Marquette fans accuse Buzz Williams of purposely holding these two and other young Marquette players back last year in a vain attempt to prove a point or possibly to purposefully sabotage the team depending on what conspiracy theory you want to believe."
Oh, wait, some actually have tried to argue that here.
Im willing to bet my entire college tuition that I have had over the past 4 years that we wont finish 9th. Dont see it, Creighton is gonna be awful.
Again, on paper, Creighton should be much better than us. They lose less of their offense, bring in about the same amount as us, and were much better last season. But I do agree, we should finish ahead of them. I think we play a lot better than we should on paper.
If a really good team (Creighton) retains or loses a big % of their production it is meaningful. If a mediocre one (MU) does the same it doesn't mean nearly as much. I used to laugh when people would say, "Watch out for DePaul, they've got their whole team back" - yeah, but their whole team stunk, so who cares? The key is to replace the "producers" with equal or better producers, and the worse a team the easier that is.
Yeah, it sounds so crazy because...it is so crazy.
Theres a big difference between losing Doug McDermott, Ethan Wragge and Grant Gibbs vs. Jamil Wilson, Jake Tomas and Chris Otule. I dont even think Creighton is good on paper so I dont know where that argument comes from.
If a really good team (Creighton) retains or loses a big % of their production it is meaningful. If a mediocre one (MU) does the same it doesn't mean nearly as much. I used to laugh when people would say, "Watch out for DePaul, they've got their whole team back" - yeah, but their whole team stunk, so who cares? The key is to replace the "producers" with equal or better producers, and the worse a team the easier that is.
It's simple math. Creighton was the 23rd best team last season. Marquette was the 76th. Crieghton loses 65% of its production. Marquette loses 72%. Creighton brings in a solid graduate transfer (Kreklow), a former top 40 redshirt juco (Milliken), a former 4 star redshirt (Hegner), a top 100 freshman (Harrell), and a top 150 freshman (Gilmore III). Marquette brings in a great graduate transfer (Carlino), a former top 100 redshirt (Duane), a midseason transfer who was ok for Indiana (Fischer), and a top 100 freshman (Cohen). Creighton has 4 players taller than 6"7 for the entire season. Marquette has 1 for half the season. Creighton kept its coach. Marquette has a coach who has never had the head job before.
If you look at the above information, Creighton sounds like it's going to be the better team, no matter how you look at it. I don't think people appreciate how bad on paper Marquette is looking. On paper, we should be outside the top 100 this season. Closer to 150 than 100. Fortunately for us, basketball is not played on paper. I buy into the belief that our sophomores will take big steps forward, and that upgrading the perimeter will make the other players on the team better. So I believe we will finish above Creighton, Butler, and Seton Hall. But we are in no real position to say we are definitively better than anyone in the BEast besides Depaul.
Good thing basketball isn't a math equation, eh. We'll be much better than Creighton and I'm saying we finish top 4 in the conference.
Absolutely true. Couldn't agree more. The problem with MU is, we didn't bring in better players. Carlino will be an upgrade for sure. But Sandy isn't better than Jamil. Duane isn't better than Mayo. And Luke isn't better than Gardner (at this point). In order for the producers to be better, it requires a larger than average jump in production by all of our bench players. I think because of certain circumstances from last season, that is possible. But as someone pointed out, bama I believe, the math says we are going to have a losing season this year. We need huge unexpected improvement from all of our bench players from last season.
I do think it is possible, but people are underestimating the hill Wojo has to climb. And I've seen first hand what our fans do to coaches/players when they fail to meet lofty expectations.
Good thing basketball isn't a math equation, eh. We'll be much better than Creighton and I'm saying we finish top 4 in the conference.That is predicated on having 1 player who has ever been a consistent scorer at the D1 level and a bunch of hope. No size. No depth. No proven production. Just the assumption that all of these guys who haven't produced at the D1 level are going to do so under a first time coach. I hope you are right.
That is predicated on having 1 player who has ever been a consistent scorer at the D1 level and a bunch of hope. No size. No depth. No proven production. Just the assumption that all of these guys who haven't produced at the D1 level are going to do so under a first time coach. I hope you are right.
Carlino2014>Jake2013
Derrick 2014 >Derrick 2013
Juan 2014>Juan 2013
JJJ 2014>JJJ 2013
J Dawson 2014>J Dawson2013
Burton2014 = Jamil 2013
Gardner/Otule 2013>Teve/Fischer 2014
Burton 2013>Cohen2014
I don't know how good Carlino is or how much our returning guys step up, but I don't see us much different from last year.
I think the main difference between Creighton and Marquette is that they have a proven coach and you do not. Wojo could turn out to be great, but it's very hard to be a first time coach in a league like the BE. Most coaches cut their teeth at a lower level before getting a gig like Marquette. It's just a big unknown more so than the roster. Creighton is the next one on the chopping block so it's not like I think they'll be much better if at all.
It's simple math. Creighton was the 23rd best team last season. Marquette was the 76th. Crieghton loses 65% of its production. Marquette loses 72%. Creighton brings in a solid graduate transfer (Kreklow), a former top 40 redshirt juco (Milliken), a former 4 star redshirt (Hegner), a top 100 freshman (Harrell), and a top 150 freshman (Gilmore III). Marquette brings in a great graduate transfer (Carlino), a former top 100 redshirt (Duane), a midseason transfer who was ok for Indiana (Fischer), and a top 100 freshman (Cohen). Creighton has 4 players taller than 6"7 for the entire season. Marquette has 1 for half the season. Creighton kept its coach. Marquette has a coach who has never had the head job before.I look at it another way. Other than Villanova, I think the Big East is wide open. Most of the other teams have lost their top players. I believe our kids underperformed because of a poor coaching situation last year rather than lack of talent. We have new very legitimate coaches and a fresh start. Duane, Deonte and JJJ are going to outperform as their physical skills are clearly top tier.w e can go 7-2 at home in the Big East and 3-6 on the road. 10-8 overall. I think that would be good for 4th or 5th.
If you look at the above information, Creighton sounds like it's going to be the better team, no matter how you look at it. I don't think people appreciate how bad on paper Marquette is looking. On paper, we should be outside the top 100 this season. Closer to 150 than 100. Fortunately for us, basketball is not played on paper. I buy into the belief that our sophomores will take big steps forward, and that upgrading the perimeter will make the other players on the team better. So I believe we will finish above Creighton, Butler, and Seton Hall. But we are in no real position to say we are definitively better than anyone in the BEast besides Depaul.