Maurice Acker !

[tower912]

If Buzz plays his system that doesn't require a point guard beyond the first pass, start someone who can defend.   Why would you only want 4 defenders on the floor?    And Murf, the fact that doddsy told you to give it a rest and you still felt compelled to come over here instead and start the same damned argument says more about you than about Mo.   You are truly an army of one.

[GGGG]

Depends on the system-----in Crean's system he put a lot of pressure on his PG to perform as the PG in that system
had more touches and spent more time with the ball (east/west dribbling)than any other guy on the floor. With 5 apg, I guess he did make it easier for others (but just 5 times a game).

However, if Buzz plays his passing/motion offense (which I think he will), the PG plays a relative passive role with no more touches or time with the ball than any other player on the floor. In that role all he has to be able to do on offense is bring the ball up against pressure, be able to shoot treys, and to be able to drive the seams of the defense and kick out-----all of which Acker does very well.

"Shoot treys" well?  When he was playing 30+ minutes for Ball State as a freshman, he shot 29.8% from behind the line.  That isn't good by any stretch.

[Lennys Tap]

THERE ARE 5 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR at a time----NOT JUST ONE.

Save for the occasional "3" Acker is a total non threat offensively. But for an occasional steal he is a total liability defensively. Since opponents don't have to guard him (unable to finish at all) things are tougher on the offensive end for the other 4. His lack of size and strength forces his teamates to cover for him on the defensive end. Put another way, he makes those around him worse not better. Not what you want in a starting point guard.

[g0lden3agle]

If Acker is as bad defensively as people are making him out to be, would it be out of the question to run more zone to allow these deficiencies to be lessened?

[Bob "Big Daddy" Wild]

Depends on the system-----in Crean's system he put a lot of pressure on his PG to perform as the PG in that system
had more touches and spent more time with the ball (east/west dribbling)than any other guy on the floor. With 5 apg, I guess he did make it easier for others (but just 5 times a game).

However, if Buzz plays his passing/motion offense (which I think he will), the PG plays a relative passive role with no more touches or time with the ball than any other player on the floor. In that role all he has to be able to do on offense is bring the ball up against pressure, be able to shoot treys, and to be able to drive the seams of the defense and kick out-----all of which Acker does very well.

I understand Murph's logic on this point...but I think there are two major assumptions/flaws.  First, we don't know if Buzz is going to play the motion offense.  If he sticks with the three guard offense from last year, Mo is less effective in that IMO.  That leads me to my second point, I think Acker is low average to below average at driving the seams and kicking out (for a PG).  He does not get down to the giants and find the open man.  My memory may be a bit foggy b/c I wasn't looking for it at the time, but I believe Acker tends to focus on ball reversals and not attacking the seams, and I think this knocks out 1 of the three areas you need to excel in to be an effective PG in Buzz's motion offense...especially if only 2 guards are on the floor!

[Nukem2]

I understand Murph's logic on this point...but I think there are two major assumptions/flaws.  First, we don't know if Buzz is going to play the motion offense.  If he sticks with the three guard offense from last year, Mo is less effective in that IMO.  That leads me to my second point, I think Acker is low average to below average at driving the seams and kicking out (for a PG).  He does not get down to the giants and find the open man.  My memory may be a bit foggy b/c I wasn't looking for it at the time, but I believe Acker tends to focus on ball reversals and not attacking the seams, and I think this knocks out 1 of the three areas you need to excel in to be an effective PG in Buzz's motion offense...especially if only 2 guards are on the floor!

Yes, Acker does not attack the seams as he is ineffective in trying to do so.  Definitely more into ball reversal.

[muball]

Acker is a solid addition on the team. He will have his ups and downs depending on the situation and competition.  I see him as someone who can contribute depending on matchups. If MU is to be successful that success will depend on someone else stepping up and leading at the PG with Mo adding value when matchups call for it.  Lets not slam Mo as he does  give his best and can help us out.

[Marquette84]

Why does it seem to be impossible to get some reasonable discussion of Acker?

On one hand, we have Murff, who seems to be hell-bent on (mis)using stats to suggest that Acker is as good as (if not better than) Domnic James.

On the other hand, we have the same misuse of stats, assuming that five minutes a game in garbage time is indicative of what regular starting performance would give us.

I think its reasonable to look at Acker's performance in those last eight games, and make a fair assessment based on such performance.

Over the course of the last eight games--when Acker started and was part of the regular rotation--he shot 11 of 29 on three pointers, or 38%.  That's a respectable number.  And before anyone tries to suggest that he loaded up against Utah State or St. Johns, his 3 point percentage was actually higher in the six losses--a combined 10 of 23 or 43.5%.

Similarly, over the course of the last eight games, he had a 2:1 Assist to Turnover ratio--that's respectable--especially considering the quality of the competition down that stretch.

And, Acker was capable of contributing during the clutch---people seem to prefer to point out his mistakes, as opposed to, say, his clutch three pointer that closed MU to within a point against Villanova in the waining minutes in the BET.  

The bottom line is that Acker is neither as good as Murff suggests--or as bad as his detractors make him out to be.  

As I've said before, if can play to a 2:1 A/T ratio, shoot 38% on threes against five elite eight teams (in single-digit games), then we'll be fine with him running show against everyone else.

And if Acker's performance in the last eight games is the floor and Buycks is good enough to take minutes from him?  Then we are absolutely in good shape when it comes to the point next year.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1 and a reasoned argument.  Those last 8 games were against some very good teams and Acker held his own for the most part.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

is this SJS and Murf sort of agreeing on something?  holy crap!   

next, PRN will show up at a game with a yellow shirt and an eagle hat.

[Nukem2]

+1 and a reasoned argument.  Those last 8 games were against some very good teams and Acker held his own for the most part.

Agree.  Acker's not going to embarrass us.  But, he does have his limitations and is not an elite level collegiate PG who will lead MU to a Top 4 BE finish.  Some posters here need to be realistic that MA is going to play a lot more than 5 to 8 minutes simply due to lack of depth and the fact that he is the only tru PG on the active roster.  Mo's is our guy even with his obvious size issues.  No one can challenge his efforts.  But, guys like Murff need to understand Mo's limitations and matchup issues.  In the end, lets be MU guys and support Mo.

[Murffieus]

Why does it seem to be impossible to get some reasonable discussion of Acker?

On one hand, we have Murff, who seems to be hell-bent on (mis)using stats to suggest that Acker is as good as (if not better than) Domnic James.

On the other hand, we have the same misuse of stats, assuming that five minutes a game in garbage time is indicative of what regular starting performance would give us.

I think its reasonable to look at Acker's performance in those last eight games, and make a fair assessment based on such performance.

Over the course of the last eight games--when Acker started and was part of the regular rotation--he shot 11 of 29 on three pointers, or 38%.  That's a respectable number.  And before anyone tries to suggest that he loaded up against Utah State or St. Johns, his 3 point percentage was actually higher in the six losses--a combined 10 of 23 or 43.5%.

Similarly, over the course of the last eight games, he had a 2:1 Assist to Turnover ratio--that's respectable--especially considering the quality of the competition down that stretch.

And, Acker was capable of contributing during the clutch---people seem to prefer to point out his mistakes, as opposed to, say, his clutch three pointer that closed MU to within a point against Villanova in the waining minutes in the BET.  

The bottom line is that Acker is neither as good as Murff suggests--or as bad as his detractors make him out to be.  

As I've said before, if can play to a 2:1 A/T ratio, shoot 38% on threes against five elite eight teams (in single-digit games), then we'll be fine with him running show against everyone else.

And if Acker's performance in the last eight games is the floor and Buycks is good enough to take minutes from him?  Then we are absolutely in good shape when it comes to the point next year.  

SJS/84-----I'm not saying Acker is a great PG-----what I am saying is that he's very serviceable at PG and our best bet there this year because of proven BE and NCAA experience and the fact he is a senior (leadership)-----(Bucyks is a #2 shooting guard and DJO i seem to recall turned the ball over 4 times a game on a JUCO level-----if i recall correctly hardly PG material).

The idea that you need a super star at PG to have a successful season is bogus----especially if Buzz plays his motion/passing game offense.

[MUEng92]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I had to comment on a WISN local new headline on my Google Desktop, "Acker Pleads No Contest...".  I believe my first thought was, "you've got to be _&*()@#% kidding me!!!".

Thankfully, when I clicked on the link I saw a photo of a 50-ish balding white guy in the orange jumpsuit.  I don't think I can take another "issue".

[nycwarrior]

The facts are these: We've got a short bench and only one guy who's a proven 30 mpg workhorse. Buzz is going to need to need every player we've got (guard and otherwise) to keep oppontents from hammering our size at the 1, 2, 4, and 5.

As Buzz continues to develop as a head coach, I'd love to see him develop that ability to get the most he possibly can out of every player, even the ones who's contibutions may be more minor. I'd love to see him utilize our very different pieces in different situations as opponent personnel and game tempo dictate.

When Acker's in the game his ability to harass dribblers, stalk passing lanes, control the dribble, push into transition (assuming we can get a rebound MA's speed could be just the guy to get EWill and DJO pushing up the floor) and 40%-ish 3-pt-FGs will provide one look.

When Acker sits we'll have Buycks who seems significantly bigger and stronger and should be more capable of pushing the ball into the paint and then dishing. Bucks and DJO should also be able to keep more physical guards out of the paint.

Hopefully we can also see Cubie find a meaningful role (say 10 mpg) similar to what we saw his freshman year: energy, enthusiasm, chest-to-chest defense and fearless/timely 3 pt shooting.