Why is Blue referred to as a 5* but Wilson is not?

[Marquette84]

The only other guards were Tommy Brice and Joe Chapman.  Fitz played on the perimeter, but we all know how consistent he was.  When McNeal arrived at MU, he was the least of the Amigos.  My argument is that VB will be a quality player over his career at MU.  That's all.  If you think otherwise, well, we'll talk in 3 years.

You are all over the place.  Not sure what your overall point is.  I think your channeling Chicos today.

And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations.  He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers.  I don't think he showed that yet.

[Silkk the Shaka]

And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations.  He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers.  I don't think he showed that yet.

Who's arguing he did live up to overinflated freshman year expectations?  His career isn't over though.  And it's a fact that he was behind DJO and Butler at the 2/3.  McNeal and Matthews had to split minutes between Chapman and Fitzgerald at the 2/3, which isn't even close.  James had no zero competition, and Blue has never played PG so I'm not sure where that comes in to play.

[ringout]

And my point was simply that for as highly rated as he was, his first year performance didn't live up to those expectations.  He was talked about as the best HS player since Trotter and Rivers.  I don't think he showed that yet.

Not sure where that expectation came from.  His state tournament his Jr. year got the hype machine revved.   He wasn't even the best player in WI his senior year although he does have more D1 upside than the kid that was Mr. Basketball.  VB was #48 RSCI, I think.  Kemba Walker was #15.  His freshman year was OK, but not mindblowing.  VB will be fine.

[Marquette84]

Who's arguing he did live up to overinflated freshman year expectations?  His career isn't over though.  

The first couple of posts included these comments.

"Or is it unfair to focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him?"

"Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season.  James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's."

Put me in the category of being disappointed with what we got out of Blue this year.  And that's not just because he didn't get a starting job on day one--after 12 points against DePaul, he only managed 24 points in the next 18 games.

And it's a fact that he was behind DJO and Butler at the 2/3.  McNeal and Matthews had to split minutes between Chapman and Fitzgerald at the 2/3, which isn't even close.  

And Novak, who was essentially another SG.

I already conceded the point on James as PG.  But we could have made Novak, Chapman, and Fitz the primary backcourt, and Lott, Amo, Barro and Grimm the primary frontcourt, with Matthews and McNeal relegated to the bench.

Instead, I feel that McNeal and Matthews played as the primary options because they were better than the other options--not because there were no other options available.

James had no zero competition, and Blue has never played PG so I'm not sure where that comes in to play.

I already conceded the point on James.

I also said that if Blue had played like James, he would have been in the lineup at the PG spot.  

I based it on the same three reasons I gave before:
--It was frequently mentioned throughout the year that many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect.  I'm not the first to say this.  
--If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.
--Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.

Do you disagree with any of those points?  It sounds like you want to disagree with me, but you can't disagree with any of the supporting reasons.

[Marquette84]

Not sure where that expectation came from.  His state tournament his Jr. year got the hype machine revved.   He wasn't even the best player in WI his senior year although he does have more D1 upside than the kid that was Mr. Basketball.  VB was #48 RSCI, I think.  Kemba Walker was #15.  His freshman year was OK, but not mindblowing.  VB will be fine.

I posted the link from Rosiak above.

[ringout]

I posted the link from Rosiak above.

Given that the Rosiak blog post was before his Sr. season, and he had a tremendous state tourney his Jr. year, I guess I understand the expectations at the time of the post.  His sr. season was more muted.  I don't care.  I said in a post before this season started that, as a freshman, he would play because of defense, and that is what happened.  He has a whole off season to work on his offense.  I am still a big VB fan.  He will be a productive Warrior.

[El Duderino]

Until there is a objective, definitive and universally accepted method for determining class rankings (and therefore how many * a player gets), this is all just meaningless gibberish.

While i get your point and i agree with it somewhat, it's not just meaningless gibberish.

Sure, people can point to a team like Butler which isn't comprised with a bunch of socalled 4-5 star recruits and yet they'll be in their second straight NCAA title game while squads full of better recruits like at Duke, OSU, Kansas, Kentucky, etc will be watching. Butler is an exception though.

For as flawed and how often wrong these star rankings can be with high school recruits in both college basketball and football, schools like Kansas, Duke, and N. Carolina are consistently top 5-10 teams almost entirely because their rosters are comprised of mostly just 4-5 star recruits.

So while it's regularly shown that plenty of 3 star recruits end up becoming better college players than 4-5 star guys do, in the end, the more 4-5 star recruits that a program signs, the more likely that the program with have lots of success.

The problem though for really big time recruits like Blue who sign with a Wisconsin or Marquette is that neither school is able to sign kids that often who are that highly thought of. This in turn tends to raise expectations higher for many of the fans. They expect the kid to be a really good player right away and if instead there are some struggles, quite a few fans starting saying what the hell is wrong with X player even though 5 stars next to a high school players name is far from a lock in guaranteeing great success in college.

[El Duderino]

Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was too much experience ahead of him.

I think the main reason by far that Vander Blue saw his playing to be as limited as it was is Vander himself.

I have zero doubt that Buzz would have liked to play Vander more, but his jump shot mechanics were simply to broken and he was to turnover prone when handling the ball. So even though Blue didn't struggle with the more typical defensive woes that so many freshman deal with, he was a big liability on the offensive. That forced Buzz to play Vander less, especially as the year went along and later in the season where it was obvious that MU was on the selection bubble. Buzz couldn't risk playing Blue to many minutes in games where he looked lost offensively.

But the fact is that according to Buzz, Williams started in order to protect Crowder from picking up an early foul.  That tells me that Buzz didn't favor experience--he wanted Crowder in the lineup ahead of Williams--for some very obvious reasons.

I'm sure Buzz views experience like the vast majority of all other college coaches. If say two players at the same position are roughly equal as players at that current time, the coach will give more of the minutes to the more experienced player. If though the coach feels a less experienced player will be more productive, experience loses out to productivity. For obvious reasons though, ideally coaches would prefer that their better players also be guys with experience, it just often doesn't work out that way.

Put me in the category of being disappointed with what we got out of Blue this year.  And that's not just because he didn't get a starting job on day one--after 12 points against DePaul, he only managed 24 points in the next 18 games.

I agree that fans have reason to be at least somewhat disappointed in Vander's freshman year. While it's not all that uncommon for highly ranked kids to struggle as freshman, many highly ranked freshman also do come in and play great right away. Vander wasn't terrible, but he was far from really good either. There were a variety of reasons for that, but IMO the clear biggest reason was his broken jump shot. He was terrible shooting from the perimeter and i think that affected the rest of his offensive game, and confidence. I'm reasonably confident that Vander will get back his ability to drive the paint and finish which he also struggled with this year, but a quality shooting guard needs to be able to do the first thing in his position title, be able to shoot the ball.

Blue has some funky mechanics on his jump shot and i'm sure the coaching staff noticed. So it will be interesting if in the offseason do they try to completely overhaul Vander's shooting mechanics, just tweak it, or leave it alone and simply ask him to shoot a ton of jumpers whenever he has free time?

[RawdogDX]

I guess the issue for me is that if Buzz can coach Buycks or Smith to make the transition from 2G to the point in his offense, he could have done the same for Blue.

Here is where you went all wrong.  Buycks was a 2nd year player at MU, with 3 years of post high school experience that included some time at the point.  Blue is a 1st year player at MU who never played point in high school. 

Just because Buzz was able to get Buycks to trasition in a year does not mean he 'could have done the same for blue' in a few months.

Part two of you going wrong is that you seem sure he should have tried.  You ever think that he wants him to play the 2?  Perhaps he thinks with Buyckes & JR this year, and JR & Wilson for the next 2 is ok.  And that we don't need to take Blue out of his natural position.   Perhaps Buzz (who knows a hell of a lot more about Blue than you) realizes that he could be an above avg 1 or a great 2 and has chose the latter.

Why are you so sure this is a good idea? 

[Pakuni]

Here is where you went all wrong.  Buycks was a 2nd year player at MU, with 3 years of post high school experience that included some time at the point.  Blue is a 1st year player at MU who never played point in high school. 

Just because Buzz was able to get Buycks to trasition in a year does not mean he 'could have done the same for blue' in a few months.

Also, Buycks played to point in JUCO and high school. So while he may be better suited for the two, he had plenty of experience at the point prior to his "transition" this year. He played out of his natural position, but by no means was the position new to him.
Likewise, Reggie Smith was a point guard in high school. More of scoring point guard than a set-up-the-offense-and-pass point guard, but he wasn't a 2G "coached" to play the point.
Which obviously would have been the case for Blue, who not only would have been playing out of his natural position, but would have been learning a new position.

So, yeah, those were bad comparisons.

[Marquette84]

Also, Buycks played to point in JUCO and high school. So while he may be better suited for the two, he had plenty of experience at the point prior to his "transition" this year. He played out of his natural position, but by no means was the position new to him.
Likewise, Reggie Smith was a point guard in high school. More of scoring point guard than a set-up-the-offense-and-pass point guard, but he wasn't a 2G "coached" to play the point.
Which obviously would have been the case for Blue, who not only would have been playing out of his natural position, but would have been learning a new position.

So, yeah, those were bad comparisons.

Putting aside the irony of you suggesting that JUCO experience is relevant ("it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball"), I don't see any clear agreement or disagreement with the actual points I made.

1.  It was frequently mentioned throughout the year by many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect.  I'm not the first to say this.  

As far as I know, you've never objected to the statement previously.  Considering that Blue had an A/T ratio of 1.2 and Buycks 1.4, (even though Buycks had far more opportunities as the designated PG), I think there is some truth to the notion that Blue had the potential to be better--and it wasn't as if Buycks was putting up outstanding A/T numbers.  

2.  If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.  

I note that you explain why you thought it might be easier to teach Buycks and Smith to run the point (even though their prior experience is "nothing akin to D1").   The question is whether you think Buzz was capable of teaching Blue to run the point in MU's 2010-11 offense.  

I think he was capable--and if Blue had demonstrated James' 15 ppg scoring ability, I think we would have seen him do just that.  
 
3.  Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.  

I don't see you objecting to this--largely because it would be pretty difficult for you to do so. Buzz runs a motion offense so any perimeter player can initiate the offense.  It doesn't matter if Blue or Buycks (or DJO) dribble penetrates--they each would have the decision to take the shot, pass to a big inside, or pass back outside.

Its not like Buzz has hundreds of set plays for each player.

[Pakuni]

Putting aside the irony of you suggesting that JUCO experience is relevant ("it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball"), I don't see any clear agreement or disagreement with the actual points I made.

1.  It was frequently mentioned throughout the year by many here thought Blue was our best PG prospect.  I'm not the first to say this.  

What other posters said or didn't say is irrelevant to Blue's ability to play the point.
That said, being a point guard "prospect," and actually playing the position successfully for the first time as a freshman are hardly the same thing. I think you're confusing what people think Blue may eventually  become with whether he would be that from the moment he set foot on campus.

As far as I know, you've never objected to the statement previously.  Considering that Blue had an A/T ratio of 1.2 and Buycks 1.4, (even though Buycks had far more opportunities as the designated PG), I think there is some truth to the notion that Blue had the potential to be better--and it wasn't as if Buycks was putting up outstanding A/T numbers.  

Wait .... what?
Are you suggesting that anyone who posts here must actively object to every statement made or otherwise it's assumed they agree with it? What a stupid suggestion.
Secondly, the fact Blue had a worse A/T ratio, despite handling the ball less proves nothing, except the opposite of what you're suggesting ... that he was less suited to handle the point.


2.  If Buzz could coach other 2Gs (namely Buycks and Smith) to run the point in his offense, I think he could have been able to do the same with Blue.  

Ugh. Once again, Reggie Smith was not a two. He played the point in high school and was recruited to Marquette as a point. Likewise, Buycks was a combo guard who played point guard in high school and both point and off guard in JUCO.
Stop making things up. Nobody "coached" them how to play a new position this year. Unlike Blue, they both had extensive experience playing the point at lower levels.

I note that you explain why you thought it might be easier to teach Buycks and Smith to run the point (even though their prior experience is "nothing akin to D1").   The question is whether you think Buzz was capable of teaching Blue to run the point in MU's 2010-11 offense.  

Not sure we're you're going here. Are you arguing that JUCO competition is the same as what Marquette plays, or do you agree with me, it's nothing akin to it? If it's the former, that's a really silly statement. If it's the latter, why are you even raising it?

But no, Buzz couldn't have taught Blue to play the point this year. I very much doubt any coach could have taught a natural two guard who never played the point in high school how to play the point against high-major competition in a couple of months.

Then question is why do you seem to think a coach can wave a magic wand and teach a kid who hasn't played the point how to do it?

3.  Buzz's offense doesn't really have a set role for PG other than bringing the ball up--which Blue is capable of doing--once in the half-court offense guards are fairly interchangeable.  

Buzz would be a surprised to learn this. He's said that his offense does indeed have a point guard, a pivot and three "switchables."
Perhaps you know more about his offense than he does.