THIS JUST IN: MARQUETTE NEEDS A BIG!!!

[IAmMarquette]

Seth Davis identifies and solves all of our problems in two paragraphs....

Marquettejavascript:void(0);
Insert Table Column
Biggest deficiency: Like Duke, Marquette is suffering from lack of a decent inside player. Unlike Duke, the Golden Eagles' guards can go extended stretches without generating their own offense. This team needs a big body inside who also provides a dynamic scoring presence.

Missing piece: Jason Thompson, 6-11, Sr., F, Rider
It's a shame that Thompson, a late bloomer from Mt. Laurel, N.J., is toiling in obscurity at Rider. He is a big, agile power forward with a nice shooter's touch around the rim. Thompson leads the MAAC in rebounds (11.2) and blocks (2.8), and he is second in the conference in points (19.9). His ability to draw double teams should open up lots of driving lanes for Marquette's speedy guards.

Boy, nobody has pointed this out before. I feel like my eyes have been opened! Thank you Seth Davis![/color]

We get it. We'd be better with a better big man. Unfortunately we don't have one of those this year, at least not one who isn't redshirted.


EDIT: Added link...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/seth_davis/01/31/jigsaw.man/index.html

[mviale]

Seth Davis is brilliant!  Thats exactly what we need
too bad that kid will be in the NBA next year

[sv48]

damn it, how did he figure that out? i have been trying to figure out whats wrong with MU basketball entire season, now i know! yayyyyyyy

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

My point is, every time MU loses, it's not because MU doesn't have a big man. If you really believe that logic, then you would have to believe the MU would never lose if they had a great big man, which really isn't realistic considering the landscape of college hoops. Upsets happen all of the time.

These are kids playing a game... sometimes they have good nights, sometimes they have not-so-good nights. To think that every loss is related to the need for a big man is a little silly.

Could MU use more production in the post? Certainly. But, if MU loses tomorrow, it won't automatically be "because Crean can't recruit or develop a big man". Having a big would help, but it wouldn't make MU unbeatable. EVERY team is beatable.

End of rant.

[Pardner]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

Here is the deal:  A true 5 would provide spacing for our guards to do what they do as well as any backcourt combo in the nation.  When we match-up against a team with good bigs, we struggle, that is obvious, especially on the road where energy and nailing the outside shots are harder. to accomplish.  When grinding it out on the road, it is nice to be able to throw it into the middle to create space for your guards and forwards for shots and rebounds and to draw fouls for some points at the line when points are hard to come by.  That is where the critics come in. 

That said, TC's system is not built around a back-to-the basket 5.  It is a motion offense built for Conference USA and taken from Izzo's MSU model, and to put a 5 in it would be counter productive today.  Any talk otherwise is academic.  TC knows this is a weakness in the BE and is recruiting bigs to come and will make adjustments.  As it is, we will live and die by our guards today.  And in reality, how many true back-to-the basket bigs has MU ever had?  Mac, Jay Whitehead iare about it.  And today, they would have gone pro after one year. 

[4everwarriors]

Its not question of going undefeated.  How about playing deep into March?  You're either a contender or a pretender. If you haven't noticed by now, the BE has a plethora of adequate bigs.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Its not question of going undefeated.  How about playing deep into March?  You're either a contender or a pretender. If you haven't noticed by now, the BE has a plethora of adequate bigs.

I can't disagree, and I do think MU could use a better big man.

I guess my point is that EVERY LOSS is not because MU doesn't have a big man... yet after EVERY LOSS some basketball genius makes a post about how MU needs to have a better big man.

MU could have the best big man in the country, but it doesn't mean that they would never lose.

March could be tough... but when MU is hot, I think they can beat any team in the country... the question is: How can MU get hot?

[jmayer1]

"That said, TC's system is not built around a back-to-the basket 5.  It is a motion offense built for Conference USA and taken from Izzo's MSU model, and to put a 5 in it would be counter productive today.  Any talk otherwise is academic." 

I disagree, with this statement.  I think the current offense is not built to have a big guy, but I believe TC would be able to adjust and incorporate a big man (ala Jackson for the one year) into the offense.

[sigep80]

Are our bigs bad because we never pass them the ball, or do we not pass them the ball because they are bad?

Before we hit this slump of the past few games, it seemed like the bigs got more opportunities because the guards were finding them for close in looks, usually of dribble penetration.  The last few games this has not happened.

[downtown85]

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I love hypotheticals so I'll bite.

MU with Michael Beasley=undefeated.

kind or a waste to talk about though since it didn't happen nor ever would have happened. 

[Pardner]

"That said, TC's system is not built around a back-to-the basket 5.  It is a motion offense built for Conference USA and taken from Izzo's MSU model, and to put a 5 in it would be counter productive today.  Any talk otherwise is academic." 

I disagree, with this statement.  I think the current offense is not built to have a big guy, but I believe TC would be able to adjust and incorporate a big man (ala Jackson for the one year) into the offense.

Crean's "system" is built off guards, not a big.  GT's Princeton's offense is built off a big--Hibbert today.  Our first option is with the weave motion created by our guards and 3.  GT's first option is built off of Hibbert--just like ND.  I agree TC would add a post-up option in his offense if he had it like he did with Jackson--who was really a 4 who could post-up.  However, this would be within his system...which btw, I find much more exciting to watch as a fan.

Here is a question still on topic:  If we had a true 5, how much better would Ooze or Burke be at the 4?  I think they would be contributing a lot more today.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I love hypotheticals so I'll bite.

MU with Michael Beasley=undefeated.

kind or a waste to talk about though since it didn't happen nor ever would have happened. 

Wellll.... you might be right.... but like I said, given the landscape of college basketball, no team is really unbeatable.

Upsets happen all of the time. Even to the best teams. These are 19yr old kids.

Therefore, I just find it crazy to blame EVERY LOSS on a lack of a big guy.

A better big man would certainly hep, but I find it very hard to believe that any big man would suddenly make MU undefeated.

Obviously this is all just speculation, but I just hate when "lack of a big man" is constantly used by some fans as the reason MU loses.

[Pardner]

Its not question of going undefeated.  How about playing deep into March?  You're either a contender or a pretender. If you haven't noticed by now, the BE has a plethora of adequate bigs.

I can't disagree, and I do think MU could use a better big man.

I guess my point is that EVERY LOSS is not because MU doesn't have a big man... yet after EVERY LOSS some basketball genius makes a post about how MU needs to have a better big man.

MU could have the best big man in the country, but it doesn't mean that they would never lose.

March could be tough... but when MU is hot, I think they can beat any team in the country... the question is: How can MU get hot?

Duke and MSU have been successful in the Big Dance over the years without a true 5 playing major roles.  Both offenses are built around the perimeter game, like ours.  Name a great big man from either school under K or Izzo?  Not many...Laettner was a 4 who could post up or step outside.   Duke's 7 footer sits on the bench this year.  My three keys to a run:

1)  Fitz--great Point Forward which is his natural tendency...but he needs to fire treys first...and not just where he likes to receive them (off center on the top of the key) but in the corners.  He needs to find his shots behind the zone vs. waiting for them to come to him.  He is a great re-distributor within a zone, but he needs to find the space to shoot to soften up the lanes for our guards.  This will open up our strenghts.

2)  JM needs to play within the offense.  He is at his best finding the seams, sneaking in for the rebound/put back and with assists.  We have played our best games when he has high assists and rebounds...not when he is launching threes.  He creates energy for us on defense with his steals, but he needs to not always force the action coming back the other way.  Teams are looking to force him into mistakes as they know he is key.

3)  Ooze and Burke should just focus on defense and protecting the pot of gold.  Grab rebounds, fill the lanes, don't worry about the O.  But, when they have the chance to score on O, finish and finish hard.   Keep it simple.

If DJ, LH, Wes, Mo, and dCube play like they have been...with the above three points...we can make a run.

[jmayer1]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I think if you add a low post threat who is a good team player (not saying Beasley isn't), Marquette would have no more than 1 loss.  A guy like DJ White would be perfect on this team.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I think if you add a low post threat who is a good team player (not saying Beasley isn't), Marquette would have no more than 1 loss.  A guy like DJ White would be perfect on this team.

That's believable... but some people (not necessarily you) around here keep citing the lack of a big man as the only reason why MU loses. If MU had DJ White, then why would they ever lose?

I'm not trying to jump up on the soapbox, I just want challenge the notion that a "big man" is all MU needs.

MU needs to play well... that's what MU needs. 

[jmayer1]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I think if you add a low post threat who is a good team player (not saying Beasley isn't), Marquette would have no more than 1 loss.  A guy like DJ White would be perfect on this team.

That's believable... but some people (not necessarily you) around here keep citing the lack of a big man as the only reason why MU loses. If MU had DJ White, then why would they ever lose?

I'm not trying to jump up on the soapbox, I just want challenge the notion that a "big man" is all MU needs.

MU needs to play well... that's what MU needs. 

Yeah, I dont think the only reason we lose is because of big men; I was just answering the question.  I think DJ needs to get healthy and keep distributing, Jerel needs to stop forcing it, and Wes/Lazar need to play like they did against USF.  If those things happen, MU will do pretty good.

[MR.HAYWARD]

Pardner
......You state...."That said, TC's system is not built around a back-to-the basket 5.  It is a motion offense built for Conference USA and taken from Izzo's MSU model, and to put a 5 in it would be counter productive today.  Any talk otherwise is academic.  TC knows this is a weakness in the BE and is recruiting bigs to come and will make adjustments.  As it is, we will live and die by our guards today.  And in reality, how many true back-to-the basket bigs has MU ever had?  Mac, Jay Whitehead iare about it.  And today, they would have gone pro after one year. "

Are you serious MU is the fathest thing from a motion offense as anything I have ever seen.  Are you really serious in that statement?  Go watch Texas Tech and Illinois and other motion offenses for the definition of a motion offense.  Mu runs specific sets ........they are no where near motion. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Here is a question for all of the "MU needs a big man" proponents. (there are several people and several threads)

IF MU magically could've taken any big man they wanted at the start of the year (take your pick) would MU be undefeated? Probably not. 

I think if you add a low post threat who is a good team player (not saying Beasley isn't), Marquette would have no more than 1 loss.  A guy like DJ White would be perfect on this team.

That's believable... but some people (not necessarily you) around here keep citing the lack of a big man as the only reason why MU loses. If MU had DJ White, then why would they ever lose?

I'm not trying to jump up on the soapbox, I just want challenge the notion that a "big man" is all MU needs.

MU needs to play well... that's what MU needs. 

Yeah, I dont think the only reason we lose is because of big men; I was just answering the question.  I think DJ needs to get healthy and keep distributing, Jerel needs to stop forcing it, and Wes/Lazar need to play like they did against USF.  If those things happen, MU will do pretty good.

Understood.

I'm just making a general statement against the inevitable "we need a big man" statements that come after every loss.

You cannot prevent every loss simply by adding a "quality big"

[Pardner]

Are you serious MU is the fathest thing from a motion offense as anything I have ever seen.  Are you really serious in that statement?  Go watch Texas Tech and Illinois and other motion offenses for the definition of a motion offense.  Mu runs specific sets ........they are no where near motion. 

Yes, I am serious...I thought this was fairly well known that MU primarily runs the weave.  Who says that you cannot have specific sets in the weave?  And, then have second and third options that a motion offense gives you as you make your reads?  TC is also running a variation of the Pepperdine Offense that his buddy Cal runs at Memphis-especially against the 2-3.  Memphis may look like they are running freestyle, but it is actually a very disciplined offense like TC likes to run--where they are looking to get a certain sets or plays...but first looking to get a quick shot off the transitionals. 

TC does not run the Princeton or Triangle with slow developing patterns where you need a post-up 5.  Are you suggesting they do?  I must be watching a different MU team then...I thought we had a lot of guards who create off of motion. 

[mviale]

you go to war with the army you have.

Now wrap it up and root for the small team

[ppp098]

I'll take a 4-4-2. That's the real football.

You guys coach. Win games, a big man would help no question, run the floor, get lucky.

Just look at what the big man on FSU did to us. Lucky he fouled out. Just wait til NCAAs.