For Silky - 2006 versus 2010 comparision

[Lennys Tap]

Woah.

Here's some clarification:

People often automatically turn defensive when the term hypocrite or hypocritical is used. It's something nobody wants to be accused of, and often will argue very vehemently against.

So, although it might be accurate (in my estimation), it was still a poor choice of words (by me) because it can create a fight rather than a discussion.

I don't want to sound like such a peace loving freak, but I'd rather have an open discussion, rather than attack and retort thread. I'm guilty of getting into plenty of those, and I've rarely found them to be worthwhile. Just turns into a pissing match.

I have stated my opinion for all to read, and I have nothing else meaningful to add.

So you think I'm a hypocrite,(accurate in your estimation) but you wish you had chosen some synonym for hypocrite that I might not have considered quite so offensive? Trust me, it's not your choice of words I find offensive. It's the lack of logic and facts you rely on to reach your conclusions.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So you think I'm a hypocrite,(accurate in your estimation) but you wish you had chosen some synonym for hypocrite that I might not have considered quite so offensive? Trust me, it's not your choice of words I find offensive. It's the lack of logic and facts you rely on to reach your conclusions.

That pretty much sums it up.

People (including me sometimes) take our opinions and posts so personally that some threads degenerate from an interesting basketball discussion to a pissing match about a subject (most of the time that subject is TC). We've all been guilty of this.

I know you disagree with my logic in previous posts, but that's cool. We can still be friends.


EDIT: I wrote WAY too much before.

[dsfire]

Next year TC returns a bunch of starters (all 5?) and welcomes a top 5 recruiting class. Buzz returns one starter and an outstanding class regarded as almost Indiana's equal. Slight edge to IU, but wouldn't this result in a better comparison of Crean vs Buzz than the bizzare back to the future scenario you propose? Of couse it would, but it might not fit your agenda as well.

Not that it really has any bearing on the argument, but since a couple other people have commented...

• Taber graduated, I believe (started 23 games, 60% minutes)
• Williams transferred (started 29 games, 66% minutes)
• I think Malik Story transferred as well (3 starts, 45% minutes)

A couple of their other starters will be competing with new players for play time as well, from what I can gather - for example, it looks like Jones will be up against Jeremiah Rivers and #74 RSCI Jordan Hulls at point guard.

Like I said, doesn't really matter for this topic but I found it interesting.
(sources: statsheet, kenpom, scholarship grid, RSCI)

[ChicosBailBonds]

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. If a 4 year starter "breaks out" his senior year it's most likely due to some odd situation ( Mathews taking shots away from DJ in Buzz's offense for example)

You're right, Novak was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Diener was as good his junior year as senior year.    Wes Matthews was as good his junior year as senior year.     Chris Crawford was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Etc, etc (Eford, McCaskill, Pieper).   Many of our players over the years (who didn't have Crean for you to blame), had break out years and I don't agree with you that it's simply because they were taking shots away from someone else.  They're more mature, they're fully committed (it's their last year, giving it their all to make the association or play their final year of organized ball), etc.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week!!!  Easier to coach, more developed, more mature, more committed, more experienced, etc, etc.

[Lennys Tap]

You're right, Novak was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Diener was as good his junior year as senior year.    Wes Matthews was as good his junior year as senior year.     Chris Crawford was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Etc, etc (Eford, McCaskill, Pieper).   Many of our players over the years (who didn't have Crean for you to blame), had break out years and I don't agree with you that it's simply because they were taking shots away from someone else.  They're more mature, they're fully committed (it's their last year, giving it their all to make the association or play their final year of organized ball), etc.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week!!!  Easier to coach, more developed, more mature, more committed, more experienced, etc, etc.

Since you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it allow me to repeat it with explanations:

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. (THIS MEANS PLAYERS GOOD ENOUGH AND MATURE ENOUGH TO BE STARTERS FROM DAY ONE). This eliminates EVERY SINGLE ONE of your examples EXCEPT Mathews who happens to be MY example. Novak, Diener, Crawford, Eford, Crawford and McCaskill improving or not improving are irrelevant as they don't meet the criteria in my statement.

Now I was kidding about you not reading or understanding my post. My point is that you don't address my statement. You make a speech that pretends to address my statement. This is what's known as having an agenda.

[Marquette84]

Do I think Buzz could have coached Novak and the three amigos to the NCAA tourney? You bet. Will this year's team make it? Who knows. It's a flawed and unfair comparison. Where guys are "rated" out of high school and how they perform is not science. Brandon Bell was rated higher coming out of high school than Wade. Did Crean under achieve in his coaching of Bell? Of course not. But you guys want to compare a team with an 3rd year NBA player and three guys who are all over MU's record book with next year's group of Lazar and a group of highly rated question marks. That's insane. But I think you already knew that.

You refuse to answer this question because you are afraid Buzz's recruits might not turn out to be as good as Crean's?

Now I've heard everything.  

You argue--apparently with a straight face--that a recruiter who has brought in a bunch of what you yourself call question marks is ALREADY far superior to a guy who brought in a "3rd year NBA player" "3 guys who are all over MU's record books," and a guy currently projected as a first round draft pick next season.  Not to mention MU's best player of all time, and another 4 year NBA player.

A fair opinion would be to state--as I have repeatedly--that the jury is still out on Buzz's recruiting until his recruits demonstrate that they can match the performance of those recruited by Crean.  

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yet in this insane asylum, expecting that Buzz's recruiting to actually demonstrate superiority BEFORE declaring him a superior recruiter is considered as "having an agenda."

And making a declaration of recruiting superiority based on landing what is described as a bunch of "question marks" is normal and expected.

[Lennys Tap]

You refuse to answer this question because you are afraid Buzz's recruits might not turn out to be as good as Crean's?

Now I've heard everything.  

You argue--apparently with a straight face--that a recruiter who has brought in a bunch of what you yourself call question marks is ALREADY far superior to a guy who brought in a "3rd year NBA player" "3 guys who are all over MU's record books," and a guy currently projected as a first round draft pick next season.  Not to mention MU's best player of all time, and another 4 year NBA player.

A fair opinion would be to state--as I have repeatedly--that the jury is still out on Buzz's recruiting until his recruits demonstrate that they can match the performance of those recruited by Crean.  

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yet in this insane asylum, expecting that Buzz's recruiting to actually demonstrate superiority BEFORE declaring him a superior recruiter is considered as "having an agenda."

And making a declaration of recruiting superiority based on landing what is described as a bunch of "question marks" is normal and expected.

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

The final RSCI actually shows Crean's class of DJ, Wes, Jerel to be ranked higher than Buzz's class....though both are excellent.  And to be fair, in either case we shouldn't be comparing Buzz's class to Crean's class anyway because each year is different...the 2005 class of all recruits may have been "weaker" then the 2009 class, though ultimately we will not be able to judge any of these things until they are all done playing, not based on "experts" evaluations.

The experts, most of them anyway, didn't have D-Wade as a consensus pick (while some had him as a top 25 player).  Careful with what the experts are saying.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather judge a recruiter by the successes they actually have on the court not on how they slot in on a piece of paper or a website by some recruiting expert.  We'll know in a few years for sure, anything else is purely a guess.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Since you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it allow me to repeat it with explanations:

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. (THIS MEANS PLAYERS GOOD ENOUGH AND MATURE ENOUGH TO BE STARTERS FROM DAY ONE). This eliminates EVERY SINGLE ONE of your examples EXCEPT Mathews who happens to be MY example. Novak, Diener, Crawford, Eford, Crawford and McCaskill improving or not improving are irrelevant as they don't meet the criteria in my statement.

Now I was kidding about you not reading or understanding my post. My point is that you don't address my statement. You make a speech that pretends to address my statement. This is what's known as having an agenda.

That's your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree.  I'm sorry, but I don't see how it eliminates any of the examples I gave.  Are you really saying that Diener, who played in 97 games prior to his senior season had huge improvements to make because he was 3 games short of the magical 100 marker you've given?  I don't know if Diener started all 97 games (Henry started at the PG position), but he played at least 24 minutes a game his Freshman year on.  Yet he was a better senior then any other year, despite being injured.   I'm sorry, but regardless of how many starts or games that they played, those examples I gave still showed they had fantastic senior years whether it was their first time in that role as the Senior stud or whether they had been major contributors since their freshman year or sophmore year.  Diener just one example.

Incidentally, your example, did not play 100+ games coming into his senior year.  Matthews played 92 games prior to his senior year and had a terrific senior season.  Almost the same number of games that Diener had.

I'll take Steve Novak the senior over Steve Novak the junior because he was more aggressive, more confident, more mature and was playing out his last year.  Seniors rise to the occassion, I find it surprising that you seem to be ignoring this fact or somehow chalking it up to them filling in for someone that just graduated.  In some cases, yes, stats will balloon because they become "the man".  But, there are also numerous cases where these guys finally reach the apex and know what they are doing through the entire process by virtue of coaching, maturity, etc.   Case in point, Travis Diener actually played less minutes per game his senior year than his junior year, yet had better statistics in most major categories.  Other players get additional minutes because they are filling that void you were talking about.  There are examples to justify both points of view.

But I still contend that coaching the big three as seniors compared to coaching them in their first three years is a difference.



Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week.

[Marquette84]

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

I'll make this clear so you can understand:

If this year's team can't equal or surpass the 2006 team's results, then maybe Buzz's recruiting and/or coaching is not as superior as you claim.