Let's Hash This One Over Again

[4everwarriors]

It's a big man's game, pure and simple. Yeah, you can win with guards up to a certain point. But, when facing 2-3 good athletic frontcourt players, the bigs will win out.
Predictably, the Final Four will be dominated by teams that have those players. Watch and see. Until MU brings in some studs, they'll represent well, but won't be a title threat. At present, Barro is the only interior presence on the roster and he still needs to develop.

[augoman]

couldn't agree more, 4ever..., I reiterate; is MU recruiting any BIG men?

[Murffieus]

Amen----the final 4 last year was replete with bigs----the BE is and always has been a stud conference-------is it coincidence that UCONN won it last year----and that Pitt & GT are #1 & #2 this year?

[Harrison]

chicos said its a guards game so based on his knowledge of the game i must defer to him.   

from what i saw we were absolutely dominated by their bigs.  w e stood a chance when Barro was in there but after that they brought in Mcdonalds all american bigs from the bench and we brought in projects.   Its easier to score form 2 feet than from 20 and easier to rebound the taller you are.  enough said.

[spartan3186]

Augoman-

We are recruiting Jamychal Green in 2008. He is not the 5 you are looking for but he is supposedly a dominating presence inside

he's so dominant inside that I can't see any coaches moving him away from the basket

He's 6'8 215 as a junior in highschool. He'll only bulk up as strength coaches come into play

[77ncaachamps]

If Bryce Webster decides to transfer to MU, should we take him?

[ilovefreeway]

If Bryce Webster decides to transfer to MU, should we take him?

Not based on the two games I've seen him play.  But on the other hand, he is only a frosh and that team just sucks.

[spartan3186]

hmmm 36 rebounds and 29 boards in over 200 minutes... sounds like a lot of big men i know *cough* lott, burke, kinsella *cough*

[77ncaachamps]

hmmm 36 rebounds and 29 boards in over 200 minutes... sounds like a lot of big men i know *cough* lott, burke, kinsella *cough*

That may be true but he's on a sorry team.

I just don't know enough about his shooting touch as Lott, Burke, and Kinsella aren't very aggressive to the hoop.

[MarquetteDano]

There is no doubt that having good bigs is a good thing.  However, I would always start my teams with guards.  Would you rather be short on guard talent or frontcourt talent?

Guard laden teams can do very well (see: Villanova or St. Joe's... hmm a lot of Philly in that).  Frontcourt laden teams with little guard talent are in trouble in the post season.

The teams you mention in the Final Four also had great guards.  Find me a final four team with weak guards and a strong frontcourt.

[Pago Warrior]

Lots of DJ bashing going on here after that game.  In some instances, it's warranted, however, beyond DJ why isn't anyone else pinning that loss on Green?  It was GU's forward that greatly factored into that game being a L for us.  Quite simply our defense against their bigs was not sufficient.

Green did have a big put back in the 2nd half, but beyond that, most of his big shots came from the perimeter.  It was his outside shooting and Summers big 3 late in the 2nd that kept us from getting back into this thing.  Defensively, we didn't have good enough forwards to take that way from him.  Lazar had good offensive numbers but that D is still lacking particularly on the outside.

Also Ooze is far and away the most improved player on this team and generally played very well yesterday.  His offense has come a long way.  Hibbert, however, has developed nicely into taking very high % shots largely by beating his man to the spot deep in the paint on swings & motion.  On many occassions, that's how he got the advantage on Ooze.  This is somethig that Ooze will hopefully ID and improve upon.   Kinsella actually achieved in doing that by simply muscleing (sp?) his way and forcing Hibbert out farther than Roy would like.

[CTWarrior]

The teams you mention in the Final Four also had great guards.  Find me a final four team with weak guards and a strong frontcourt.

It would be hard to find teams with great guards and a lousy frontcourt in Final Fours, too.   The bottom line is that there are plenty of good guards to go around (as there are probably 100 times as many people who are 6-2 or less than there are 6-8 or bigger), but quality big men are in much shorter supply, and if you don't get yourself a couple of them you will have a much harder time winning national championships.  

I love Barro, and I think he is great and improving every day.   But wouldn't a big man you can put in the low post and have the defense be forced to respect be a big help to our guards in terms of opening passing and shooting lanes?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It's a big man's game, pure and simple. Yeah, you can win with guards up to a certain point. But, when facing 2-3 good athletic frontcourt players, the bigs will win out.
Predictably, the Final Four will be dominated by teams that have those players. Watch and see. Until MU brings in some studs, they'll represent well, but won't be a title threat. At present, Barro is the only interior presence on the roster and he still needs to develop.

Yep, and until Crean and the current administration change the nickname back everything they do will still be tarnished.

(Sarcasim off).

You are probably right about the bigs, but I only see this comment posted after a loss, so it rings pretty hollow. I don't remember anybody calling for better big men after the 8 conference wins in a row.

Conference road losses happen. I'm sure Wisconsin fans weren't thrilled about losing to Indiana, but I would guess that they aren't questioning their coaches recruiting tactics.

If DJ shoots better, or Wes plays better (he had the flu), or even if McNeal plays smarter, they may have won that game. None of those things have to do with recruiting a big man.

I'd love to see a 7fter at MU, but there just aren't that many out there.

Bring on DePaul!

[4everwarriors]

Check my record, I've been consistent on this point.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Check my record, I've been consistent on this point.

Yes, you have been consistent after MU loses. Not after MU wins.

Look, we'd all love to have Hibert or Fazekus(sp) or Oden on our team, but those guys are rare. That's not to say MU will never get a guy like that, but they are rare.

My guess (and from my knowledge), is that MU has recruited a lot of different big men over the last few years, but just hasn't landed them (webster, butch fazekus, steinsma, landry, the list goes on).

Now, we can speculate on why MU hasn't landed these guys, but these are 18 year old kids we are dealing with, so who knows why they didn't chose MU. It could be any number of reasons, but I don't think it's because Crean hates big guys, or doesn't develop them or whatever else has been implied.

Put it this way, if G-town had lost, do you think people over there would be saying "We need to get better guards!" and imply that the coaches aren't good recruiters/coaches?

Or if G-town had lost, would you have been on here spouting off about how MU needs more big men?

I really doubt it.

I'm not denying that MU could use an athletic power forward who could defend and score, but several people around here love to beat that drum everytime MU loses... and its just short sighted.

MU doesn't lose because they don't have a big guy, and they don't win in spite of not having a big guy.

They win when they play well, they lose when they don't. It's not about inches and wingspan, it's about playing well. This team VERY good, and lost a tough road game. No shame in that.

[RawdogDX]

It's a big man's game, pure and simple. Yeah, you can win with guards up to a certain point. But, when facing 2-3 good athletic frontcourt players, the bigs will win out.
Predictably, the Final Four will be dominated by teams that have those players. Watch and see. Until MU brings in some studs, they'll represent well, but won't be a title threat. At present, Barro is the only interior presence on the roster and he still needs to develop.

Hi 4ever nice of \you to show up.  WHere were you for the last few weeks?
ANd if anything this game PROVED that it is a guard's game.  We didn't get any good gaurd play and we lost.  Had our guards played well we would have won.  For this game we didn't have good gaurds and it cost us.

[Marquette84]

ANd if anything this game PROVED that it is a guard's game.  We didn't get any good gaurd play and we lost.  Had our guards played well we would have won.  For this game we didn't have good gaurds and it cost us.

And most of our guards' poor play was their own doing--not added pressure caused by Georgetown's bigs.  James' shot selection was his own doing.  Missing as many open shots as he did was also his own problem.  McNeal picking up a 3rd foul early in the game was his own problem. 

We didn't lose because Georgetown's frontline outplayed ours--we lost because Georgetown's GUARDS outplayed ours. 

Straight up, Georgetown has a better front line--but Barro certainly held his own, even outrebounding Hibbert. 

Set aside Green and Hibbert.  The problem is that our backcourt was outscored 29 to 19 by Wallace, Summers and Sapp.  Period. 

Here's where there's cause for optimism:  For roughly 35 minutes, despite our 3 best players having well below average games we played Georgetown even.  If ANY of our guard had merely an average game, we would have gone into the last seven minutes with a lead.  If they ALL had played merely average, we would have dominated the game. 

[augoman]

Augoman-

We are recruiting Jamychal Green in 2008. He is not the 5 you are looking for but he is supposedly a dominating presence inside

he's so dominant inside that I can't see any coaches moving him away from the basket

He's 6'8 215 as a junior in highschool. He'll only bulk up as strength coaches come into play

I know we are recruiting a plethora of 6'6-6'8" players..., but as I have been maintaining, we desperately need BIG men.  You know, 6'10-and up!  TC has gotten great guards, and they need a strong frontline to be successful.  I hate to use them as an example, but where would uw be w/o their haybalers?  MU won it all in '77 w/ J Whitehead- 6'10" and hands like concrete..., but he did the job all the way to a very successful nba career.  Complementing B Lee et al.  It would be great if we could get a 5 at ANY position..., but we haven't yet, according to rivals.  It'd be great to see us 'in' on some 4 star 'BIGS'.
I have been saying this ever since the recruiting post a couple of weeks ago... and I think it is obvious to many, I assumed we had bigs in the bank for the future as we had so many guards and forwards coming.?

[TJ]

I'm so tired of the ultimate "this is the way to win in the tournament" posts.  There is no one formula to NCAA Tournament success.  That's what makes it so interesting.  Can you name the bigs on Illinois' final four team from '05?  Are bigs nice to have?  Yes.  But they would not guarantee tourney success, just as not having them does not guarantee tournament failure.

Also, last I counted, Marquette currently has 4 guards (James, McNeal, Matthews, Cube), 3 mids (Fitz, Hayward, Trend), and 4 BIGS (Barro, Kinsella, Burke, Lott).  They may not be as good as you would like them to be, but it's not like we haven't been recruiting them.  We've got 2 more coming next year.  Hopefully they're stars and all this is put to rest, but if they're not we still are trying.  How much more of the team would you like to dedicate to post players, because I would say that 1/3 Bigs + 1/4 mid players is enough.

[ilovefreeway]

"It'd be great to see us 'in' on some 4 star 'BIGS'."

Total number of 4* bigs in the class of '08 = 28
Total number of 4* bigs who weigh more than 215lbs (we need studs and not bean poles, right?) = 12
Of the 12, 3 have committed.  That leaves 9 kids in the nation for TC to fight over.

Of the nine, 1 is from OH, Tx, Al, Ca and Miss.  Fla and NC have two each.  TX, Al, Ca, Miss, NC and Florida are not big east or Milwaukee hot beds and the guy from Ohio is listed as athleticism being a negative for him, thats not a big we want.  So while it's easy to say get some 4* bigs, its not very easy to do.

[4everwarriors]

It's not about winning or losing one game here or there on the road, at home, or on TV. The point being emphasized is that teams with a chance to win it all must have more than one athletic bigman.
People love to speculate on our seed in the Tourney. Will it be a 2, 3, or 4? Will the Warriors be placed in Chicago, etc.? I contend it doesn't matter.
Until the program upgrades the 4 and 5 positions, point guards, shooting guards, and small forwards will only get you so far.
Hey, you're peeing with the big boys now. This isn't CUSA anymore. Believe me, 'Cuse, ND, Depaul, Villanova, etc. will find and bring in studs. For MU, to be a contender for the NCAA championship, Marquette will have to also and that is my goal as an alum and supporter of the program.

[ilovefreeway]

"ND, Depaul, Villanova"

Is that the same 'nova team which started 4 guards, ND team that started 3 (and only had one post player of years, Francis was his name, I think) and a DU team which has stunk for years, even when they have 4 star player?  And wow, Zeller is paying off big for ND, sure wish be could have landed him.  And that stud Green who went to DePaul after we passed on him, another miss by TC.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And just so I get this straight, if we play Georgetown in the Big East tournament and win does that change anything?

Pitt is loaded with big guys and we already beat them.

I'll defer to the 15 Hall of Fame coaches I listed prior that say it's a guards game, not some complete A-hole from Indiana that has a mancrush on me.

 

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's amazing that we have had no "we have to have bigs" posts in about 1 month.


Hmmm...we lose and they come out of the woodwork.  We win, and they are nowhere to be found.

Truly an enlightening discovery.

And for the millionth time, no one is saying we should go out there with 12 guys under 6'5".  What almost all of us have said is that the ability to land very good to great guards is easier than landing quality big men.  So you play the percentages and still go after the big guys as well.  That's obvious.  Some of you guys make it sound like we haven't gone after Stiemsma, Butch, Nankivil, Webster, etc. 

Why you ignore these little factoids is a mystery to many of us.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Until the program upgrades the 4 and 5 positions, point guards, shooting guards, and small forwards will only get you so far.

I understand that is your opinion. No point in arguing that.

But, if MU gets to the final 4, and loses in the semis or in the finals, are you immediately going to blame it on the lack of a center? To be fair, our guards were the problem yesterday, not Barro/fitz/hayward. They did their jobs for the most part.

The even more compelling questions is: IF (big if) MU wins the Conference or National Championship, are you going to think that they just got lucky? Or are you willing to admit that the coaching staff and players did an excellent job and know what they are doing?

The point I'm making is, EVERY team in the nation has flaws. To blame every loss on the same perceived flaw is simple-minded / stupid / moronic / dense / brainless / foolish / naive / asinine (yes, for the record I am calling you all of those things  ).

You need to look at the circumstances for each game and evaluate them. That is coaching 101.

We all know you love big guys, but you don't talk about your love of big men when MU wins, and you don't even mention it when the big men play poorly. You just bring out the same tired/uneducated opinion every time MU loses in an effort to wag your finger at everybody and say "see! I was right!"