Buzz Comments

[nyg]

http://marquette.scout.com/2/940298.html

Well at least Buzz admits he is playing midgets out there.  (look under fouls paragraph)

Then coach, get out there and recruit a PF.

[GOMU1104]

Then coach, get out there and recruit a PF.

He had one in Jeronne Maymon.

He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.

He is trying to add one for next year.

[4everwarriors]

Yeah, but I'm being told that it's a guard's game.

[GOMU1104]

Yeah, but I'm being told that it's a guard's game.

Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.

[77ncaachamps]

Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.

when a 5'6" pg can effectively guard a 6'8" pf on the blocks, let Buzz know.

[nyg]

Maybe in some games, but not today:

Rebounds   Cuse 43  MU 21
Blocks       Cuse 10  MU  0

Cuse's starting guards   7 points

Cuse's points in paint   maybe like 60?

[avid1010]

Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.

Are you taking Nova over Cuse?  I'm anxious to see how Nova plays them.  I was not impressed with the Cuse guards today.  Rautins is a capable shooter, but he had a few turnovers and made a few decisions that were really poor.  I see Nova and Cuse (as I continue to under estimate Dixon's unbelievable season) battling for the top spot in the BEAST.

[GOMU1104]

If you dont realize that College Basketball is a GUARDS game...then you are truly clueless and ignorant.

If you dont have good guards, you will not succeed.  Why did we have so much success in the 4 years prior to this one? Because we had a GREAT group of guards.

Why were we an embarassment in the 2nd half of 2004-05...because we didnt have ANY guards.

Look at UNC this year...they are struggling (by their standards), yet they are HUGE up front...so why are they struggling? Because their guards are not playing well, they are turning it over too much and not running the offense well. If it is a "big mans game"...they should be #1 in the nation.

Yes...our lack of size is incredibly frustrating...but that does not change the fact that good College teams are led by good guards...and if you dont have good guards, you will stuggle.

[SERocks]

Maybe in some games, but not today:

Rebounds   Cuse 43  MU 21
Blocks       Cuse 10  MU  0

Cuse's starting guards   7 points

Cuse's points in paint   maybe like 60?

Seriously?  Cuse had 22 more boards and 10 more blocks than we did and we only lost by five?  Unreal. 

Tired of moral victories, but WOW.

[GGGG]

He had one in Jeronne Maymon.

He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.

And he had another (allegedly) rape someone.

[ecompt]

Maymon was never going to be a PF, or so his father told MU.

[willie warrior]

He had one in Jeronne Maymon.

He tried his damndest with Tarik Black.

He is trying to add one for next year.

Hehas been recruiting for almost 3 years now, and still has not landed one. Trying does not cut it--landing them does!!

[Daniel]

It is mandatory that we get a true big who can play next year.  We cannot survive like this.  It is a must.  And that BIG will play and be highlighted.

[romey]

Whoever is telling you that is 100% correct.

But not when almost your entire rotation is "guards"

[MU B2002]

he also has recruited otule, mcmorrow, and mbao(sic)

[chapman]

He's recruited and gotten to commit Otule, McMorrow, Mbao, Maymon, Monterale Clark.  A lot of bad luck and all, though none of them have gotten anything close to significant minutes, and that's what ultimately counts.  With at least 2 open spots still for next year, Otule and Mbao returning from injuries with at least the entire summer to prepare and improve, and a slew of depth coming into the backcourt "bad luck" won't be an excuse for Buzz to not be able to get some sort of presence inside besides guards playing the 5 and getting stuffed on offense and stuffed on on defense.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe in some games, but not today:

Rebounds   Cuse 43  MU 21
Blocks       Cuse 10  MU  0

Cuse's starting guards   7 points

Cuse's points in paint   maybe like 60?

You do realize that the job of the guards isn't always to score....right?  It's a guards game....ask Coach K, Coach Howland, Coach Smith, etc.  Yes, if you have both guards and bigs, you're going to win.  If you only have good bigs, you aren't going to win.  If you only have good guards, you actually can win, but not go all the way.

College is a guards game, has been for a generation now.

[karavotsos]

Ask Boeheim. Syracuse kept their best frountcourt players, but they lost a senior and a lottery pick in the backcourt.  Now they have two freshman point guards and a team that is capable of turning the ball over 22 times in a single game, and they are struggling.  Oh wait. 

[nyg]

You do realize that the job of the guards isn't always to score....right?  It's a guards game....ask Coach K, Coach Howland, Coach Smith, etc.  Yes, if you have both guards and bigs, you're going to win.  If you only have good bigs, you aren't going to win.  If you only have good guards, you actually can win, but not go all the way.

College is a guards game, has been for a generation now.

Again, in most games yes.  Not today.

[IAmMarquette]

Ask Boeheim. Syracuse kept their best frountcourt players, but they lost a senior and a lottery pick in the backcourt.  Now they have two freshman point guards and a team that is capable of turning the ball over 22 times in a single game, and they are struggling.  Oh wait.  

I think what Chicos and the "college bball is a guards game" camp are trying to say is that, all else being equal, the team with the best guards wins. I'm inclined to agree.

Now, I understand the other point of view, especially coming from Marquette, as we haven't had a legitimate big man since Robert Jackson. When we get dominated inside like we did today, it's hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction and say "Look what happened! Syracuse has great bigs! They win because of their bigs!" That may have been true today, but it's more likely a function of Marquette's complete lack of an inside presence rather than it is 'Cuse's outright dominance. Syracuse (and teams like them) are a tough matchup for us, but that doesn't mean college basketball is a big man's game. All the proof you need can be found in "point-center" Marcus Jackson.

[karavotsos]

a knee-jerk reaction

Syracuse is better this year than last, even though they lost their backcourt.  They didn't just beat MU because of their big men.  They're a better team this year.  Their biggest upgrade is Wesley Johnson-neither a guard nor a big.  I do not think that Villanova will go back to the Final Four because they lost Dante Cunningham, Duane Anderson and Shane Clark from their frontcourt, even though their backcourt is better than last year, with Scotty Reynolds now a senior and the addition of Wayns.  Louisville is not nearly as good as last year, even though they have all their fat little guards back because they don't have Terrence Williams or Shane Clark-- front court. 

Maybe I just don't understand what it means that the NCAA is a guard's game.  You don't need a dominant big man to win games?  I agree with that.  However, with Villanova, backcourt dominated- at #4 and Syracuse-frontcourt dominated- at #5, I would rather have Syracuse's front court than Villanova's back court, all other things being equal.  That could just be because I don't like either of the Coreys. 

[NavinRJohnson]

all else being equal, the team with the best guards wins. I'm inclined to agree.

This is accurate, but the key is that all else needs to be equal...to be really good, you have to have both. 

[bma725]

Maybe I just don't understand what it means that the NCAA is a guard's game.  You don't need a dominant big man to win games?  I agree with that.  However, with Villanova, backcourt dominated- at #4 and Syracuse-frontcourt dominated- at #5, I would rather have Syracuse's front court than Villanova's back court, all other things being equal.  That could just be because I don't like either of the Coreys. 

It's simple really, it comes down to a couple of things. 

First, and most basic look at who controls the offense.  Big men get their touches yes, but they get them based on the decision of a guard who decided to pass the ball.  If the guard chooses not to pass the ball to the big, then no matter how talented he is, the big man is ineffective.

Second, big men by and large are dependent players.  They are only as good as the guys setting them up and passing them the ball allow them to be.  You can have a truly great big man in terms of skills that is ineffective because the guards around him don't know how and when to get him the ball, don't understand how to let him get in position to use his skills effectively, or just flat out don't give him the ball.  On the other hand, great guards are by and large independent players.  They don't need the other players to feed them properly or get in proper position because they are able to create those positions themselves.

Third, look at defense.  A great press and great perimeter defense can render the best big man moot because it keeps his guards from getting him the ball.  You do both of those things with great guards not big men, and being good at both of them can often render a big man ineffective.

In the end, yes a team with balance or great talent at both the guard and the post will do better.  But in general when you have to err on one side or the other, you'll find that most top coaches when given the choice between great guards and no big men/untalented big men or talented big men but no guards/untalented guards will always choose the team with great guards.

[NavinRJohnson]

Its pretty simple really. If you don't have guards, you suck. If you do, you can be good, but as was demonstrated today, it s anything but a guarantee.

[IAmMarquette]

It's simple really, it comes down to a couple of things. 

First, and most basic look at who controls the offense.  Big men get their touches yes, but they get them based on the decision of a guard who decided to pass the ball.  If the guard chooses not to pass the ball to the big, then no matter how talented he is, the big man is ineffective.

Second, big men by and large are dependent players.  They are only as good as the guys setting them up and passing them the ball allow them to be.  You can have a truly great big man in terms of skills that is ineffective because the guards around him don't know how and when to get him the ball, don't understand how to let him get in position to use his skills effectively, or just flat out don't give him the ball.  On the other hand, great guards are by and large independent players.  They don't need the other players to feed them properly or get in proper position because they are able to create those positions themselves.

Third, look at defense.  A great press and great perimeter defense can render the best big man moot because it keeps his guards from getting him the ball.  You do both of those things with great guards not big men, and being good at both of them can often render a big man ineffective.

In the end, yes a team with balance or great talent at both the guard and the post will do better.  But in general when you have to err on one side or the other, you'll find that most top coaches when given the choice between great guards and no big men/untalented big men or talented big men but no guards/untalented guards will always choose the team with great guards.

This.