Crowder with 28 and 14 last night

[wiscoave]

Time will tell. I don tthink they had any need for him this year because of Onuaku and Jackson. Next year, they have an All-American center coming in so we'll see how much playing time he'll get. I'm sure we'll get a dose of him during his jr and sr years. 

[kmwtrucks]

In regard to Crowder, Midland has 2 player's rated in the top 20 in Rivals Juco ranks 6-5 swingman in Simmons and 6-8 PF in Williams (OK ST commit).  It sounds like Crowder was clearly the best player on the floor.  He had about 50% of all the points and rebounds for His teams, while shooting 50% from the floor and 75% from the Line.

[NersEllenson]

That is just BS.  6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season?  You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.).  And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater.  So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring?  Dream on, man.

+1 Dwade - Thanks.  I think you pretty much just owned MU84.  I didn't have the data, but thought his claims were pretty ludicrous.

[MU83]

Two quick things I'd like to add. It appears that many feel that the juco kids are bad kids.  While many of these kids have had academic challenges and many are from difficult backgrounds, not all of them, or even the majority of them are bad kids.  Are there increased risks? Absolutely, and so it is MU's responsibility to do their homework just like they must do with the high school players they are recruiting.  I think we all agree that it is unacceptable to compromise our integrity for the sake of more wins.

Every recruiting site that I have visited has our recruiting class in the top 25 in the country, with some rating us a lot higher.  Because we play in the Big East, we must have talented players to have any chance of competing.  There are far too many big kids out there who have no chance of competing in the Big East, and to get one just for the sake of having one is a waste of a scholarship.  There are many reasons why kids pick particular schools, and I'm sure Buzz and his staff are more in tune to these issues than we are.  I predict they will sign a big or two in the next few years.  In the meantime, signing the best players regardless of height is the right thing to do.

[NersEllenson]

Two quick things I'd like to add. It appears that many feel that the juco kids are bad kids.  While many of these kids have had academic challenges and many are from difficult backgrounds, not all of them, or even the majority of them are bad kids.  Are there increased risks? Absolutely, and so it is MU's responsibility to do their homework just like they must do with the high school players they are recruiting.  I think we all agree that it is unacceptable to compromise our integrity for the sake of more wins.

Every recruiting site that I have visited has our recruiting class in the top 25 in the country, with some rating us a lot higher.  Because we play in the Big East, we must have talented players to have any chance of competing.  There are far too many big kids out there who have no chance of competing in the Big East, and to get one just for the sake of having one is a waste of a scholarship.  There are many reasons why kids pick particular schools, and I'm sure Buzz and his staff are more in tune to these issues than we are.  I predict they will sign a big or two in the next few years.  In the meantime, signing the best players regardless of height is the right thing to do.

+1, very well said.  I'm convinced Buzz will sign a Top 100 Big Man (someone 6'8" and 220lbs+ in the 2011 class, possibly even 2)

[NCMUFan]

Hopefully, if/when Buzz lands a big man, it will be a high schooler, not a juco. It is simply my preference that Buzz recruit high school kids, develop them and turn them into great players that can win games. I honestly think some things are lost when Buzz goes the juco route: 1) who was the last juco that captivated the BE conference? the nation? 2) freshmen help give the school more of an identity than jucos do (years later, everyone knows where Durant, Melo and Oden went to school. Ten years from now, a lot of people will still remember).
I understand jucos are better prepared than 95% of all freshmen, but that's the decision you have to make; do you want to continue to be competitive and live year by year or do you want to "build?" In 5 years, I dont think any sophomore in h.s. will be talking about any of Buzz's jucos and saying to his h.s. coach "I want to go to MU because he went there and everything else seems to fit." Just not gonna happen. Vander Blue will do 10x more for the program than any of the jucos will do combined so long as Vander can be one of the top 5 frshmen in the BE next year.

Just don't see the argument.  So far two highschoolers have whifted in Maymon and Roseboro.  JUCOs seem to be already adjusted to change.  When Buzz's JUCOs start making the NBA I think your arguments will be proved wrong and weak.  

[mues05]

I'd also point out that if MU hadn't taken a chance with a certain player who struggled with academic qualifying (wade), there is a good chance we would still be a middle of the road C-USA team.

[MU_BabyBlue11]

That is just BS.  6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season?  You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.).  And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater.  So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring?  Dream on, man.

+1

[Marquette84]

That is just BS.  6 players in the spring that will put up 20+ minutes, 10+ ppg and 8+ rebounds per game in their first season?  You do realize that there are only 6 PF/C freshman in all of the ncaa's that put up those numbers right now: Cousins (Kentucky), Favors (GT), Whiteside (Marshall), Gallon (Okla), Kazemi (Rice) and Leonard (San diego St.).  And of those, only 3 are 6'10" and greater.  So you think this year, there will be 6 such players available in the spring?  Dream on, man.

Before I accuse you of twisting the argument, did you not notice that I mentioned both frosh and Jucos?   I note you focused only on frosh, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And while I probably exaggerated a bit on the criteria, the underlying point remains valid--there are big men that are better than projects that are still available in the spring signing period.

So starting with your list, let's take a look at a few spring signees that transcend the "project" tag:

1.  Cousins to UK
2.  Favours to GT
3.  Famous to USF
4.  Garcia to Seattle
That's four that meet all four criteria--6'10"/20/10/8
5.  McNeil to Houston -- "only" 6'9"
6.  Diarra to San Francisco -- 6'11"/15 mpg/4/4
7.  Cunningham to Cleveland State -- 6'9"/15/6/3
8.  Dixon to WKU 6"10/15/5/4
Probably more out there, but that gets past six.

As BMA pointed out in a previous post, some of these guys we tried to land but couldn't.  Some we probably didn't even try to land.  Some we didn't want.  Some might not have been available until after we gave out all our scholarships.   None fit the description of a "project" and all are playing in every game for their teams--most starting. 

My point isn't to say that there are a ton of these guys and any mediocre recruiter could land two or three.  My point is to dispute Ners contention that all bigs that sign in the spring are projects.  That isn't the case.  

I predict this year will be no different.  A half-dozen or more quality bigs will sign this spring and (avoiding any specific numeric minimums) will become contributors for their teams next year.

[dwaderoy2004]

Accuse me of twisting the argument?  exaggerated a little bit on the criteria?  the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter).  You have managed to find one in Garcia.  YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT.  Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers.  I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year.  And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season.  Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything.  You were wrong.  Just admit it.

[tower912]

Everybody look at your pinky.    That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria.   If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.  

[NersEllenson]

Everybody look at your pinky.    That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria.   If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.  

Amen +1.  Perfectly said.  A pinky length more of height and we would have been heralding his signing.  2 inches of height isn't going to make a difference in rebounding..2x more heart will.  See Lazar Hayward.

I see some of 84's points, but I think we are splitting hairs and obsessing about the big man thing.  We'll get one soon..I suspect the real issue 84 and other MU fans have is with the Newbill signing (not so much Crowder), and the Newbill schollie not going to a semi-skilled Big Man.  That said, Buzz must have felt Newbill was a significant enough talent that to earmark that scholarship for a marginal big, wasn't as valuable as what he projects Newbill can bring to this team.

[Pakuni]

6.  Diarra to San Francisco -- 6'11"/15 mpg/4/4
7.  Cunningham to Cleveland State -- 6'9"/15/6/3
8.  Dixon to WKU 6"10/15/5/4
Probably more out there, but that gets past six.

Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?
Hmmm.
I'd suggest that a kid who can only average that in the Horizon or Sun Belt very much would fit the description of a project in a power conference. Heck, if you're 6'11" and only mustering 4/4 at San Francisco, you're a project anywhere.


By the way, including Favours and Cousins in the discussion as if they were players out there for the taking is more than a tad misleading. MU had no chance at either and Favours was, for all intents, locked up with Georgia Tech months before he signed.

[GOMU1104]

The problem with MU84 using the players he did is because he is not using the correct frame of reference. He is at two ends of the spectrum...He refers to two HS All Americans (Cousins and Favors) and then at the same time, uses players in mid major conferences. I will concede Famous, as he is obviously having success at USF.

However MU84, instead of looking at players putting up #s in mid-major leagues, lets look at what late signing big men in the 2009 class are doing in the Big East...

Jerelle Benimon - Georgetown (6'7", 240, commited April 1st)
-10.8 mpg, 1.4 ppg, 1.7 rpg

Rakeem Buckles - Louisville (6'8", 215, #54 RSCI, Committed Feb 25)
-11.5 mpg, 3.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg

Youssoupha Mbao - Marquette (7'2", 215, committed April 26)
-We know the deal

Russ Permenter - Providence - via UT- San Antonio and Temple Junior College (6'9", 230, committed Feb 16)
-7.5 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.8 rpg

Brian Okam - Rutgers (6'11", 245, committed March 11)
-4.9 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 1.2 rpg

Jarrid Famous - USF via Westchester CC (6'11", 240, committed April 23)
-31.5 mpg, 11.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg

Dashonte Riley - Syracuse (7'0", 233, #85 RSCI, committed March 5)
-10.6 mpg, 2.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg

[Pakuni]

Everybody look at your pinky.    That is the difference between Jae Crowder being perfect vs. undersized and disappointing by certain people's criteria.   If he was listed at 6'8 and doing the EXACT same things he is doing now, there would be universal hosannas raining down from the heavens.  

[dwaderoy2004]

Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?

No he's not suggesting they would be "significant contributiors."  he's now changed his argument that there will be 6 players that will be merely "contributors."  Hell, frozena has given us some points this year...he's a contributor!

[Lennys Tap]

Accuse me of twisting the argument?  exaggerated a little bit on the criteria?  the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter).  You have managed to find one in Garcia.  YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT.  Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers.  I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year.  And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season.  Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything.  You were wrong.  Just admit it.

84 was just "exaggerating a bit". After all, what's the difference between 20/10/8 and 15/4/4? Actually it's the same as the difference between 20/10/8 and 27/25/16. One is a superstar, one is solid and the other can tie his shoelaces (at least at a mid major). Good luck on getting 84 to admit he's wrong but don't hold your breath.

[Marquette84]

Accuse me of twisting the argument?  exaggerated a little bit on the criteria?  the reason I didn;t include jucos is because I couldn't find any to meet your criteria (i couldn't find a site that let me sort using that as a filter).  You have managed to find one in Garcia.  YOU ARE THE ONE NOW CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT.  Those additional jucos you listed are averaging Maymon numbers.  I bet Crowder can match 15 mins, 6 pts and 4 boards a game next year.  And since you changed your argument to just "contributors", I bet Newbill and Crowder are "contributors" next season.  Easy to claim that, since a "contributor" can mean pretty much anything.  You were wrong.  Just admit it.

Yes, you twisted the argument.  You admit you didn't include jucos because you didn't know how to do the research.   Ergo you twisted the argument.  Don't defend yourself.  You were wrong.  You are now guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.


Second, yes, I already admitted that I exaggerated on the specific numbers.  I was wrong.  I admitted it the last post. 

You're still harping on it.  Why?  This is a problem on this board--instead of allowing someone to admit a mistake and re-frame the argument, you're still trying argue a point I've abandoned.

Third.  Yes, I changed my argument. I didn't try to hide that fact.  By removing the arbitrary numerical minimums (which I created in the first place), I now have a more unassailable argument that Ners is completely wrong when he says the only bigs left in the spring signing period were projects.

I note that you are not arguing that the players I listed are projects. 

Fourth, Maymon numbers are a hell of a lot better than, say, Mbao numbers.  Maymon is not a project.  Mbao is.  Ners made the incorrect statement that all bigs who sign in spring are projects.  That is not true. 

Frankly, I would GLADLY accept a 6'10" player on next year's team who could give us 16 mpg, 4 points and 4 boards.  Wouldn't you?  How abouy one that gives us 15/5/5?  Or 18/6/4?  Or are you going to stick with Ners argument that its better for us to have a player who will likely play behind Blue, DJO and Buycks? 

Fifth, while Newbill and Crowder may be contributors, neither will play the position that represent the greatest need.

84 was just "exaggerating a bit". After all, what's the difference between 20/10/8 and 15/4/4? Actually it's the same as the difference between 20/10/8 and 27/25/16. One is a superstar, one is solid and the other can tie his shoelaces (at least at a mid major). Good luck on getting 84 to admit he's wrong but don't hold your breath.

Sorry to disappoint you Lenny.  I already admitted I was wrong on this one.  So I reframed the argument to better support the same point.


 

[GOMU1104]

In addition to my look at late signing 2009 big men in the Big East...I just glanced through the late signing big men in the ACC (Other than Derrick Favours). Pretty much nothing, other than Deshawn Painter at NC State...who MU went after pretty hard.  Here is his line so far this year:

6'9", 220, #80 RSCI
7 mpg
1.9 ppg
.9 ppg

What did he do against MU? 4 minutes, 2 rebounds.

[muarmy81]

What was the original intent of this thread?

[Marquette84]

Are you suggesting that a kid playing 15 mpg and averaging in the neighborhood of 5 points and 4 boards per game at a mid-major would be a significant contributor in the Big East?
Hmmm.

You make a vaild argument, and it warrants some investigation.

The good news is that those low-major teams typically face high major competition in non-conference play.  Its not the big east exactly, but serves as a proxy for how a player might fare against similar level competition.

For example, Cleveland State's Cunningham put up 29 points (5.8/game) and 16 boards (3.2/game) in five non-conference games against high majors (UK, Ohio State, UVa, WVU and Kansas State).  Essentially his season average.  Actually, slightly better.

Diarra has been inconsistent, but I think its interesting that his best game of the season was against Pac10 Washington (14 points/12 boards).  He also had an 11 point/1 board showing versus Gonzaga.  

Certainly some inconsistency in both their play--but your argument that these players only piled up their numbers against no-name competition falls flat.  They've held their own against the high-major competition they played.  Would these do the same at MU against Big East competition night in and night out?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  

One thing I think you discount is the superior facilities, coaching, conditioning and support those players would receive at MU compared to Cleveland State or SanFran.   Yes, the competition is tougher--but it would be offset somewhat by what MU would offer.

By the way, including Favours and Cousins in the discussion as if they were players out there for the taking is more than a tad misleading. MU had no chance at either and Favours was, for all intents, locked up with Georgia Tech months before he signed.

You might have missed the comment where I said "some of these guys we tried to land but couldn't.  Some we probably didn't even try to land.  Some we didn't want.  Some might not have been available until after we gave out all our scholarships."

If you interpreted my statement to read "they were there for the taking", then I take the blame for not explaining clearly enough for you.

Let's simplify it this way:  Do you think Favours and Cousins were projects?  

If your answer is Yes, then you agree with Ners.
If your answer is No, then you agree with me.

[Marquette84]

In addition to my look at late signing 2009 big men in the Big East...I just glanced through the late signing big men in the ACC (Other than Derrick Favours). Pretty much nothing, other than Deshawn Painter at NC State...who MU went after pretty hard.  Here is his line so far this year:

6'9", 220, #80 RSCI
7 mpg
1.9 ppg
.9 ppg

Let me restate the argument for you:

"My point isn't to say that there are a ton of these guys and any mediocre recruiter could land two or three.  My point is to dispute Ners contention that all bigs that sign in the spring are projects."

I'm sure you can find plenty of underperforming bigs.  Save you your investigation of the Big 10, SEC, Pac10, A10, CUSA or any other conference.  I am certain you'll find some minimally contributing bigs.  In fact, I'd agree that MOST are probably not significant contributors.

What you won't be able to do is deny the fact that there are at least SOME bigs who are NOT projects.

My point is that there are a few good ones out there.   

Yes, I agree they are few and far between. 

Yes, I agree it is very hard work to land them. 

Yes, I agree there is a lot of competition for those players.

I agree there is no guarantee that you'll be successful if you try.

I agree you might lose a good player at another position if you hold out for one of those handful of bigs.


But if you really really really need a particular position player (as MU does at the 5), taking a different player in early February--especially a 2G who will be 4th on the depth chart--opens one to the argument that you stopped looking for what you need a bit too soon.

[GOMU1104]

I am simply brining some balance. You tried to prove your point by looking at mid-major players...instead of looking at guys playing in high major leagues. 

Here is a look at the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 (If I missed anyone, sorry)

Sasa Boronjvak - Penn State (6'9", 235, Commited 2-12-09)
Played in 13 games...6.6 mpg, 1.6 ppg, .9 rpg

Ty Armstrong - Auburn (6'9", 220, Committed 5-1-09)
5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg, 1.6 rpg

DeAngelo Riley - Ole Miss via SW Tennessee JUCO (6'9", 245, Committed 4-23-09)
6.5 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.4 rpg

John Riek - Miss State via University of Cincinnati (7'1", 242, Committed 4-23-09)
Played in 8 games...4.0 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 1.8 rpg

Reynardo Sidney - Miss State (6'11", 255, Committed 4-30-09, #7 RSCI)
Has not played this season due to NCAA investigation

Wendell Lewis - Miss State (6'8", 240, Committed 4-22-09)
6.0 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 1.5 rpg

Johndre Jefferson - South Carolina via Okaloosa-Walton Junior College (6'9", 205, Committed 3-5-09)
13.5 mpg, 2.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg

Tyler Stone  - Missouri (6'7", 225, Committed 5-4-09)
Played in 10 games...4.1 mpg, 2.2 ppg, .9 rpg

John Underwood - Missouri (6'9", 190, Committed on 5-3-09)
Played in 11 games...4.4 mpg, .8 ppg, 1.9 rpg

Quincy Hawkins - Nebraska via Polk CC (6'8", 240, Committed on 3-31-09)
10.8 mpg, 4.6 ppg, 2.9 rpg

Jared Shaw - Oklahoma State (6'10", 230, Committed on 1-12-09)
Played in 11 games...3.5 mpg, .2 ppg, .7 rpg

Derrick Williams - Arizona (6'8", 235, Committed on 6-29-09, #100 RSCI)
27.2 mpg, 15.4 ppg, 6.9 rpg
-I think MU was after him at one point

Kyryl Natyazhko - Arizona (6'10", 255, Committed on 4-13-09)
11.6 mpg, 2.2 ppg, 2.3 rpg

Angus Brandt - Oregon State (6'10", 240, Committed on 2-19-09)
9.2 mpg, .9 ppg, 1.1 rpg

Evan Smith - USC (6'7", 210, Committed on 4-20-09)
Played in 7 games...17.1 mpg, 1.1 ppg, 1.9 rpg

Steven Bjornstadt - Washington State (6'10" 225, Committed on 7-02-09)
Played in 9 games...2.9 mpg, .8 ppg, .2 rpg

[NersEllenson]

Now look at all these guys numbers - the late signing big men from last year.  Would you really rather have had one of them because they "filled a position of greatest need," or had DJO??  I suspect that our team this year would not be even close to sniffing the NCAA if we had one of these big stiffs instead of DJO.  Ultimately, if MU would have followed 84's desire and signed one of these bigs, it is highly unlikely this team would be having as good of year this year.  DJO is a critical piece of this year's team.

As I said earlier, Buzz must have felt Newbill's upside/ability to help the program in the short and long run was greater than any available big at this time.  Keep in mind we Otule for 3 more years, and he did show a ton of improvement early this year when he did play, over where he was a year ago.  Hopefully he can remain healthy.  Crowder is going to be a baller too..he should be about the closest thing to a Lazar replacement as you could possibly find - so essentially we should be about the same team next year, just minus Mo and Cubi +Vander, Newbill, Reggie, Jones, Cadougan + Otule.  That backcourt definitely will provide more size than we had this year.

[rocky_warrior]

What was the original intent of this thread?

I think it may have been that Crowder seems to be a good player, and a nice "late" signing by Buzz.  But perhaps I missed the point.  Too much text to keep up with it all.