MU #18 team of the past decade

[Lennys Tap]

OMG.  Are you serious.  Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.

You are living in a cave if you don't think there have been people here constantly saying we were mediocre or "just good enough" (I love that comment).

I address your complaints one by one:

1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz.

2.The team was terrible every year but one under TC. Anybody who says this needs their head examined. That said, I don't recall reading that anytime from ANYONE on this board. Unless you can provide proof I'll put this down as an example of something made up or imagined by you.

3.Wade was the only reason for MU's success. Teams don't go to the final 4 with only one good player so this is nonsense. That said, Tom Crean himself is on record as saying that Wade would "have crawled on his hands and knees through broken glass to Bloomington" had IU offered him a scholarship. Had he been a qualifier academically there's no way he goes to MU. Since to some degree Wade fell into TC's lap (assist to FR Wild), it's not unfair to speculate where MU and Crean would have been without him. Answer: OK, but not great.

4.People bitch about the Big 3. I assume this is the three amigos. These guys were great competitors for and representatives of Marquette U. and some of the criticism of them on this board is unfair. What is not unfair is to state the TRUTH that their stats were padded because they played huge minutes from start to finish. That's because there was very little in the backcourt at MU when they arrived and not much in the way of competition/back up while they were here. And that speaks to one of TC's failings as a recruiter - he could sell minutes but not the "program".

5.People "constantly" saying that under TC we were mediocre or "just good enough". I guess this is as opposed to those view the TC era as a return to "seashells and balloons". One great year, 4 good years and 4 mediocre years make the truth for me somewhere in between.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I address your complaints one by one:

1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz.  OMFG you have to be kidding me.  First, we came out with the game tied with 12 minutes to go in the first half, we hardly came out flat.  Did you watch the game?  And yes, we lost to one of the best teams in the country.  Please, God, tell me you aren't comparing that loss to one of the top 5 teams in the nation to losing to a DePaul team in which we had more fans in THEIR building then they did, to a team that has won ONE...ONE...ONE Big East Regular season game in over 700 days.  ONE.

2.The team was terrible every year but one under TC. Anybody who says this needs their head examined. That said, I don't recall reading that anytime from ANYONE on this board. Unless you can provide proof I'll put this down as an example of something made up or imagined by you. It won't matter, if I list 4 guys, you'll say it's not enough.  If I list 10 guys you'll make up some other excuse.  Not worth the effort Dr.

3.Wade was the only reason for MU's success. Teams don't go to the final 4 with only one good player so this is nonsense. That said, Tom Crean himself is on record as saying that Wade would "have crawled on his hands and knees through broken glass to Bloomington" had IU offered him a scholarship. Had he been a qualifier academically there's no way he goes to MU. Since to some degree Wade fell into TC's lap (assist to FR Wild), it's not unfair to speculate where MU and Crean would have been without him. Answer: OK, but not great.  Of course it's nonsense, and we have more than a few nonsensical people here that make that claim that MU made the Final Four because of one thing....Dwyane Wade.  We agree, it's nonsense, but unfortunately all too many jaghoffs feel this way and they all have the same agenda (I know because I play a psychiatrist on a message board and can read their minds).

4.People bitch about the Big 3. I assume this is the three amigos. These guys were great competitors for and representatives of Marquette U. and some of the criticism of them on this board is unfair. What is not unfair is to state the TRUTH that their stats were padded because they played huge minutes from start to finish. That's because there was very little in the backcourt at MU when they arrived and not much in the way of competition/back up while they were here. And that speaks to one of TC's failings as a recruiter - he could sell minutes but not the "program".  So you're telling me that people like Diener, Novak, etc, came here because he could sell minutes and not the program.   

5.People "constantly" saying that under TC we were mediocre or "just good enough". I guess this is as opposed to those view the TC era as a return to "seashells and balloons". One great year, 4 good years and 4 mediocre years make the truth for me somewhere in between.  That's a better run then we had since "seashells and balloons" so I can imagine some people probably did say that.  The reality is, the first two years we were left with absolutely nothing so to call them mediocre is fine in looking at the record, the fact we got out of those two years without a losing record tells me it was something a bit more than mediocre.

[NersEllenson]

Could you address my previous post -seems you haven't been able to rebut many of my posts lately.  Can't really excuse your way out of questions/data like below:

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG.  Are you serious.  Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.


Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12.  Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run.  Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season.  Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney.  We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.

[Skatastrophy]

[bma725]

story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney

Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05?  The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05?  The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February. 

Diener's MU legacy was definitely helped by that injury. The fact that a mediocre team became a bad team in his absense made many people overrate Diener's abilities. Had he remained healthy, MU likely would have continued down their self-destructing, bubble-bursting path and I believe many fans' opinions of Diener would be quite different.

[NersEllenson]

I don't want facts to get in the way of an impassioned argument, but getting to the sweet 16 was thanks to Diener.  

1st round MU v Holy Cross:   Diener puts up 29 points.

2nd round v Missouri:  Diener puts up 26 points on 8/12 shooting.  Merritt had 18 going 8 for 11.  DWade threw up 24, but shot 9 for 23... ouch

Wade turned into a buzzsaw in our game against Pittsburgh the next weekend obviously followed by his brilliant performance against Kentucky in the Elite 8.

No doubt Diener was critical to the success in us advancing out of Round 1 and 2, but the amount of great looks D-Wade created for his teammates, as well as the amount of attention D-Wade commanded, certainly made the game a lot easier for Diener, Novak and Merritt.

Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05?  The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February.  

How could I forget seeing Marcus Jackson serving as our point guard?  Yes, I do remember!!  Yes, it definitely hurt losing Diener - were 14-4 at the time of his injury, but, up to that point we didn't beat any quality opponents, Wisconsin was not ranked in the ESPN poll.  That said, this still doesn't excuse the results of the 2003-2004 team, which had a healthy team all year with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend...and were a 19-12 team.

[MerrittsMustache]

I address your complaints one by one:

1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz.

Chico is right that MU did not come out flat (but the game was tied with 14 minutes to play, not 12).  The main problem with the loss was that TC thought MU could run with Kansas and they clearly could not. That was a massive miscalculation.

[bma725]

Wisconsin was #22 in the AP poll the day we beat them, finished 18th in the RPI, and made the Elite Eight that year, I think you can say pretty easily that it was a quality win.  

[NersEllenson]

Wisconsin was #22 in the AP poll the day we beat them, finished 18th in the RPI, and made the Elite Eight that year, I think you can say pretty easily that it was a quality win.  

I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected.  That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade?  Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.

[MU B2002]

I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected.  That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade?  Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.

But,,,
They also lost Jackson, Novak was no longer an unknown commodity and garnered a little more attention outside.

[MerrittsMustache]

I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected.  That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade?  Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.

Robert Jackson was easily the second-most important player on that team. Losing a lottery pick and legit big man are significant losses...but the 03-04 still should have been better than they were.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Could you address my previous post -seems you haven't been able to rebut many of my posts lately.  Can't really excuse your way out of questions/data like below:

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG.  Are you serious.  Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.


Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12.  Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run.  Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season.  Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney.  We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.

Uhm, Diener was hurt all season long with two injuries, one of which made him miss multiple games.

Merritt's shoulder injury. Novak no longer just a role player but having to learn how to play with someone in his grill.

Secondly, the conference was a crapload better in 2003-04 than 2002-03.  In 03-04, CUSA sent 5 teams to the NCAA Tournament.  They only sent 3 the year prior when we made the Final Four.

Key injuries, much tougher conference, loss of Jackson and Wade....please, get real.  For you to make your comparisons is beyond ridiculous.  That was a good team when they were healthy, but by no means a great team.  They had a small margin for error and when Diener went down, that was it.  Plus the increased level of the conference really broke them down.

If you wonder why I'm not responding to some of your posts, there isn't a reason to.  Your comment "I stand corrected" should be in your signature, quite frankly.  Your analysis has gaping holes, glosses over realities, ignores completely other realities.

[bma725]

I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected.  That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade?  Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.

Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04.  They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year.  That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.

What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you.  The 2003-04 team didn't have that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04.  They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year.  That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.

What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you.  The 2003-04 team didn't have that.

A F(&#$# MEN

That's exactly right, but it doesn't fit the agenda that it "WAS ALL WADE and MU\CREAN LUCKED OUT IN HAVING HIM LAND IN THEIR LAP"

[NersEllenson]

Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04.  They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year.  That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.

What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you.  The 2003-04 team didn't have that.

All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak.  It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference.  Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.

[Hards Alumni]

All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak.  It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference.  Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.

no.

[NersEllenson]

no.

Can you elaborate on why you disagree?  Did you think Travis was a guy who could take people off the dribble and create for others or himself?  He was a very good player, but this was not a strength of his...and the 2004, 2005 teams really lacked this element.  Ironically once you put Novak with Dominic, Wes and Jerel - they make the NCAA tourney. 

[Hards Alumni]

Can you elaborate on why you disagree?  Did you think Travis was a guy who could take people off the dribble and create for others or himself?  He was a very good player, but this was not a strength of his...and the 2004, 2005 teams really lacked this element.  Ironically once you put Novak with Dominic, Wes and Jerel - they make the NCAA tourney. 

I just think you have been very selective.  You present one opinion, it gets shot down, and then you try to state another.

Travis could take people off the dribble. Yes.  I was there for 3 of his 4 years.  The kid could play basketball, and that is why he plays in the NBA to this day.  Now, was it he strength?  No, he was a shooter, and could run the offense.  That being said, I'd take TD off the dribble over most of the guys he was going against.

You try to oversimplify everything here way too much.  Novak was a senior with the 3A.  TD was a Senior when Novak was just a soph.  TD and all of the 3A were totally different players.  Wade was a great player, we all know it.  But to just dismiss TD is a mistake, and a ridiculous one at that.

Do you see what I mean?  I'd just be rather sure of my arguments if I was going to post something, since people here (and on the internet in general) like to tear people apart who claim to know something, and then are wrong.

[bma725]

All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak.  It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference.  Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.

I think you're confusing the player Wade is now with the player he was in 2002-03.  He was not unstoppable off the dribble back then, not even close. 

Dayton shut down his drives and turned him into a jumpshooter, leading to a 8-23 night.  The only reason MU didn't get killed that night was because they pounded it inside to Merritt and Jackson who scored a combined 35 points.

St. Louis shut him down twice, both driving and shooting, despite the fact that they had no one who could come close to him athletically.  The first game he went 3-10, but MU won because Jackson and Merritt went 10 of 18 and combined for 27 points.  The second game he went 3-17, but MU won because of Diener's pull up jumpers and pounding it inside to RJax.

Wake Forest(Josh Howard essentially) shut down his driving, but MU won again because Jackson and Merritt combined for 35 points.

Louisville stopped him in the first game leading to a 3-13 night, but MU almost won because Diener and Jackson were great.

Holy Cross made him turn in an abysmal performance, but MU was able to advance because Diener was spectacular, and Chapman and Novak went 4-5 from beyond the arc.

Now you might say his scoring got shut down, but he was able to help out by being a distributor...unfortunately the games and the stats don't really bear that out.  Against Dayton, he had 3 assists.  In the two games against SLU, he had 6 combined.  Against Wake, 2 again.  Against Louisville, 2 more.  Against Holy Cross, 4. 

You do a major disservice to the players on that team, and show quite a lack of knowledge about that team when you attribute their success solely to Wade.  They were a talented enough group to play well even when he was playing terribly and not contributing much at all.

[NersEllenson]

I think you're confusing the player Wade is now with the player he was in 2002-03.  He was not unstoppable off the dribble back then, not even close. 

Dayton shut down his drives and turned him into a jumpshooter, leading to a 8-23 night.  The only reason MU didn't get killed that night was because they pounded it inside to Merritt and Jackson who scored a combined 35 points.

St. Louis shut him down twice, both driving and shooting, despite the fact that they had no one who could come close to him athletically.  The first game he went 3-10, but MU won because Jackson and Merritt went 10 of 18 and combined for 27 points.  The second game he went 3-17, but MU won because of Diener's pull up jumpers and pounding it inside to RJax.

Wake Forest(Josh Howard essentially) shut down his driving, but MU won again because Jackson and Merritt combined for 35 points.

Louisville stopped him in the first game leading to a 3-13 night, but MU almost won because Diener and Jackson were great.

Holy Cross made him turn in an abysmal performance, but MU was able to advance because Diener was spectacular, and Chapman and Novak went 4-5 from beyond the arc.

Now you might say his scoring got shut down, but he was able to help out by being a distributor...unfortunately the games and the stats don't really bear that out.  Against Dayton, he had 3 assists.  In the two games against SLU, he had 6 combined.  Against Wake, 2 again.  Against Louisville, 2 more.  Against Holy Cross, 4. 

You do a major disservice to the players on that team, and show quite a lack of knowledge about that team when you attribute their success solely to Wade.  They were a talented enough group to play well even when he was playing terribly and not contributing much at all.

All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade.  He was the focus.  If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round.  I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you. 

[NersEllenson]

I just think you have been very selective.  You present one opinion, it gets shot down, and then you try to state another.

Travis could take people off the dribble. Yes.  I was there for 3 of his 4 years.  The kid could play basketball, and that is why he plays in the NBA to this day.  Now, was it he strength?  No, he was a shooter, and could run the offense.  That being said, I'd take TD off the dribble over most of the guys he was going against.

You try to oversimplify everything here way too much.  Novak was a senior with the 3A.  TD was a Senior when Novak was just a soph.  TD and all of the 3A were totally different players.  Wade was a great player, we all know it.  But to just dismiss TD is a mistake, and a ridiculous one at that.

Do you see what I mean?  I'd just be rather sure of my arguments if I was going to post something, since people here (and on the internet in general) like to tear people apart who claim to know something, and then are wrong.

I liked Travis as a player for sure, but honestly, Travis is basically Steve Kerr - great shooter, but nowhere near as quick as most point guards.  As for the statement in bold we all post opinions here, and everyone always thinks their opinion is "right."  I am quite sure of my arguments, which is why I post them.  Just as I disagree with your posted opinion, you disagree with mine.  Fair enough.  So, for as much as you feel I'm wrong and claim to not know something, I feel the same way toward you and your opinion on this matter.

[bma725]

All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade.  He was the focus.  If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round.  I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you. 

Again you need to do some more research before making statements like that, because once again you're just flat out wrong.  They beat Notre Dame, ranked #23 in the AP the day they beat them.  They beat Louisville, ranked #25 in the AP the day they beat them.

As for why the finished the way they did, it's pretty simple.  Those guys went from being option #3-7, to #1-5.  Merritt, coming of a shoulder surgery was forced to play out of position due to the injury to Marcus Jackson, and as a result he wasn't able to use game to it's full abilities.  Terry Sanders, who should have been the back up was forced into a starting role because of the injury to Jackson.  Novak became a starter because of Townsend's complete meltdown, a role he was not ready for, and he was able to produce what was needed in order to keep up.

[NersEllenson]

Again you need to do some more research before making statements like that, because once again you're just flat out wrong.  They beat Notre Dame, ranked #23 in the AP the day they beat them.  They beat Louisville, ranked #25 in the AP the day they beat them.

As for why the finished the way they did, it's pretty simple.  Those guys went from being option #3-7, to #1-5.  Merritt, coming of a shoulder surgery was forced to play out of position due to the injury to Marcus Jackson, and as a result he wasn't able to use game to it's full abilities.  Terry Sanders, who should have been the back up was forced into a starting role because of the injury to Jackson.  Novak became a starter because of Townsend's complete meltdown, a role he was not ready for, and he was able to produce what was needed in order to keep up.

Again, you are using the AP rankings, and I've been going by the Coaches Poll or ESPN rankings. According to ESPN rankings, neither Notre Dame or Lousiville were ranked, and even in the AP..23 and 25 are pretty much as low as you can get.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, I think D-Wade was hugely responsible for the Final Four run, and feel at best even without he and Robert Jackson - there is no way a team should go from Final Four to 19-12 and NIT 3rd round defeat the following year..when you basically return the rest of a Final Four team that features 2 future NBA'ers that it shouldn't make the NCAA.  I still feel Travis was a great college player, but both he and Novak benefited hugely by playing with DWade.

[Golden Avalanche]

I liked Travis as a player for sure, but honestly, Travis is basically Steve Kerr - great shooter, but nowhere near as quick as most point guards.  As for the statement in bold we all post opinions here, and everyone always thinks their opinion is "right."  I am quite sure of my arguments, which is why I post them.  Just as I disagree with your posted opinion, you disagree with mine.  Fair enough.  So, for as much as you feel I'm wrong and claim to not know something, I feel the same way toward you and your opinion on this matter.

You start a lot of posts with the words "All of this may be true,........". Do you realize that?

It pretty much means that when your always faulty arguments are shot down by multiple credible posters, you should stop your responses after those six little words. May has been a tough month.

Further, to consistently claim as you do that the only reason Diener had those monster performances the first weekend was solely because of Dwyane Wade is insulting.