Deepest MU team in......well you tell me

[MerrittsMustache]

This.

Plus the fact that there were two games going on at a time during the Pro-Am.  Trying to cycle between the two gyms may have meant that I missed all of the good stuff and only saw the bad, or vice-versa.

I wasn't necessarily saying that you were wrong. I enjoy the updates but I also think it's interesting when two people watch the same players in the same games and come away with completely different takes.

[Skatastrophy]

I wasn't necessarily saying that you were wrong. I enjoy the updates but I also think it's interesting when two people watch the same players in the same games and come away with completely different takes.

I understand and I took no offense

[Benny B]

Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.

I propose that your odds of making it through a season and into the dance are based on:

40% Talent
30% Chemistry
10% Matchups
20% Luck
10% Persistence

Once you're in the dance, your odds change to:

30% Talent
30% Chemistry
30% Matchups
10% Luck
10% Persistence

And no, I did not fail math.  Persistence only matters if you give 110%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bwaa bwaaaaa!

Let's keep the optimism to a minimum everyone. Chicos is already starting to get carpal tunnel from having to make so many "glass half-empty" posts.

It's always funny reading someone's interpretation of glass half full vs realistic expectations.


Kentucky was supposed to win it all this year, didn't even make the Final Four.  UNC was pegged for a Final Four run prior to the season starting, they didn't even make the NCAAs.

The Final Four is a very difficult challenge, you'll have to forgive me for putting that in realistic context.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Talent is important, but more important is how the team fits together and plays together.

Exactly.  As Knute Rockne said, "As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven"

Same applies for basketball.  You can have all the talent in the world, but how do they come together as a team.  Look at England in the World Cup this year, arguably as talented as any team in the tournament in terms of individual talent.

It will be fun to watch Buzz put these guys together and see how they mesh.  He seems adept at doing this.

[groove]

Exactly.  As Knute Rockne said, "As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven"

Same applies for basketball.  You can have all the talent in the world, but how do they come together as a team.  Look at England in the World Cup this year, arguably as talented as any team in the tournament in terms of individual talent.

It will be fun to watch Buzz put these guys together and see how they mesh.  He seems adept at doing this.

+1
I would also add that we should be cautious about making any big conclusions drawn from watching glorified pick-up games.

[TallTitan34]

I propose that your odds of making it through a season and into the dance are based on:

40% Talent
30% Chemistry
10% Matchups
20% Luck
10% Persistence

Once you're in the dance, your odds change to:

30% Talent
30% Chemistry
30% Matchups
10% Luck
10% Persistence

And no, I did not fail math.  Persistence only matters if you give 110%.

Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:

10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain

[MilWarrior]

Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:

10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain

I always wondered what the "pleasure" was referring to.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1
I would also add that we should be cautious about making any big conclusions drawn from watching glorified pick-up games.

Yup.  Every year in these pick up games we hear basically this:

Player X has put on a ton of muscle
Player Y's footwork is so good now
Player Z is finally consistently hitting from the 3

Etc, etc.

Let's see what happens in the real games.  Some guys will certainly make strides, that's what the offseason is all about.  Others will still need more time to develop.  The question is whether anything short of real game action is ever a true barometer?  Tough to say.  The only guarantee is each year the reports coming from the offseason are that we will win the NBA title by sweeping the Lakers.     

[MU B2002]

Off the top of my head I'd say it's more like:

10% Luck
20% Skill
15% Concentrated Power of Will
5% Pleasure
50% Pain

Is this from a Fort Minor song?



Edit: I knew it.  Nice choice.

[HoopsMalone]

color=teal]The only guarantee is each year the reports coming from the offseason are that we will win the NBA title by sweeping the Lakers.  [/color]   

Gotta love fans' hopes in the offseason.  Can't say I have never looked at the Big East schedule, imagined an absolute lights out perfect performance against every opponent, and had MU going 18-0 before bringing myself back to reality. 

[Dawson Rental]

It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns.  But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.

The O'Neill teams had the strongest starting lineup 1 through 5 of any Marquette team since the McGuire era, but they weren't known for great depth.  O'Neill's first recruiting class was a very good one, but he never came close to it the next three years.  Aside from Miller at the point, Roney Eford and Aaron Hutchins, I can't think of another impact recruit.  If you include the three freshman and Arizona transfer Ron Curry with those three, that's seven very good players in four years, not the kind of recruiting that builds depth.

[Dawson Rental]

I always wondered what the "pleasure" was referring to.

Before games, Hank Raymonds would always write at the bottom of a chalk board in the dressing room; "Play hard, have fun."

[Dawson Rental]

In my 25 years of being a hard core Marquette fan, this team has more talent on it than any I can remember from a 1-12 roster perspective.  The question will be:  Will spots 1-7 prove to be more talented than the 2003 Final Four team, and the 1994 Sweet 16 team?  D-Wade was such a transcendant talent, its hard to know just how good everyone around him was..but we have to give the 2003 team its due.  Should be ALOT of fun these next 2-4 years to see where this thing goes.  My guess - At least 1 Final Four in the next 4 years.

I think a final four will depend on Gardner.  I think that he has a special nack for scoring in the paint that can get a team through close games.  Of course, to be in a close game to begin with, you need your inside man to be able to run the floor and guard the hoop, and grab some tough rebounds.  If Gardner never becomes a significant factor, this team will still be good.  But I don't see it making a final four unless Gardner becomes one of the Big East's best big men.

[NCMUFan]

I think it is important to have 4 scoring options on the floor at any time.  It would be nice if Cadougan could average 10 points a game and on a good night get 15.  Having the scoring punch of the three Amigos and Lazar was nice.  Butler, DJO and Lazar were the main fire power last year with Buycks, Fulce, Coobey, Acker chipping in as the 4th scoring option.  So DJO and Bulter are two givens.  Who will the other two  that will average 12-13 points a night be?

[NersEllenson]

I think it is important to have 4 scoring options on the floor at any time.  It would be nice if Cadougan could average 10 points a game and on a good night get 15.  Having the scoring punch of the three Amigos and Lazar was nice.  Butler, DJO and Lazar were the main fire power last year with Buycks, Fulce, Coobey, Acker chipping in as the 4th scoring option.  So DJO and Bulter are two givens.  Who will the other two  that will average 12-13 points a night be?

I'd guess Buycks and Fulce/Crowder - depending on which one of them wins the battle for the starting 4 spot..

[mviale]

It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns.  But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.

Agree - this reminds me of a KO team - very deep

[Marquette84]

It's an extremely young team, so there are quite a few unknowns.  But, I think this might be the deepest team since the KO years, probably deepest since the Sweet Sixteen team.

I think memories are being clouded by the nearly 20 years that have passed.  Buzz actually gave more minutes to his bench (45 per game) last year than O'Neill did in 1994 (39/game).

Only 7 players appeared in all 33 games in 1993-94.

Starters:
Key averaged 33 mpg
McIlvaine averaged 28
Eford 32 mpg
Logermann 31 mpg
Miller 37 mpg

Key Reserves
McCaskill averaged 11 mpg
Pieper averaged 16 mpg
Abraham (only 28 games), 5 minutes/game

Crawford only appeared in 18 games, and averaged 6 minutes
Joseph 8 games/2 mpg
Streater 9 games, 2 per game
Littles 11 games, 2 mpg

[Windyplayer]

I honestly think even Blue might have a hard time seeing the floor early on, because his performance at FIBA was inefficient and filled with turnovers.

I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.

[Skatastrophy]

I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.

Right.  Why would anyone draw any conclusions on how Blue plays based on how he's played in the past?  Inconceivable. 

[Henry Sugar]

I doubt his playing time will be predicated on how he played at FIBA. I think practice will dictate that.

no kidding

There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one.  I also had this assumption.

However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me.  Maybe it's nothing.  But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.

[Dawson Rental]

I think memories are being clouded by the nearly 20 years that have passed.  Buzz actually gave more minutes to his bench (45 per game) last year than O'Neill did in 1994 (39/game).

Only 7 players appeared in all 33 games in 1993-94.

Starters:
Key averaged 33 mpg
McIlvaine averaged 28
Eford 32 mpg
Logermann 31 mpg
Miller 37 mpg

Key Reserves
McCaskill averaged 11 mpg
Pieper averaged 16 mpg
Abraham (only 28 games), 5 minutes/game

Crawford only appeared in 18 games, and averaged 6 minutes
Joseph 8 games/2 mpg
Streater 9 games, 2 per game
Littles 11 games, 2 mpg

Exact-a-mundo.  His first year O'Neill only had seven players on the team he could trust to put on the floor from Dukiet's roster.  Then five years later, KO's still down to playing only seven guys, although Crawford developed nicely later, and Abraham was a defensive force.

[bilsu]

no kidding

There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one.  I also had this assumption.

However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me.  Maybe it's nothing.  But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.

Playing time will be determined how Blue does vs players he is competing against in practice. Remember he started essentially at small forward over Quincy Miller in the FIBA games. He must have been doing something right. At this point in his development Blue has a long way to go offensively. That is why I do not see him and Cadougan on the floor at the same time. That would be two limited scorers in the game at the same time. The other observation from the FIBA tournament was that Kyrie Irving was a shoot first point guard, which would have limited Blue's offensive opportunities. It really took me 3 games to realize how good Irving was. It sounds like Reggie Smith is also a shoot first point guard. It will be interesting to see if Smith and Irving play against each other in CBE classic. That would be blazzing speed against blazzing speed.

[GGGG]

no kidding

There is an overarching assumption that Vander will log solid-to-heavy minutes and be a legitimate contributor from day one.  I also had this assumption.

However, Vander's performance at FIBA is some additional data that concerned me.  Maybe it's nothing.  But if his early season numbers are even close to the FIBA numbers, Vander isn't going to see the floor no matter how highly he's ranked.

I honestly started to get a little worried when I saw him play in the WIAAs this year.  I wrote it off to "pressing his game" since he was the only scoring option on the floor oftentimes....and maybe that's part of it.  But he is way too turnover prone right now to log huge minutes.

[NersEllenson]

Exact-a-mundo.  His first year O'Neill only had seven players on the team he could trust to put on the floor from Dukiet's roster.  Then five years later, KO's still down to playing only seven guys, although Crawford developed nicely later, and Abraham was a defensive force.

Random fact about Faisal - he could bench press 135lbs 46 times in a row.  He was a specimen.

I honestly started to get a little worried when I saw him play in the WIAAs this year.  I wrote it off to "pressing his game" since he was the only scoring option on the floor oftentimes....and maybe that's part of it.  But he is way too turnover prone right now to log huge minutes.

I haven't seen Blue play live, but from watching him play at the FIBA games - its evident he has great upside, yet you can also see room for growth...which isn't surprising considering he is still 17 years old.  My feeling was that I hopepeople temper their expctations of Vander as a freshman..and don't get too carried away with all of the hype surrounding his recruitment..and expect huge things from him..I'd be happy with 8-10ppg