I am concerned

[GGGG]

Lastly, this is just Year 3 of the new regime...let's see how this year goes and next year....now that we have a roster largely the way Buzz wants it..and lets see the results before continuing to beat this dead horse drum of "we need a big, we need a big..I'm getting ready to jump off a bridge, because MU can't land a big!"  Not saying you are the culprit..but that we as a fan base are way, way too obsessed with this..laregly due to some really, really bad luck in the NCA tourney the last 5 years, injuries, and mostly due to MU only going to the tourney with a roster of about 6 legit High-Major players each of these last 5 years...and then there being MAJOR drop off

Thank you Ners.  These are my thoughts exactly.  A couple of weeks ago, I was looking at the Louisville boxscore from last year, and I was shocked.  I had forgotten how bad our depth had gotten for that game with Buycks injured.  We basically played *six* guys for that game, including two very small guards.  Buzz has solved our depth problem first and foremost.  If we are healthy, we will be able to better match up with all sorts of lineups, and not just be the "hustle team" that outworks people in order to succeed.  If Buzz has these guys playing just as hard as they have been, with more versatility, we are going to be in much better shape for the next few years.

I would love to have a high-quality 7 footer, but quality depth is so much more important.

[MarkCharles]

I'm not dismissing the value of a big..but many Marquette fans have way too much of an obsession with getting a "big."  The necessity of a big is really kind of an illusion - Look at last year's Final Four..NO team had a really good big..they were bit players.  It is NOT a requirement to have bigs to make the Final Four..you just can't be a team of 5 good guard/wing players and have NO depth beyond that, nor ANY serviceable big on the roster.  Gardner and Otule will be more than serviceable over the next 3 years.  Marquette hasn't advanced these past 5 seasons due to the lack of any real depth on its roster, injuries ot McNeal, James, and then a terrible matchup with Stanford..not to mention a few buzzer beater shots in the tourney that probably prevented us from being in the Sweet 16 - Washington and Stanford...and this was with having a team comprised of basically 6 High-Major players, and then a significant drop off for roster spots 7-12.  I'll be SHOCKED if the 2011-2012 MU team does NOT make the Elite 8/Final Four..assuming DJO doesn't go pro.

If you want to call it an obsession, thats fine. But I am concerned because I have seen way too many MU losses over the years where they were significantly better 1-3, but lost because an often average big man took over the game. I don't think we need a "dominant" big, as you keep going back to, I just want ones that will prevent the average bigs we face from looking dominant.

And just because Buzz loves swingmen doesn't mean the entire college basketball landscape is moving away from big men. Players are bigger now than they ever have been. Sure, WVU made that model work last year, but they have signed a 6'11 center this year, a 6'10 in Noreen in 2010, and Kilicli at 6'9 who is a downlow banger is a major piece of their squad moving forward. And Butler may not have had a dominant big guy, but they had the 6'9 Howard playing center who was their conference POY in 2009, so don't act like they were playing with anything like our roster.

As we have talked about before, Zoubek was huge for Duke, and he is a true center by any stretch. Coach K has said they wouldn't have won the title without him, and thats good enough for me. He is all I want. But don't say guys like Barro and Burke were just as good, because they weren't. The fact that MU fans always compare other teams' bigs to Barro and Burke should say everything that needs to be said about our bigs the last 8 years.

Or go back to the 2009 Final Four-UConn had Thabeet, UNC had a stud pf/c in Hansbrough plus Zeller, and Mich. St. had Suton. All bigs who were some of, if not the, most important guys on their team.
Or 2008, when Memphis had bigs Dozier and Taggart, UNC again had Hansbrough, Kansas had Cole Aldrich, a true center, and UCLA got nice contribution from center Alfred Aboya.
Or 2007, Florida had two future pro big men in Noah and Horford, UCLA had center kevin Love, Georgetown had Hibbert, and Ohio St. had Oden.
Just because not having a true big works every few years doesn't mean its the preferred model or the way of the future.

Just because Buzz recruits the 2/3 best, and those players usually make up about half the top100 recruits doesn't mean the center position is being phased out.

[Stretchdeltsig]

I believe we will have the most talent every coming into this year.  We just need to add experience to the mix.  We are highly athletic and talented.  Another "big" will be nice, but we have a team that can score and play with anyone.  There is no reason to be hung up or pessimistic.  Buzz fixed our biggest need by adding talented depth and taller guards.  Can't wait to watch the 2010-11 Warriors play!!!

[MarkCharles]

If I tried to debunk every ridiculous recruiting rumor on MUScoop, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

Thats a weak response. You're taking time to debunk it now, so why not back then when it would have actually been valuable info? You don't agree with my viewpoint, and that is fine, but you're trying to piggyback on BMA saying we were never interested when I'm sure you, like everyone else here, assumed we were, as there was valid reason to believe so.

[NersEllenson]

If you want to call it an obsession, thats fine. But I am concerned because I have seen way too many MU losses over the years where they were significantly better 1-3, but lost because an often average big man took over the game. I don't think we need a "dominant" big, as you keep going back to, I just want ones that will prevent the average bigs we face from looking dominant.

And just because Buzz loves swingmen doesn't mean the entire college basketball landscape is moving away from big men. Players are bigger now than they ever have been. Sure, WVU made that model work last year, but they have signed a 6'11 center this year, a 6'10 in Noreen in 2010, and Kilicli at 6'9 who is a downlow banger is a major piece of their squad moving forward. And Butler may not have had a dominant big guy, but they had the 6'9 Howard playing center who was their conference POY in 2009, so don't act like they were playing with anything like our roster.

As we have talked about before, Zoubek was huge for Duke, and he is a true center by any stretch. Coach K has said they wouldn't have won the title without him, and thats good enough for me. He is all I want. But don't say guys like Barro and Burke were just as good, because they weren't. The fact that MU fans always compare other teams' bigs to Barro and Burke should say everything that needs to be said about our bigs the last 8 years.

Or go back to the 2009 Final Four-UConn had Thabeet, UNC had a stud pf/c in Hansbrough plus Zeller, and Mich. St. had Suton. All bigs who were some of, if not the, most important guys on their team.
Or 2008, when Memphis had bigs Dozier and Taggart, UNC again had Hansbrough, Kansas had Cole Aldrich, a true center, and UCLA got nice contribution from center Alfred Aboya.
Or 2007, Florida had two future pro big men in Noah and Horford, UCLA had center kevin Love, Georgetown had Hibbert, and Ohio St. had Oden.
Just because not having a true big works every few years doesn't mean its the preferred model or the way of the future.

Just because Buzz recruits the 2/3 best, and those players usually make up about half the top100 recruits doesn't mean the center position is being phased out.

Good data about the 2007, 2008, 2009 Final Four teams.  Couple points of clarification..I've been saying all we need is a serviceable big..NOT dominant..and that Otule and Gardner can provide this.  The bigs you point out from the Final Four teams were largely considered Top 20 prospects nationally..minus Suton.  Taggart wasn't exactly a "big."  These guys were the "dominant" big of their time...and as you wrote, you are not asking for a dominant big..just serviceable.  It's been pointed out in this thread that Zoubeck was a Top 25 recruit..AND that Barro's numbers compared favorable to Zoubek's - so was Ouse really that much less of a player than Zoubek??

I don't think anyone denies the value of a "big."  My personal opinion is that we have 2 on the roster right now...Otule and Gardner..that can be effective for us the next 3 years.  Let's see how it plays out.  These last 5 years of MU basketball have been in many ways..the best of times and worst of times...totally exciting, entertaining and fun, yet at the same time heartbreaking and frustrating...but our lack of a "big," was NOT the sole or even primary reason for all of the heart break...I've stated those reasons many times in this thread already...(again, just my opinion and I'm not essentially disagreeing with yours).

[GGGG]

Thats a weak response. You're taking time to debunk it now, so why not back then when it would have actually been valuable info? You don't agree with my viewpoint, and that is fine, but you're trying to piggyback on BMA saying we were never interested when I'm sure you, like everyone else here, assumed we were, as there was valid reason to believe so.

There is a difference between someone stating "we are recruiting John Doe," even though there isn't any evidence for it, and you saying "we didn't get John Doe, and it is symbolic of our program's problems."  In the first case, it is a mere rumor.  In the second, you are making a point and back it up with a false assumption.

To use a potential real life example, it would be one thing for someone to say "I hear Buzz is after Sam Dekker...the kid from Sheboyban."  It's something else entirely for someone to say "The fact that UW got Sam Dekker is symbolic of the fact that Buzz is going to have trouble going head-to-head with Bo for in state recruits."  The first is merely a rumor that is false.  The second attempts to make a larger point but it is built on a falsehood - Buzz was never after Sam Dekker.

When you use misinformation to underpin a larger point, it is going to cause more people to say "you're wrong" than if you simply state the misinformation on its own.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

But I am concerned because I have seen way too many MU losses over the years where they were significantly better 1-3, but lost because an often average big man took over the game.

This obsession over "bigs" is kind of shortsighted.

Jerel McNeal doesn't play here anymore. Wade doesn't play here anymore. Travis, Wes, DJ are all gone. MU could recruit the #1 big man this year, next year, and the year after and it wouldn't retroactively make those teams better, and it wouldn't really guarantee future success either.

You have to get good players at every position on the roster. To pretend that landing a "top big" would suddenly launch MU to a magical next level wishful thinking. Are we sure Junior is that good? Is there enough scoring off of the bench? Is there good enough shooting to prevent double teams? We don't know.

MU will have to continue to get talented players at every position and coach them up accordingly.

MU doesn't have some magical unlimited supply of guards that will never go dry in the next 100 years, so this obsession over "bigs" is a bit silly, no?

In 2004, MU had a "talented big" (Marcus Jackson), who ended up as the default PG because Travis got hurt. What's my point? Obsessing over 1 position and acting like it is the holy grail isn't really accurate.

[MarkCharles]

This obsession over "bigs" is kind of shortsighted.

Jerel McNeal doesn't play here anymore. Wade doesn't play here anymore. Travis, Wes, DJ are all gone. MU could recruit the #1 big man this year, next year, and the year after and it wouldn't retroactively make those teams better, and it wouldn't really guarantee future success either.

You have to get good players at every position on the roster. To pretend that landing a "top big" would suddenly launch MU to a magical next level wishful thinking. Are we sure Junior is that good? Is there enough scoring off of the bench? Is there good enough shooting to prevent double teams? We don't know.

MU will have to continue to get talented players at every position and coach them up accordingly.

MU doesn't have some magical unlimited supply of guards that will never go dry in the next 100 years, so this obsession over "bigs" is a bit silly, no? True, but they have more than enough, looking forward. Its tough to say MU isn't loaded at 1-3. Do you really think we don't have enough there? Is guard a bigger need than center??

In 2004, MU had a "talented big" (Marcus Jackson), who ended up as the default PG because Travis got hurt. What's my point? Obsessing over 1 position and acting like it is the holy grail isn't really accurate. If you haven't seen how not having better/any big guy has killed us countless times over the years, then you're missing something. It is a major hurdle for this program.

Thank you for making my point for me. We have more than enough talented players at 1, 2, and 3, and the number of players we have put into the NBA at those positions should show that they are being coached wonderfully. As you say, we need good players at every position. We do at most, but not all. That is why we need better bigs. I think we have more than enough at the smaller positions to get to the next level.

But as you said, we need good players at every position. We simply haven't had them in a long time down low, and I am frustrated by that.

And by the way, if we got the top big in the next 3 classes, I would personally guarantee huge improvements for this program. Who wouldn't?? Thats kind of a crazy argument.

[Marquette84]

We basically played *six* guys for that game, including two very small guards.  Buzz has solved our depth problem first and foremost. 

We had the depth "problem" solved last year as well.  At the end of the spring signing period, we had all 13 scholarships awarded, and none used on an ineligible transfer.

At the start of the year, nobody knew that:
1. Roseboro would be gone by the first day of class.
2. Maymon would leave mid season
3. Otule would suffer a season-ending injury three games into the year.
4. Cadougan would be injured and miss the first half of the season and never really fully recover.
5. Mbao would not play due to coach's choice & later, injury
6. Williams would play sparingly due to coach's choice

Without those six, it would leave a seven man rotation of Butler, Hayward, Fulce, Cubillan, Acker and DJO.

This year, we're only slightly ahead of ahead of last year's pace. By this time last year we already lost Roseboro for good, and Cadougan was down with injury. But we only have 12 scholarship players available to begin with since Wilson uses a scholarship but can't play.

At this point we just don't know how many of the new players (if any) will meet Buzz's exacting standards for earning playing time--they may sit like Mbao and Williams.  Yes, we suspected that Mbao was a project when he arrived--but Williams was a top 100 player and even he sat.   

We don't know if we'll suffer fewer, the same, or more injuries--or whether they will occur to key player or reserves.  It's just a complete unknown.   

We don't know if a player will choose to leave (or are asked to leave) mid season.  We can all hope this isn't the case, but last year we didn't expect Roseboro and Maymon to leave.

We don't know if a player will become academically ineligible--again,we hope not, but we just don't know.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

And by the way, if we got the top big in the next 3 classes, I would personally guarantee huge improvements for this program. Who wouldn't?? Thats kind of a crazy argument.

It's a bit of hyperbole for sure, but here's the point.

You can have the best center in the game, but if you don't have the other players to go with him, you'll be a good team (not a great team).

MU has had good guards in the past. That doesn't mean that there will be an endless stream of good guards at MU forever, so the idea MU only needs to land a top "big" just isn't accurate.

What would be accurate is something like:

"MU needs to bring in talented players at every position because as we have seen in the past, 1 dimensional teams can only go so far."

Saying or insinuating simply: "We need a big man!" is silly.

*Please note, I'm not picking on you specifically, just the constant buzz around here of posters saying "we need a big!" and then listing teams in the tournament that do well with their big men.

I've got earth shattering news for everybody: The best teams in the country have talented players at every position, and they don't always fit in the nice little package of "center" or "point guard".

To assume that MU has "the guards" wrapped up forever because we've had a good run of them lately is foolish.

[Golden Avalanche]

I wouldn't all Burke a big, nor serviceable...Jamil Wilson is taller...and weighs only about 15 pounds less than Burke.  Barro was a much better player than Burke.  C Otule and Gardner..will easily provide what Burke did - I'd be highly, highly disappointed if they didn't.  They may not get the minutes Burke did..due to there being much better roster options now, than when Burke was on board at MU. 

Regarding Hibbert and Maxiel - I'm pretty sure we beat both of those guys teams/went .500 against them.  I don't see us losing the FSU or NC State, nor WAH games due to a lack of a big...it was a lack of depth.  We flat out ran out of gas against FSU..and you could make that same case against Washington.

Lastly, this is just Year 3 of the new regime...let's see how this year goes and next year....now that we have a roster largely the way Buzz wants it..and lets see the results before continuing to beat this dead horse drum of "we need a big, we need a big..I'm getting ready to jump off a bridge, because MU can't land a big!"  Not saying you are the culprit..but that we as a fan base are way, way too obsessed with this..laregly due to some really, really bad luck in the NCA tourney the last 5 years, injuries, and mostly due to MU only going to the tourney with a roster of about 6 legit High-Major players each of these last 5 years...and then there being MAJOR drop off

You didn't think Burke was a serviceable 5 playing within James, McNeal, Matthews, and Hayward? I thought he was pretty good at his job Senior year. We all view players differently though. And I'm not sure what Wilson has to do with a serviceable bigs discussion as he's not even on that side of the squiggly line.

You make my point on the depth. We consistently, over the last decade, have played wings out of position at the 5 to make up for no presence. That in turn weakens the wing depth and moves the guards which stresses the four remaining players on the floor. Stress like that leads to poor play. Poor play leads to losing a 17 point lead with 16 minutes left in the game.

As long as you win, there is always time to fix the problems that come up every year. Just ask Les Miles.

[MarkCharles]

It's a bit of hyperbole for sure, but here's the point.

You can have the best center in the game, but if you don't have the other players to go with him, you'll be a good team (not a great team). But we have those players. Thats why I want a center so bad.

MU has had good guards in the past. That doesn't mean that there will be an endless stream of good guards at MU forever, so the idea MU only needs to land a top "big" just isn't accurate. I don't take it for granted, but MU hasn't had trouble getting great perimeter players in a long time. I have 100% confidence that as long as Buzz is here, he will have no trouble in this regard. We already have a stable of these players, and another one lined up in Anderson.

Do you doubt this coach/program's ability to get good perimeter players? 

What would be accurate is something like:

"MU needs to bring in talented players at every position because as we have seen in the past, 1 dimensional teams can only go so far." Thats pretty much exactly what I have been saying the whole time--that we need talent at all positions, not just the perimeter. I don't know how or why people think I'm saying center is by a mile the most important position. I'm not. But there is a ceiling to a team when literally every team you play has an advantage at a position, any position.

Saying or insinuating simply: "We need a big man!" is silly. No its not. Big man, in my opinion, is simply the only thing this roster needs

*Please note, I'm not picking on you specifically, just the constant buzz around here of posters saying "we need a big!" and then listing teams in the tournament that do well with their big men. Thats fine, I know my opinion is shared by a lot of MU fans. Maybe there aren't many here, but this has been a concern to many invested in this program for a long time

I've got earth shattering news for everybody: The best teams in the country have talented players at every position, and they don't always fit in the nice little package of "center" or "point guard". Exactly.

To assume that MU has "the guards" wrapped up forever because we've had a good run of them lately is foolish. I have no reason to think it won't continue into the near future

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Fair enough.

I'm just not sure that there is a never ending stream of guards coming to MU, and therefore I don't get as tied into "we need a big man!" (shakes fist).

In 2004, MU had a good shot to make the tournament if A. Travis didn't get hurt or B. There was a competent back-up PG.

It wasn't a shortage of "big men" that hurt that team. It was a shortage of overall talent and somebody who could bring the ball up that hurt that team. Shaq couldn't have won a tournament game with that team when Marcus Jackson was playing default PG.