collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Sweet 16 presser by cheebs09
[Today at 04:00:16 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 03:40:45 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by NickelDimer
[Today at 03:31:19 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by avid1010
[Today at 03:29:22 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Pakuni
[Today at 03:28:48 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Uncle Rico
[Today at 03:05:12 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Is MU Nation Melting Down?  (Read 53425 times)

El Duderino

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #75 on: January 30, 2011, 02:10:38 AM »
I thought I adequately explained it above but let me repeat for you:

1.  We had returning player in Hayward who was equally as good (if not better) than Matthews was as a junior--and with similar development could be counted on to approximate Matthew's performance.

2.  We had a reserve in Butler who had demonstrated that he was among the best offensive players in NCAA--statistically speaking possibly better than McNeal.  If he merely extended his stats when receiving the additional minutes made available by the departing seniors would approximate McNeal's performance.

3.  We had a returning PG in Acker who had demonstrated a high degree of proficiency (2.5 assist to turnover ratio and 38% 3FG%) against eight teams--5 of which were arguably as tough or tougher than any competition we were likely to face the following year.

4.  We had two first team JUCO AAs coming in in DJO and Buycks, who based on the typical performance of other first team JUCO AAs moving up to D1 level, should have been counted on to provide strong minutes, scoring and team contributions.

Was I wrong on any of these assumptions?  No.

Were any of them unreasonable?  I don't think so, but you'll have to tell me why you think so.  Which ones were unreasonable?  

To address your point on what we lost--well, if we had lost 64% of our scoring, but had nobody on the bench set to move up, and no good recruits coming on board, perhaps you would have had a point.  

But as I saw it, we had a very strong core of returning players enhanced by a very strong recruiting class of replacements coming in.

If you believe that any of my four assumptions were off base, I think its high time for you to explain why.  Stop telling me who left the team.  Tell me why you thought the players we had weren't capable of getting the job done.  Tell me why you thought Hayward couldn't step up.  Tell me why you thought Butler's offensive performacne would regress.  Tell me why you didn't think Acker would continue to play well.  

I really want to know whether you really thought our returning and incoming players would regress and/or be busts, or whether you honestly didn't take a close look at them.

Yes, I know exactly what we lost.  

The question is whether you knew what we had returning and what we had coming on board.

The reason many college basketball analysts and Big East coaches didn't expect much from Marquette last year is that Acker spent most of his time at MU being a small part role player. Cubillan spent the prior season playing terrible basketball and only receiving 9 minutes a game. Nobody could have realistically expected that Cubillan would become a key and effective cog who averaged nearly 32mpg and would shoot 45.8 from the field to team with Acker productively in probably the tiniest backcourt in college ball.

Then there was DJO and Buycks. While both were well thought of JUCO kids, neither had played a minute of high major college basketball, so they were still question marks to a degree. It's not as if all highly thought of JUCO kids come in and are automatically as good as DJO was last year.

In retrospect, college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette last year, but i can see reasons why they did. There was no reason IMO to think a midget backcourt of Acker/Cubillan could play 30 productive minutes a game together and DJO was quite a bit better than the normal JUCO recruit, even among the more highly thought of JUCO recruits. Hell, who was predicting that DJO would shoot nearly 48% from three while taking a lot of them and also be so effective attacking the rim?

After what the team lost in the three Amigos, bad injuries to Otule/Junior, and what was left for the 2009-10 season, Buzz ended up having to play a very limited and undersized rotation. There were going to be many folks out there who would have had legit reason to think the trio of Acker, Cubillan, and DJO wouldn't be productive as they were from simply prior performance of Acker/Cubillan, having three guys that size on the court so often together, and DJO was better than should have been as expected.

I'm generally more a glass half full type and even with that, no way did i expect Acker/Cubillan to be as good as they performed, that DJO would be that fabulous right away, or that MU could win that many games with those three playing together a ton while being only 5'8/5'11/6'2 tall.

TJ

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #76 on: January 30, 2011, 03:48:39 AM »
The reason many college basketball analysts and Big East coaches didn't expect much from Marquette last year is that Acker spent most of his time at MU being a small part role player. Cubillan spent the prior season playing terrible basketball and only receiving 9 minutes a game. Nobody could have realistically expected that Cubillan would become a key and effective cog who averaged nearly 32mpg and would shoot 45.8 from the field to team with Acker productively in probably the tiniest backcourt in college ball.

Then there was DJO and Buycks. While both were well thought of JUCO kids, neither had played a minute of high major college basketball, so they were still question marks to a degree. It's not as if all highly thought of JUCO kids come in and are automatically as good as DJO was last year.

In retrospect, college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette last year, but i can see reasons why they did. There was no reason IMO to think a midget backcourt of Acker/Cubillan could play 30 productive minutes a game together and DJO was quite a bit better than the normal JUCO recruit, even among the more highly thought of JUCO recruits. Hell, who was predicting that DJO would shoot nearly 48% from three while taking a lot of them and also be so effective attacking the rim?

After what the team lost in the three Amigos, bad injuries to Otule/Junior, and what was left for the 2009-10 season, Buzz ended up having to play a very limited and undersized rotation. There were going to be many folks out there who would have had legit reason to think the trio of Acker, Cubillan, and DJO wouldn't be productive as they were from simply prior performance of Acker/Cubillan, having three guys that size on the court so often together, and DJO was better than should have been as expected.

I'm generally more a glass half full type and even with that, no way did i expect Acker/Cubillan to be as good as they performed, that DJO would be that fabulous right away, or that MU could win that many games with those three playing together a ton while being only 5'8/5'11/6'2 tall.
Ok, so there were reasons for the underrating, but you would agree that MU was underrated last year.  I think so too.  And I think that you can take that one step further and say that they performed appropriately to their talent level, given hindsight and not basing it on unrealistic preseason expectations.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2011, 07:45:42 AM »
In the words of the not so great Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were".

Some positives, some negatives . . .YES.
Freshmen looking like Freshmen . . . YES.
Probably about a 10-8 or 11-7 Beast team headed to about an 8 seed . . . My best guess.

Great win yesterday fellas!

El Duderino

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2011, 01:04:13 AM »
Ok, so there were reasons for the underrating, but you would agree that MU was underrated last year.  I think so too.  And I think that you can take that one step further and say that they performed appropriately to their talent level, given hindsight and not basing it on unrealistic preseason expectations.

Yes college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette prior to the season and understandably so IMO. The players though clearly were better than 12th in the Big East.

That said, i do think Buzz did a fabulous job melding together what he had available to get 11 Big East wins. The team was severely undersized and had few bench options to help out when the main guys got tired or in foul trouble.

Defensively the team was able to defend and rebound decent enough to win those games even though for most of games Buzz would have on the court three guards standing 5'8/5'11/6'2 and two 6'6 small forwards having to play PF and Center. Offensively Buzz i thought was smart to not force a bunch of highly structured plays on to that roster and instead just let them use their quickness to mainly drive the paint to score or drive the paint and kick to shooters. An organized version of streetball in a way so long as there were enough paint touches. Sometimes i think coaches are such control freaks that they are unwilling to change what they prefer to run even if it doesn't fit the talent on their roster.

I remember when George Karl came to the Bucks, he came from a long run in Seattle where they won a ton of games largely via tough defense and a very structured offense. So he takes over the Bucks and tries doing the same thing, but the Bucks roster is littered with soft defenders who can really score points. Instead of continuing to try and make that roster into something it just wasn't built for, Karl eventually swallowed his pride and just accepted what the roster of players he had were good at. He stopped harping constantly over the poor defense and loosened the reigns on the offensive end. The Bucks then were able to beat teams with scores like 118-110 instead of Karl trying to force them to win games 94-89 which didn't fit the roster.

That's what i think Buzz did a great job of last year. He has a severely undersized roster, but it was very quick. Then once Cubillan showed he had his jumper back and DJO came out of the blocks immediately as an impact player, Buzz implemented an offensive system that fully maximized the strengths of the main six players he'd trust using. He also was willing to almost always keep a very undersized roster on the floor because those guys were his best players and made opposing coaches adjust to our quickness instead of putting some height on the floor just to have height on the floor as coaches do sometimes.

That team of players and coaches last year was a group that for me at least as a fan i found myself to be very proud of in how they represented the university on and off the court. They played their assses off every night even though they had very little help on the bench, were majorly undersized, and none besides Lazar/DJO were highly recruited kids. They just flat out brought it each night regardless of their limitations.

TJ

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2011, 01:38:43 AM »
Yes college basketball analysts and Big East coaches did underrate Marquette prior to the season and understandably so IMO. The players though clearly were better than 12th in the Big East.

That said, i do think Buzz did a fabulous job melding together what he had available to get 11 Big East wins. The team was severely undersized and had few bench options to help out when the main guys got tired or in foul trouble.

...
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year.  I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much.  I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate.  I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.

El Duderino

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2011, 02:12:37 AM »
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year.  I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much.  I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate.  I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.

By saying a team "over-achieved" doesn't mean i'm implying that the coach should get all the credit for it.

While i do think those main 6-7 guys took on a mentality that Buzz preached of always playing extremely hard, being tough, and playing a quick pace even though there were few bench options to help with potential fatigue, it was those kids who had to actually produce and fight on the court, not the coaches.

A coach can preach physical toughness, mental toughness, and playing hard all the time for which opposing Big East coaches and in game announcers constantly praised our team for last year, but we've all seen that not every college player will actually do that. Not all college kids will buy in completely to a team first mentality. Well, last season those main 6-7 players were more talented than Big East coaches/college analysts expected, but they also did play as hard as any team out there and IMO that played a partial role in allowing them to win that many games even though they were so undersized and there was little help off the bench.

A team/the players can "over-achieve" to a degree without that having to mean the players involved were mainly just low talent stiffs who won almost entirely via hustle. There can be a middle ground where a fairly talented group of kids reach say 11 Big East wins instead of 8 because they were selfless team first players who by always giving 100% were better able to cover up for team flaws or limitations. I believe that because often enough in college ball we see the complete reverse. Supposedly very talented college teams that are expected to be really good, but not all of the players buy into a team first mentality and/or don't always play hard, so they end up losing quite a few more games than expected.

TJ

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2011, 07:27:13 AM »
A team/the players can "over-achieve" to a degree without that having to mean the players involved were mainly just low talent stiffs who won almost entirely via hustle. There can be a middle ground where a fairly talented group of kids reach say 11 Big East wins instead of 8 because they were selfless team first players who by always giving 100% were better able to cover up for team flaws or limitations. I believe that because often enough in college ball we see the complete reverse. Supposedly very talented college teams that are expected to be really good, but not all of the players buy into a team first mentality and/or don't always play hard, so they end up losing quite a few more games than expected.
This has nothing to do with the coach.  Everyone did a good job last year.  My issue is with MU fans saying that their talent level should have gotten them only 8 BE wins (the way they say it, many seem to think that number should be lower).  I don't think they won 3 more games than their talent would indicate last year (in fact, DePaul...) - which 3 would you switch because they ground out a win they otherwise wouldn't have?  They beat the teams below them, lost to the teams above them, and had a good season.  They were talented enough to win 11 games.  "Over-achieving" implies that they weren't, and I want to know why people still believe that, even with hindsight.

mu-rara

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2011, 08:29:37 AM »
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year.  I just take issue with people saying they "over-achieved" and emphasizing it so much.  I think it does a disservice to the players, making them sound like a bunch of stiffs who managed to get results far better than their talent would indicate.  I think they were a very talented bunch who played very well and did what they were supposed to, regardless of what people thought they would do at the beginning of the year.

I don't think it should be taken as an insult per se.  I don't think any of us knew what we had before the season started.  Who knew DJO would perform as he did?  Who knew that Cuby was recovered and Mo would play as well as he did?  Many unknowns last year, as there was this year.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2011, 09:25:50 AM »
Nobody said that Buzz didn't do a great job last year. 

Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.

TJ

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2011, 11:22:37 AM »
I don't think it should be taken as an insult per se.  I don't think any of us knew what we had before the season started.  Who knew DJO would perform as he did?  Who knew that Cuby was recovered and Mo would play as well as he did?  Many unknowns last year, as there was this year.
So they exceeded expectations - they didn't "over-achieve".

To answer your questions... I had every confidence that a senior Mo Acker could be an effective PG.  I did not think Cuby would be able to turn it around though.  And I did feel like a newcomer would be a contributing factor to our success, though I didn't know which newcomer nor could I have guessed how good he would be.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 11:26:52 AM by TJ »

warthog-driver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2011, 11:34:02 AM »
Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.

But remember: Marquette84 has the perspective of little Stanford taking on the Mighty Trojans of USC. In Joanie's weltanschauung the bar has been pegged mighty high. Mighty high indeed.

"I know Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is a brother of mine. Buzz Williams is no Jim Harbaugh."

mileskishnish72

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4519
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2011, 11:45:56 AM »
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.

The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.

TJ

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2011, 01:11:29 PM »
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.

The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.
People picked us in the bottom half of the BE again this year; expectations were not too optimistic.

Honestly, I think that the denigration is the 12th place pick to begin with, but either way you can't say in hindsight that the talent on that team did that much better than they should have been able to, just better than a bunch of uninformed predictions said they would do.

Marquette84

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #88 on: January 31, 2011, 01:40:34 PM »
Not true. Marquette 84 has stated time and time again that we UNDERACHIEVED our talent last year. Underachieving one's talent is hardly doing a "great" job. It's doing a sh*tty job. It's a common reason for firing coaches.

We underachieved in five specific games--DePaul, Florida State, NC State, Notre Dame and Washington

We really only overachieved in one game--Villanova in the BET.





Warriors10

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #89 on: January 31, 2011, 01:45:07 PM »
It happens when we have been to the tournament 5 years in a row.  Also because Marquette really should be in Louisville's position right now at 7-2 in conference (2nd place by ourselfs, basically auto-bid into the NCAA tournament) but we choked it away; now an NCAA bid is not even close to automatic.

Marquette84

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #90 on: January 31, 2011, 02:22:04 PM »
Whether a team "overachieves" or "underachieves" has to be related to what the expectations were going in. Having been picked last year for 12th in the BE, you'd more or less have to say the team "overachieved." This constitutes no denigration of anyone - rather, the team and the coach deserve credit for work well done.

No. Whether a team Under- or over-achieves can only be based on the actual talent we had.

Expectations can be wrong.  

Say you're like Lenny, where you thought that there was no way that DJO could come close to taking the place of McNeal in the backcourt.  He never really stated exactly what his expectations were, but let's say  he believed DJO was a 15 mpg/5ppg player.

Yet from day one, we knew that DJO was going to be special.  10 games into the season, he was averaging nearly 30 mpg and 13 ppg.  

Did he overachive?  No--he's AVERAGING that.  From day one.  

Clearly DJO is giving you exactly what he was always capable of delivering.  Clearly the low expectations were wrong.

Now lets say you face Villanova--coming in with nearly 30 mpg and 13 ppg.  And you only play 17 minutes and 4 points.  I say that is underachiving.    













The follow-up question is "Did we get spoiled by last year's 'overachieving" to the extent that our expectations this year were too optimistic?" As several posters have pointed out, considering what we lost and our relative inexperience, this year's team is probably doing about what might have been expected, if not a tad better.
[/quote]

Silkk the Shaka

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2011, 02:31:34 PM »
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, last year's team achieved results greater than the sum of its parts.  Acker and Cubillan's skills were maximized, and that's not debatable.  That is a sign of great coaching.  The rest is just pointless "overachieved/underachieved" semantics.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2011, 02:32:04 PM »
We underachieved in five specific games--DePaul, Florida State, NC State, Notre Dame and Washington

We really only overachieved in one game--Villanova in the BET.






So based on our "talent" MU should have been 13-5 and tied for 2nd in the Big East. That translates into at least 2-1 in the conference tourney. So in your world our "talent" equated to a 26-7 regular season, resulting in a 2 or 3 seed in the tourney and a minimum Sweet 16 and quite likely Elite 8 finish (either 28-8 or 28-9). And that's just if Buzz gets out of the way and let's our mega talent take over. If he actually does something positive with it we're at least in the Final 4 and we're probably talking National Championship. Certainly no agenda evident in those kind of expectations.

warthog-driver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2011, 03:52:36 PM »
No. Whether a team Under- or over-achieves can only be based on the actual talent we had.

So, Joanie, what was the coach's impact in little Stanford vanquishing The Mighty Trojans of USC?


"I know Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is a brother of mine. Buzz Williams is no Jim Harbaugh!"

Marquette84

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2011, 05:04:04 PM »
So based on our "talent" MU should have been 13-5 and tied for 2nd in the Big East. That translates into at least 2-1 in the conference tourney. So in your world our "talent" equated to a 26-7 regular season, resulting in a 2 or 3 seed in the tourney and a minimum Sweet 16 and quite likely Elite 8 finish (either 28-8 or 28-9). And that's just if Buzz gets out of the way and let's our mega talent take over. If he actually does something positive with it we're at least in the Final 4 and we're probably talking National Championship. Certainly no agenda evident in those kind of expectations.

So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent?  Really?

And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET).   So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".  

But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament.  Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round?  How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2011, 05:21:01 PM »
So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent?  Really?

And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET).   So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".  

But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament.  Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round?  How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?


Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.

The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement for a team consisting of Mo Acker, David Cubillan, DJO, JFB, Lazar and almost no bench. I think that's insane.

ATL MU Warrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2011, 05:51:48 PM »
So you're saying that you thought the losses to DePaul and Notre Dame should have been expected based on our talent?  Really?

And one big flaw in your straw man--even in a 2nd place tie with Pitt, WVU and VU, our combined record was 0-4 against those three teams in regular season (we did beat Villanova in the BET).   So in the NCAA tournament, we would still be seeded behind each of them them--Pitt was a 3--we would have been a 4 or 5--which hardly equate to a "likely Elite 8 finish".  

But even with the 6 seed we received, we wound up losing to the #11 seed in the tournament.  Wouldn't you expect that we at least survive to the 2nd round?  How is that overachivement, when we are a 6 seed but lose in the first round?
The fact that we were a 6 seed in the first place is the overachievement.  Given what we had on last year's team I don't see how anybody could or would argue otherwise. 


El Duderino

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2011, 07:05:13 PM »
Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.

The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement for a team consisting of Mo Acker, David Cubillan, DJO, JFB, Lazar and almost no bench. I think that's insane.

No kidding

Those five guys and basically just Buycks beat Xavier, Villanova, Georgetown, and Louisville.

Besides beating those tourney teams, beating teams like Seton Hall, Cincinnati, and UConn on the road wouldn't be easy wins for any team.

There were also the very close losses on the road to a pair of two seeds in WV and Villanova. Yea they ended up being losses, but that doesn't diminish the great efforts the team put up on the road vs two very good teams.

I actually think this year's MU team has more talent than last year's team, but talent isn't everything. Last year there were three seniors who were on the court most of the time. That type of senior leadership i think would have prevented a loss or two that the team this year has struggled with when try to hold on to second half leads. DJO not being able to hit from the perimeter early in the season also factored into close losses to Duke and Gonzaga. If he wasn't so frigid from the perimeter in both of those games, i think we win at least one of them.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2011, 07:06:20 PM »
"or El Duderino...if brevity isn't your thing..."

Marquette84

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Is MU Nation Melting Down?
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2011, 07:35:46 PM »
Of course we had better talent than DePaul and should have beaten them. Don't think our talent was better than ND.

Of course our talent was better than ND.  We had far more athleticism, our stud was a first rounder (versus late 2nd for Harangody), Acker was a better PG.  We had more JUCO AAs and HS top 100 players.
Plus we were playing at home.


The bottom line is you think anything less than a 13-5 conference record

No.  This is where your inability to apply critical thinking gets you into trouble.

A loss to a 50/50 team would have been understandable.  Had we finished 11-7, but those losses were to Georgetown or Louisville instead of Notre Dame and DePaul, that wouldn't have been a sign of any underachivement.

My point is that a team that can beat Georgetown and Louisville SHOULD be able to have beaten Notre Dame at home and DePaul on any court in the nation.


and a 28-8 sweet 16 appearance was an underachievement

Again, it depends on where the losses come.  Certainly losing to an 11 seed (when you're a six) is an underachievement.   Had we won the first game, losing to the #3 seed in the 2nd round would not have been an underachivement--it would have been expected.


for a team consisting of Mo Acker (#4 nationally in A:T ratio), David Cubillan (#7 offensive rating in the Big East) , DJO (#6 3 point shooting percentage nationally, #1 in conference), JFB (#6 offensive rating nationally, #1 in the Big East) , Lazar(Only first round pick other than Wade in last 30 years) and almost no bench(15.9 ppg, 11 rpg).


Earlier you got mad because I claimed you said our players weren't very good.  

Now you're just listing their names in an attempt to suggest that they weren't very good.