Grade Buzz's Career At MU

[Marquette84]

I doubt that.  Smith signed in the early period (Nov. 09).  Newbill committed in Feb 10 and didn't sign until April 10.

If Wilson had come to MU before April 10th, you're correct. Smith had a signed LOI and Newbill was only a verbal.  

But as of April 10, both Smith and Newbill were on equal footing with respect to their future enrollment at MU. Both had signed LOIs on file with the school, and both would have the same potential date of enrollment.

Anytime after April 10, Buzz had equal ability to go to either Smith or Newbill and offer the deal to make room for Wilson. He chose to ask Newbill for the release from his LOI--he could have just as easily asked Smith.

[Lennys Tap]

2009 I think we actually underachieved talent.  

Our three guard starting backcourt had a TOTAL number of 8 high major starts under their belt entering the season. The number would have been 0 but for injury and the teams record was 2-6 in those games. They were 5'8, 5'11, and 6'2 (and that's being very generous. Our starting "power forward" was a 6'7 small forward who was an honorable mention AA in junior college (that's a couple of notches below a Jamail Lott) and had never started a D1 game. Our starting "center" was a stud, but he was a 3/4 totally playing out of position. In short, we were extremely small, and 2 of our 3 "experienced" players were undistinguished career backups. And as Big East teams go we had a very thin, weak bench.


Hall of fame coaches (Calhoun, Pitino) marveled at how much Buzz squeezed out of this undersized, ordinary at best group. Calhoun even admitted that UCONN had much more talent than MU despite Marquette's better record.

Saying that last year's team (11-7 conference, 6 seed in the tournament) UNDERPERFORMED its talents would be received by any knowledgeable basketball fan the same way a flat earther would be looked on by the scientific community - bewilderment and laughter.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Our three guard starting backcourt had a TOTAL number of 8 high major starts under their belt entering the season. The number would have been 0 but for injury and the teams record was 2-6 in those games. They were 5'8, 5'11, and 6'2 (and that's being very generous. Our starting "power forward" was a 6'7 small forward who was an honorable mention AA in junior college (that's a couple of notches below a Jamail Lott) and had never started a D1 game. Our starting "center" was a stud, but he was a 3/4 totally playing out of position. In short, we were extremely small, and 2 of our 3 "experienced" players were undistinguished career backups. And as Big East teams go we had a very thin, weak bench.

Hall of fame coaches (Calhoun, Pitino) marveled at how much Buzz squeezed out of this undersized, ordinary at best group. Calhoun even admitted that UCONN had much more talent than MU despite Marquette's better record.

Saying that last year's team (11-7 conference, 6 seed in the tournament) UNDERPERFORMED its talents would be received by any knowledgeable basketball fan the same way a flat earther would be looked on by the scientific community - bewilderment and laughter.

Well said. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Our three guard starting backcourt had a TOTAL number of 8 high major starts under their belt entering the season. The number would have been 0 but for injury and the teams record was 2-6 in those games. They were 5'8, 5'11, and 6'2 (and that's being very generous. Our starting "power forward" was a 6'7 small forward who was an honorable mention AA in junior college (that's a couple of notches below a Jamail Lott) and had never started a D1 game. Our starting "center" was a stud, but he was a 3/4 totally playing out of position. In short, we were extremely small, and 2 of our 3 "experienced" players were undistinguished career backups. And as Big East teams go we had a very thin, weak bench.


Hall of fame coaches (Calhoun, Pitino) marveled at how much Buzz squeezed out of this undersized, ordinary at best group. Calhoun even admitted that UCONN had much more talent than MU despite Marquette's better record.

Saying that last year's team (11-7 conference, 6 seed in the tournament) UNDERPERFORMED its talents would be received by any knowledgeable basketball fan the same way a flat earther would be looked on by the scientific community - bewilderment and laughter.

+1

[bilsu]

I thought the question was about his coaching ability and I gave him an A for that. The team always plays hard, but let face in the Big East we are less talented than a number of teams. I thought we were a quick team, but Uconns bigs were so much more athletic it was unbelieveable. MU has given up a number of leads and lost close games under Buzz and it is easy to say he was out coached. However, I have a different take on it. The announcers frequently say the MU is the hardest playing team in the conference. They play hard on defense and offense. That is how they get in these close games against more talented teams. The other teams do not work as hard, but because ot their talented level they can turn it on at end of games and steal a game from a less talented team that out played because of effort for most of the game. At this point if you base the grade on recruiting I would give him an A for effort and a C+ for results. At this point I think the talent level at MU is on a decline.

[Marquette84]

Our three guard starting backcourt had a TOTAL number of 8 high major starts under their belt entering the season. The number would have been 0 but for injury and the teams record was 2-6 in those games. They were 5'8, 5'11, and 6'2 (and that's being very generous. Our starting "power forward" was a 6'7 small forward who was an honorable mention AA in junior college (that's a couple of notches below a Jamail Lott) and had never started a D1 game. Our starting "center" was a stud, but he was a 3/4 totally playing out of position. In short, we were extremely small, and 2 of our 3 "experienced" players were undistinguished career backups. And as Big East teams go we had a very thin, weak bench.


Hall of fame coaches (Calhoun, Pitino) marveled at how much Buzz squeezed out of this undersized, ordinary at best group. Calhoun even admitted that UCONN had much more talent than MU despite Marquette's better record.

Saying that last year's team (11-7 conference, 6 seed in the tournament) UNDERPERFORMED its talents would be received by any knowledgeable basketball fan the same way a flat earther would be looked on by the scientific community - bewilderment and laughter.

Those are the exact same arguments you made BEFORE last season began.  

Why are you still making them even though we both know you were wrong on every one of them?

You thought that because DJO and Buycks were JUCOs without D1 experience, they would suck.
I thought that because they were 1st team AA JUCOs, they would be good players for us.
Who made the right call on this one?

You thought that because Acker had a 2-6 record, and he was short, that he wouldn't be any good.
I thought that because he played well against 5 Elite Eight teams, he would be pretty good.
Who made the right call on this one?

You thought that because Hayward was out of position and short, he wouldn't be good.
I thought based on an outstanding junior year and some preseason NBA draft interest, he would be a stud.
Who made the right call on this one?

You thought because Butler never started, and wasn't highly regarded in HS, that he couldn't be good.
I thought that because he had outstanding offensive performance in 2009, he would shine when moved up to a starting role.
Who made the right call on this one?

Saying that last year's team (11-7 conference, 6 seed in the tournament) UNDERPERFORMED its talents would be received by any knowledgeable basketball fan the same way a flat earther would be looked on by the scientific community - bewilderment and laughter.

You confuse overachieving our talent with overachieving your expectations.

We already know you booted it on making an accurate assessment of our talent. We actually had much more than you gave us credit for.

Now we have to look at what we did with that talent.  

For example, do you HONESTLY feel that it was an accurate reflection of our team's talent to lose to DePaul?  
Do you think we lacked the talent to beat Notre Dame and NC State at home?  
To hold a 17 point 2nd half lead to Florida State?  
Lose (as a #6 seed) to the #11 seed Washington by blowing a 15 point 2nd half lead?

I believe MARQUETTE was the better team in each of those five games, therefore, losing each is evidence of underachievement in each.

On the other side, only Villanova was clearly better than we were.  

[Lennys Tap]

You thought that because DJO and Buycks were JUCOs without D1 experience, they would suck.



You thought that because Acker had a 2-6 record, and he was short, that he wouldn't be any good.


You thought that because Hayward was out of position and short, he wouldn't be good.


You thought because Butler never started, and wasn't highly regarded in HS, that he couldn't be good.




 

1. Total fabrication/lie. NEVER said that Buycks or DJO would "suck" - or anything like that.

2. I will readily admit that Acker played better than I ever expected. He was recruited by Tom Crean as mid major transfer to serve as a back up point guard. I agree with Crean's assessment of his "talent" level.

3. Total fabrication/lie part II. Never thought or said Hayward "wouldn't be good". Quite the contrary.

4. Total fabrication/lie part III. Again please point out where I EVER said Jimmy Butler "couldn't be any good". You won't because I didn't.

We had talent on last year's team, but not elite level Big East talent. That was clear to anyone who gets paid to judge it. When a hall of fame coach like Jim Calhoun, a guy who could forget 80% of what he knows about basketball and still know twice as much as you, calls MU the poster child of OVERACHIEVERS  I listen. The good news, of course, is that the game doesn't always go to the team with the most talent.

If you want to stand alone on an island shouting that MU underachieved its talent last year be my guest - it's worth a good laugh for everyone else. Please refrain from lying (claiming I said Buycks and DJO sucked or Lazar and Butler couldn't play) in an attempt to make your point. 

[Da 'Lanche]

Might as well provide some context:

Al:   A+
Hank:  B+ as a head coach and A as an Assistant
Majerus:  C-
Dukiet:  F
Deanne: C
O'Neal:  B+
Crean:  A
Buzz:  Objectively a B with potential.   But, compared to my reactions/expectations when he was named head coach:  A+

[Marquette84]

1. Total fabrication/lie. NEVER said that Buycks or DJO would "suck" - or anything like that.

This is a simple one, Lenny.  You claimed that we had 12th place talent. 12th place sucks. 

2. I will readily admit that Acker played better than I ever expected. He was recruited by Tom Crean as mid major transfer to serve as a back up point guard. I agree with Crean's assessment of his "talent" level.

Let me get this straight:  You completely ignored Acker's recent performance against 5 elite eight opponents late in the 2009 season, and instead based your prediction on information from when he was recruited back in 2006? 

No wonder you were so wrong.

3. Total fabrication/lie part II. Never thought or said Hayward "wouldn't be good". Quite the contrary.

Contrary?  You thought Hayward was the centerpiece of a 12th place team.  12th place DEFINES a performance thats not very good.   
 

4. Total fabrication/lie part III. Again please point out where I EVER said Jimmy Butler "couldn't be any good". You won't because I didn't.

You specifically said Butler was "a couple notches below Jamil Lott."   

We had talent on last year's team, but not elite level Big East talent.

Straw man alert:  I never said we were going to contend for the league title and a #1 seed in the NCAA.

But I did say that we had top half talent, with upside to fifth or sixth place.

From day one you thought we had 12th place talent, and you stuck with it even when it was painfully obvious how wrong you were.

If you want to stand alone on an island shouting that MU underachieved its talent last year be my guest -
it's worth a good laugh for everyone else. Please refrain from lying (claiming I said Buycks and DJ sucked or Lazar and Butler couldn't play) in an attempt to make your point. 

You said over and over that our guys were no better than a 12th place team. 

12th place sucks.  Its the spot for the best of the sucky teams--bottom feeders like DePaul, Providence, South Florida, Rutgers and St. Johns.

Meanwhile, I know we underachieved last year--specifically in losses to DePaul, Florida State, NC State, Notre Dame and Washington.  And I don't think may people join you in laughing over those losses.

[Tugg Speedman]

Might as well provide some context:

Al:   A+
Hank:  B+ as a head coach and A as an Assistant
Majerus:  C-
Dukiet:  F
Deanne: C
O'Neal:  B+
Crean:  A
Buzz:  Objectively a B with potential.   But, compared to my reactions/expectations when he was named head coach:  A+

What is your grade for Tex Winters?

[mviale]

I believe Buzz, with the win over the Cuse, is an AB.

[Lennys Tap]

This is a simple one, Lenny.  You claimed that we had 12th place talent. 12th place sucks. 

So for you, the 12th most talented team in the Big East has NOBODY that can play. Everyone by definition sucks and has zero talent. That's your definition, not mine. Don't lie about what I said using that bogus criteria.

Last year, UCONN finished 12th in the Big East, PROOF to you that they had no, zero, nada talent. I would beg to differ. Kemba Walker, Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson were just a few of their guys I think can play a little. It must be fascinating to live in a world where a backcourt of Mo Acker and David Cubillan has more basketball talent than one with Kemba Walker and Jerome Dyson - lonely but nevertheless fascinating.

[Badgerhater]

If Buzz's MU career is graded based on a semester, I would say that he has a solid B coming out of a midterm (successful seasons, recruiting a roster) with the potential (next two seasons) of getting an A (top 4 BE finish and major NCAA run).  He still needs to put in the hard work to get that A, but thus far appears to have the capability to achieve one.

[ErickJD08]

Buzz has to get an A in my book.  He recruits extremely well.  Or roster is starting to look like an elite program.  What I mean by that is that we have high level recruits allowed to develop and not forced to contribute right away.  

After last season, I have a long leash with Buzz.  To pull off 10+ wins again with that roster was impressive.  And think about the last second losses we had too (WV and DePaul comes to mine).

We are definitely walking down the right road.  Blue will be a great player.  The jumper will come with confidence and a summer in the weight room will help him around the rim.  Wilson will be good.  JC, Crowder, Gardner, Otule, and DJO will all be solid contributors.  And we might get surprised by EWill, Jones, or a freshmen at some point.  

I think Buzz is setting up a great foundation and winning at the same time.  I am impressed by that.  And I don't think there is much more you can ask for.

[Marquette84]

So for you, the 12th most talented team in the Big East has NOBODY that can play. Everyone by definition sucks and has zero talent. That's your definition, not mine. Don't lie about what I said using that bogus criteria.

Last year, UCONN finished 12th in the Big East, PROOF to you that they had no, zero, nada talent. I would beg to differ. Kemba Walker, Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson were just a few of their guys I think can play a little. It must be fascinating to live in a world where a backcourt of Mo Acker and David Cubillan has more basketball talent than one with Kemba Walker and Jerome Dyson - lonely but nevertheless fascinating.

I'm surprised you you didn't simply say UConn underachieved.

For the record, most UConn fans I know thought their team sucked last year. Calhoun was distracted by the NCAA investigation.  He had too many guys that were only in it for themselves--not playing team ball.  A whole host of reasons they sucked.

Your attempt to build up their 12th place finish as some kind of elite performance that we should be proud of would generate the same type of laughter that would come from your belief that it was an overachievement to lose to DePaul, NC State, Florida State, Notre Dame and Washington.

I'm still waiting for you to name even a single game other than VU in the BET that truly represents overachievement based on the actual talent we had (not your incorrect idea of what you thought we had)

[Lennys Tap]

I'm surprised you you didn't simply say UConn underachieved.

For the record, most UConn fans I know thought their team sucked last year. Calhoun was distracted by the NCAA investigation.  He had too many guys that were only in it for themselves--not playing team ball.  A whole host of reasons they sucked.

Your attempt to build up their 12th place finish as some kind of elite performance that we should be proud of would generate the same type of laughter that would come from your belief that it was an overachievement to lose to DePaul, NC State, Florida State, Notre Dame and Washington.

I'm still waiting for you to name even a single game other than VU in the BET that truly represents overachievement based on the actual talent we had (not your incorrect idea of what you thought we had)

What's with all this bs about distractions and not playing team ball. In your world it's simple. If a team finishes 12th it proves they have 12th place talent. And in your world, having 12th place talent = every single player on your team sucks and has no talent.

Off the top of my head, the many teams we beat last year with more talent than us include Xavier, Georgetown, and UCONN, Cincinnati and St Johns back to back to back on the road.

[TJ]

What's with all this bs about distractions and not playing team ball. In your world it's simple. If a team finishes 12th it proves they have 12th place talent. And in your world, having 12th place talent = every single player on your team sucks and has no talent.

Off the top of my head, the many teams we beat last year with more talent than us include Xavier, Georgetown, and UCONN, Cincinnati and St Johns back to back to back on the road.

You really think that we were less talented than SJU last year?  Wow.

I disagree with Marquette84 about listing the 5 games and saying they should have won them all (except DePaul) - there's going to be losses in a season and we didn't have any horrible ones (except DePaul).  However, I agree with 84 in that I don't see the great number of games they won that they shouldn't have, which would be required to over-achieve.

Nova - sure
Xavier - they were good, not sure if they were that much better than us though.  One of those games that could go either way.
Georgetown - same as Xavier
UConn - not a better team than MU.  12th place finish doesn't lie
SJU - I have no words if you think that last year's SJU team was more talented than last year's MU team.

[Lennys Tap]

You really think that we were less talented than SJU last year?  Wow.

I disagree with Marquette84 about listing the 5 games and saying they should have won them all (except DePaul) - there's going to be losses in a season and we didn't have any horrible ones (except DePaul).  However, I agree with 84 in that I don't see the great number of games they won that they shouldn't have, which would be required to over-achieve.

Nova - sure
Xavier - they were good, not sure if they were that much better than us though.  One of those games that could go either way.
Georgetown - same as Xavier
UConn - not a better team than MU.  12th place finish doesn't lie
SJU - I have no words if you think that last year's SJU team was more talented than last year's MU team.

I think St. John's talent was close to ours last year and the game was our third consecutive road game. The same guys that played for them last year just absolutely routed Duke yesterday. UCONN certainly didn't turn out to be the better team than us but unquestionably had more talent (Walker, Dyson, Robinson, Oriakhi, etc.)

[mutodd5]

What's with all of the A-/B+/B- talk?  When I went to MU, there were 8 potential grades....

A
AB
B
BC
C
CD
D
F

I gave him an "A" in the poll, because I didn't have AB as an option.  I believe Buzz has overachieved in recruiting.  When Cottingham hired him, did *anyone* out there think we'd have as good of recruiting classes as we've had? 

As for some comments about recruiting JUCOs, I think that that was partly the hand he was dealt in the team he took over.  He's really hit big time as the core of our team and majority of the leadership right now are from JUCO guys (Butler, Buycks, Crowder, DJO, & Fulce).  It's not like we're becoming Huggins' Cincy teams of the 90s.... All of our JUCO guys appear to be good representatives of Marquette, so I don't like the grouping of all JUCO guys into the same category.  I think where regularly relying on JUCO guys hurts is that potential 4-year recruits question whether 1) they'll get any PT or 2) if Buzz can develop a frosh to be an NBA player.

As for NCAA tourney success, I'd LOVE to be mentioned in all of the national media as Final Four contenders every year.  I think it's great that we've consistently made the NCAA tournament and consistently finished in the top half of the Big East, however I think 2010-2011 is the first time that we really get to see Buzz with *his* team.  These are the guys he put together and I think this year getting to the NCAA tournament would be a good step to build on for next year.  A Sweet 16 run would be even better!  I do think that Buzz has had his teams all peak at the right time of the season (Feb/Mar), but just haven't been able to finish out a W in the NCAAs.  I think that happens this year!

Similar to lots of other fans out here, it'd be outstanding if we could get a big with Jimmy's heart/skill and Otule's size.  I'm not saying that Otule hasn't been much improved this year, and I think he will continue to get bigger, but wouldn't it be great to have 2-3 6'10" - 7'2" guys of his size to rotate in throughout the game?

[Pakuni]

Georgetown - same as Xavier
UConn - not a better team than MU.  12th place finish doesn't lie

Really? Georgetown ... a team with a lottery pick (Monroe) and this year's preseason favorite for POY (Freeman) weren't more talented than MU last year?

As for UConn, the issue, I believe, wasn't who had a better team or season (if it were, we'd never have such discussions, we'd just look at records), but rather who was more talented. I'm not sure who in their right mind would argue UConn's roster last year was less talented than MU's. Calhoun certainly got less from his talent than Buzz got from his, but that doesn't change the level of talent. Much as MU overachieved last year, UConn underachieved.

[ErickJD08]

You really think that we were less talented than SJU last year?  Wow.

I disagree with Marquette84 about listing the 5 games and saying they should have won them all (except DePaul) - there's going to be losses in a season and we didn't have any horrible ones (except DePaul).  However, I agree with 84 in that I don't see the great number of games they won that they shouldn't have, which would be required to over-achieve.

Nova - sure
Xavier - they were good, not sure if they were that much better than us though.  One of those games that could go either way.
Georgetown - same as Xavier
UConn - not a better team than MU.  12th place finish doesn't lie
SJU - I have no words if you think that last year's SJU team was more talented than last year's MU team.

Yeah... this is kinda ridiculous.  You are on a message board writing about basketball and yet you sound like every analyst making vanilla statements.  If a team has a good year, they are "talented".  If a team has a bad year, they are "not talented".  UConn recruits extremely well every year.  They are without a doubt more talented than MU and they have been for many years. 

Think about this... So since UNC couldn't make the tourney, does that mean they are not talented even though they get stellar recruits EVERY YEAR?  Watch the game, watch the players, and you decided.  Don't look at the record and the stats and make a vanilla statement about talent.  It is very clear you don't watch many games outside of MU games.

[TJ]

Yeah... this is kinda ridiculous.  You are on a message board writing about basketball and yet you sound like every analyst making vanilla statements.  If a team has a good year, they are "talented".  If a team has a bad year, they are "not talented".  UConn recruits extremely well every year.  They are without a doubt more talented than MU and they have been for many years. 

Think about this... So since UNC couldn't make the tourney, does that mean they are not talented even though they get stellar recruits EVERY YEAR?  Watch the game, watch the players, and you decided.  Don't look at the record and the stats and make a vanilla statement about talent.  It is very clear you don't watch many games outside of MU games.

I give up.  I admit my post that you quoted was pretty stupid.  I'm not going to try to defend my college basketball watching resume, but I do know that GU was better than I said here and a very quality win.  UConn was talented, but they weren't a very good team, and everyone admits that, so I don't think what I said was exactly wrong however we were talking about talent and you are right they always have talent.  But I didn't really want to comment on other teams' talent in all of this.  Really, all I wanted was to say, and hopefully get people to agree, that MU's team last year was as talented as their record indicates, and not a 7-9 win team that got lucky.

Also, I meant to do all of this in the other thread, but got confused and quoted a post in the wrong one.

[Marquette84]

Really? Georgetown ... a team with a lottery pick (Monroe) and this year's preseason favorite for POY (Freeman) weren't more talented than MU last year?

If you made the comparison at the start of the year based on 2009 performance, it is by no means obvious that Freeman was source of a significant talent advantage for Georgetown.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=lazar-hayward&austin-freeman=2008-2009&i=1&lazar-hayward=2008-2009&p1=austin-freeman

Did Georgetown have more talent?  Or did Freeman just overachive more than Hayward did?

As for UConn, the issue, I believe, wasn't who had a better team or season (if it were, we'd never have such discussions, we'd just look at records), but rather who was more talented. I'm not sure who in their right mind would argue UConn's roster last year was less talented than MU's. Calhoun certainly got less from his talent than Buzz got from his, but that doesn't change the level of talent. Much as MU overachieved last year, UConn underachieved.

To make this claim, you have to first assume that we didn't have that talent in the first place.

In other words, you can't say a player "overachieved" until you've defined his normal achievement.  

For example, on what basis do you support your implied claim that DJO and Buycks delivered more on the court than their talents were capable of delivering?   By definition, you set an artificially (and erroneously) low expectation for them.  

What's interesting is that even now, when we have perfect hindsight and know EXACTLY what type of players DJO and Buycks both turned out to be--you're still putting forth the proposition that those players never had the talent or skill to do what they did--they simply "overachieved."

[ErickJD08]

I give up.  I admit my post that you quoted was pretty stupid.  I'm not going to try to defend my college basketball watching resume, but I do know that GU was better than I said here and a very quality win.  UConn was talented, but they weren't a very good team, and everyone admits that, so I don't think what I said was exactly wrong however we were talking about talent and you are right they always have talent.  But I didn't really want to comment on other teams' talent in all of this.  Really, all I wanted was to say, and hopefully get people to agree, that MU's team last year was as talented as their record indicates, and not a 7-9 win team that got lucky.
Also, I meant to do all of this in the other thread, but got confused and quoted a post in the wrong one.

Yeah, I don't agree with any of that.  "Talented" in my mind means that there is some qualities that the kid possesses that comes without practice or good coaching.  Like being lightening fast, a good decision maker, a big man with great coordination, etc.  Many teams in the BE, like UConn, get great talent every year so that they have talent IN EVERY POSITION.  Marquette does not have that.  We don't.  We are talented in some positions, but not all.  But don't get this twisted.  It's not to say we were a garbage team that got lucky.  We played to our strengths very well and executed better than the other team on most nights.  Just because we won, doesn't mean we were pound for pound the better team.  Teams like UConn didn't execute properly every night.  And I give alot of that credit to Buzz.  Not all, but a lot.