Mervyn Lindsay official visit on 6/13

[BCHoopster]

In Buzz I trust

Win at all cost, or Buzz I trust, lets see how it plays out.  Sometimes you have to think
about the kids.  Most of the late recruits TC signed fell by the wayside, I hope we do
not go back to that again.

[Tugg Speedman]

Win at all cost, or Buzz I trust, lets see how it plays out. Sometimes you have to think
about the kids. Most of the late recruits TC signed fell by the wayside, I hope we do
not go back to that again.

Why?

What's wrong with giving a kid an opportunity to play BE ball at MU and get an education? Once on the team everyone wants him to succeed. If it does not, then move to a place that is better fit.

I'm all for opportunities. If you're not getting transfers, your not giving opportunities.

Need I remind you that UNC, UCLA, Duke, Kentucky et. al all have more transfers that MU. They are all about giving someone a chance. We should do the same.

[Skatastrophy]

Why?

What's wrong with giving a kid an opportunity to play BE ball at MU and get an education? Once on the team everyone wants him to succeed. If it does not, then move to a place that is better fit.

I'm all for opportunities. If you're not getting transfers, your not giving opportunities.

Need I remind you that UNC, UCLA, Duke, Kentucky et. al all have more transfers that MU. They are all about giving someone a chance. We should do the same.

+1

At work I take a chance hiring guys that are a stretch for a position.  Sometimes they work out brilliantly, and other times they crash and burn.  No matter what they're thankful for the opportunity to "play up a level."  It's not like they're unaware when they're crashing and burning that they're not long for the company.  Should I keep them on just because they have a family?  No.  Everyone else has a family too.  We're not running a charity.  We gave the guy./girl a fair shot, but when it's time to move on, it's time to move on.

[Stretchdeltsig]

Agree in giving people chances.  However, it is important to recruit talented people for positions that you need.  Marquette needs more talented "bigs" to compete in the BE.  We do not have a "big" recruit for this year or next year.  To strengthen our team Buzz needs to recruit at least one 6'8"+ for this year and one for next.

[GGGG]

Everyone knows we need size but we have two scholies available. No reason not to use one on an up and comer like lindsay.

[BCHoopster]

So lets say York and Taylor and another big want to come to MU, then what do you do?  Revolving
door anyone?  The idea is to have 4 year kids, or MU will have there own one and done.  I just do not
see where Lindsay fits?

[Ben Golds Five]

The kid is 6-7 and still growing; how do you not see where he fits?

[BCHoopster]

The kid is 6-7 and still growing; how do you not see where he fits?

You have Juan Anderson at the same size, you got Jamil Jones, looks awful skinny and you need
somebody to take over for Crowder in a year, I would rather get 2 bigger body kids.  Vander can
play some 3 as well as Wilson, again where does he fit?

[Stretchdeltsig]

Good discussion for a change.  We all want the best for MU.  It's great to have great athletes.  But, it's even better to have great "big" athletes.  The BE is a really tough league and we simply need talented "bigs" to compete at the top level.

[BCHoopster]

Good discussion for a change.  We all want the best for MU.  It's great to have great athletes.  But, it's even better to have great "big" athletes.  The BE is a really tough league and we simply need talented "bigs" to compete at the top level.

I am in total agreement, unless the kid came in and really turned some heads, otherwise there could be a logjam
next year if you really want York, then for sure you need the tenders.  I am not against overrecruiting kids, but
still play within the 13 player limit.

[GGGG]

I don't think many coaches build their team the way you are suggesting.  I don't think they say "Wow, if we offer player A a scholie, what are we going to do if players X,Y and Z want to all come here??"

I think most try to build a team as strong as they can year in and year out, and if they have a problem with over-offering, they deal with it when the time comes. 

[MU_Iceman]

Good discussion for a change.  We all want the best for MU.  It's great to have great athletes.  But, it's even better to have great "big" athletes.  The BE is a really tough league and we simply need talented "bigs" to compete at the top level.

I truly don't know what is still available but I am of the mindset that, given the make-up of next year's roster (from a size and position perspective), if Buzz & Co is looking to add another piece to the '11 puzzle this would be a perfect opportunity to take a flyer on a project big (again, assuming there is one even available).  We're stacked on the wings and it's safe assumption that O'tule and Gardner will have the lions share of the minutes available at the 5 this season, why not bring in a big body to compete every day in practice, bulk up, work with the coaches and see if we can't develop a serviceable post player?

I think that'd be a better use of a scholarship than another guy that'll contribute to a logjam...but that said, if we do bring in Lindsay, obviously it'll be based on a decision from far-more-informed individuals than anyone of us...gonna be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Stretchdeltsig]

Ditto!

[GGGG]

Why do people keep saying their is a "logjam?"

Last year, we had two posts, two points (including combo guard Buycks), and eight switchables.

If Lindsay signs, we will have two posts, two points (including combo guard Wilson), and eight switchables.

In 2012-13, we are slated to have two posts, three points (including combos Wilson and Taylor), and seven switchables...and one scholarship left.

There isn't a "logjam" anywhere.  This is how Buzz builds his team.

[GOO]

I'm sure there is a quality big out there asking to come to MU for 2011, and Buzz is telling him no...    Let's get real folks.  Obviously, there isn't.  Bizz could appease a lot of people by just signing some big guy who can't play at the BE level.  Many would be happy just to see some 6'10" 250 pound guy sign, even if Buzz thinks he will never, ever play.  I for one am glad that Buzz doesn't waste a ride on a stiff just because he is big.  It isn't like Buzz doesn't understand that we need a quality big, even a project who he believes will be a quality big.

Should we take a big for 2011 who is not a BE players who will ride the end of the bench?  Of course not.

Given that we are short of players for 2011, if there is a wing type of player who could also play the 4 in a few years, you take him if he is BE quality.  We'll have 3 or 4 guys who could be capable of playing the 3/4.  

If we get a big for 2012, great.  I think we will for 2012, but there just isn't much out there that we know of for 2011.   If we don't get a big for 2011 or 2012, at least we have some guys who can slide over to the 4.  

I'd rather have good players on the court, even if we are undersized at the 4  (weight wise, not height, as we'll have enough guys in the 6'7" / 6'8" range), then a stiff big who doesn't see any time.  If there are no decent bigs lined up for 2011, and we can get a quality player who is a wing with height, let's take him.  We can play with a Center, a Point, and 3 Wings.  We will still be way bigger than we have become used to as our wings and point are now taller. They key is to have good players on the floor, not just big guys.

[Pakuni]

I don't think many coaches build their team the way you are suggesting.  I don't think they say "Wow, if we offer player A a scholie, what are we going to do if players X,Y and Z want to all come here??"

I think most try to build a team as strong as they can year in and year out, and if they have a problem with over-offering, they deal with it when the time comes. 

Agreed.
I don't think you pass on a talented player who wants to come to MU because you hope, 5-6 months later, another possibly more talented player might want to come to Marquette. The problem with that thinking is that you could easily end up with neither player.
The saying about a bird in the hand holds true here.

[NersEllenson]

I don't think many coaches build their team the way you are suggesting.  I don't think they say "Wow, if we offer player A a scholie, what are we going to do if players X,Y and Z want to all come here??"

I think most try to build a team as strong as they can year in and year out, and if they have a problem with over-offering, they deal with it when the time comes. 

Thus why coaches get paid the big bucks. Recruiting is such a crap shoot if u are not Duke, Kentucky, or North Carolina. You may think you have a kid like York in the fold, bit then he changes his mind..MU is not at the point where it can wet count on landing the recruits it wants. If Buzz and staff really like a kid who is willing to commit, you take te commitment as there is no guarantee you get the York or Poythress etc. It then comes down to player development and if as a coach u are confident in a kids work ethic ad your ability as a coach to develop talent (so long a the kid has good enough potential), you move forward. Transfers will happen. Kids use schools as training grounds to get to the NBA and if they don't like their development, they leave.

All this said, yes, it would be a better fit current roster complexion to get a project big...but who is that kid and so u really want to take on an Mbao type of player..when u could have had a kid that could possibly be better than one of your current wing players?

[GGGG]

Ners, that's a good point.  Mbao was a "project big" signed late in the year.  How did that work out???  He'd STILL be riding the bench here if he stuck around.

[GOO]

Sadly, I have to admit that I liked Mbao and thought that he had a future.  Maybe 3 years off, but he was a big who could really move.  Guess, I was way off.  The way things went down, I had the impression that he may not have been the hardest worker, but I have no inside info.

[MerrittsMustache]

Why do people keep saying their is a "logjam?"

Last year, we had two posts, two points (including combo guard Buycks), and eight switchables.

If Lindsay signs, we will have two posts, two points (including combo guard Wilson), and eight switchables.

In 2012-13, we are slated to have two posts, three points (including combos Wilson and Taylor), and seven switchables...and one scholarship left.

There isn't a "logjam" anywhere.  This is how Buzz builds his team.

+1

For too often fans confuse having depth with having a logjam. The bottom line is, if you're good enough, you'll see the floor.

Was Lazar blocked by Wes for 3 years? No. Was Jimmy then blocked by Lazar for 2 years? No. All those guys were traditional 3s but they got PT because they had the ability and because Buzz doesn't necessarily label his players 1-5. He doesn't look to bring in X number of 1s, 2s, etc. He wants basketball players who are long, athletic and versatile.

[kmwtrucks]

The problem with all these switchables is they always play up a spot.  IE Vander played more 3 then 2, Butler played 3-4 when he is probably a 2-3 Crowder played a 4-5 when he is 3-4.

When you are undersized at nearly every spot on the floor compared to the top 1/2 of the Big East, you don't get many easy shots and you give up lots more O Reb and easy put backs.  

Small lineups need to have low turnovers and shoot the ball from the outside at a solid rate to have a chance at winning.  Big Lineups the margin for error is much greater.

In Retrospect would should have pulled the trigger on Martin in the fall, I don't blame Buzz for waiting he did not know EW was leaving and did not get a chance to see him Play.

That said Wilson is taller then Butler, and Gardner and Otule will play more minutes so we will be slighlty bigger next year.  

[GGGG]

kmw, I understand what you are saying.

But I would rather be undersized with talent than have size that isn't BE capable.  (Of course, I would rather have talented bigs.  Buzz does too.)

[bilsu]

Sadly, I have to admit that I liked Mbao and thought that he had a future.  Maybe 3 years off, but he was a big who could really move.  Guess, I was way off.  The way things went down, I had the impression that he may not have been the hardest worker, but I have no inside info.

+1
I always looked forward to him playing. As I always said he was the best looking worst player I had ever seen. You watch him run up the floor once with that size and think this guy is really good. Then you watched him play and he simply was not strong enough.

[MUMac]

You watch him run up the floor once with that size and think this guy is really good.

This is likely why we signed him.

Then you watched him play and he simply was not strong enough.

This is likely why he left. 

[texaswarrior74]

By all accounts, 2012 is they year of multiple high quality bigs....and they are being pursued by every top ten program...hopefully one will see the immediate playing time that MU will have for them.

It's still hard to compete when UNC, Duke, UConn and other perennial powers are in the mix for bigs so the sheer number out there in 2012 hopefully will help us land one.