Vander Blue versus Davante Gardner

[BallBoy]

Vander was an outstanding offensive and defensive college player.

... in 4 or 5 games.

which, admittedly were important games.

Gardner was limited by Buzz and could have been better.  We got the best Vander will ever produce.

Gardner was not limited by in any way.

[GoldenZebra]

Vander, hands down. Pretty good defense, and made some huge shots that made that season what it was.

[Texas Western]

Heavy debate in the Haanif thread.  Interesting to see how the board sees this question.

For anyone who argues that Davante Gardner wasn't offensively elite, that seems foolish.  Gardner as a junior finished in The Top 100 players in all of college basketball in 9 different offensive categories.  IN the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories - FG percentage and Free Throw Rate (pretty important categories)

As Juniors, Gardner's O Rating was 62nd in the country.  Blue as a Junior was 992.  For context, Blue's best season (his junior year) he did not finish in the Top 100 players in ANY offensive category NOR Defensive categories.  He was 539th in the country in steals.....did not block 1 shot, nor was he ever known as a guy who EVER would take a charge (a skill most elite defenders master.)

For the above reasons, that is why I vote Gardner a better college player. 

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&davante-gardner=2012-2013&i=1&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2012-2013

I agree with you that Gardner was a better college player. He was tearing it up his sophomore year until he got injured. I believe if he wouldn't have hurt the knee that year we could have made the elite 8 or beyond. When ever Davante touched the ball I felt like he was a legitimate threat to score or make a solid pass to an open cutter. I think what he was able to achieve as a Senior with the handicap of Buzz coaching ,and all that entailed.was evidence of his ability.

Yes Vander did many good things his junior year. I was at the Garden when he made that last second shot and I can tell you that everyone in the building knew he was getting the ball and he still made a clutch shot. My issue with Vander was that he still had games where he didn't show up. Not a lot his junior , but just enough so that you couldn't count on him.

In life beyond college yes Vander is a better player and I would pick him over Davante. Davante was a prototype college star and also a very fun player to watch and I would pick him every time over Vander in college.

[MU82]

Yes Vander did many good things his junior year. I was at the Garden when he made that last second shot and I can tell you that everyone in the building knew he was getting the ball and he still made a clutch shot. My issue with Vander was that he still had games where he didn't show up. Not a lot his junior , but just enough so that you couldn't count on him.

In the last 32 games of his junior year, Vander only failed to score in double digits 6 times. That same year, Davante failed to score in double digits in 9 of his final 17 games, including three games in which he had 2 points each (and totaled 5 rebounds in those 3 games). So who didn't show up for what?

While Vander was scoring 123 points in our last 7 games, including the BE-winning finale against St. John's and the NCAA run, Davante was scoring 70.

Look, one can always find stats to make any argument.

I'll stand by what I said: I'll take Gardner's 4 years over Vander's 3 but I'll take Vander's clutch play as a junior.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Blue was decent his junior year in spurts. Gardner was a force for long stretches from sophomore year on.

I love these guys comparing Vander's defense to McNeal's. McNeal was a HORRENDOUS defender after his sophomore year and there is plenty of YouTube evidence to back me up. It tells me all these dopes claiming to see things on the court that others don't are just that...dopes. Kind of like people who claim they post all day at work because it helps them work.

Vander Blue, as a junior guard who had been starting for 3 years, averaged more turnovers than assists. That is bad. He was not a bust, he was not horrible. He was a serviceable guard who Had some nice moments. As far as his professional prospects, he has some size and athleticism. He can't shoot, is a poor ball handler and is questionable decision maker (not as bad as McNeal in that regard).

He was NOT the college player that Davante was and I really don't think it is even debatable.

[Anti-Dentite]

Vander's junior year trumps, that said, I loved #54.

[forgetful]

Vander, hands down. Pretty good defense, and made some huge shots that made that season what it was.

+1…not even close.  One played both sides of the ball well.

[MU Buff]

I will just say it's pretty close in my mind. I'd like to see what Davante could've done with some good guards around him as a senior. I think some of you don't give Vander enough credit for improving as a person and player over his career at Marquette. He was a victim of expectations, especially in terms of trying to rip on Badger fans for chasing him away.

[NersEllenson]

Nice debate on the topic.  A few comments:

1) Generally guards are your go to players, and have the ball in their hands to create, take, and make shots.  That is a core skill requirement of the position - which we completely lacked last season, Gardner's senior year.  Big Men, such as Gardner, Shaq, and whomever else you want to look at - are dependent upon the guards getting them the ball -so by virtue of that, in and of itself it is hard for a big man to have some of the end of game moments Vander had as a junior (yet Vander had to, and did execute in those critical moments as a junior.)

2) There were numerous times in Gardner's career where the strategy was - get the ball to Gardner, and let him go to work..and he excelled in those times as a junior.  Syracuse game rings a bell.

3) Gardner's "conditioning" is poked at, but there are also numerous games where he logged 30+ minutes and put up very good numbers.  IN fact last season his O-Rating was higher in the games he logged 30.  Buzz was a disaster last year, and his coaching greatly hampered Gardner.  I've always said there is a reason why Gardner and Jamil did not mention/thank Buzz 1 time in their senior speeches, yet thanked every other person associated with the team.

4) Vander had a very good junior season, and was a critical player in helping us to victory.  You cannot be good in basketball without good guards - last year of course was the height of evidence for that theory.  Vander also greatly benefited playing with the best big man at Marquette since Damon Key.

5) Wojo is rocking.  Future looking very bright.   

[dgies9156]

Is it possible to vote for both of them as disappointments?

If so, I do.

Vander was billed as a high-end prospect when he came to Marquette. We can debate where he belonged and whether he was four- or five-star, but clearly he was a "get." I remember watching him his freshman and sophomore years and thinking frequently, "son, you ain't in the WIAA anymore!"

He had a good year his junior year and, maybe like Reggie Jackson used to be, was best when the money was on the line. How good he could have been? I don't know. Something happened between him and the Hillbilly or he received bad advice about his skill set.

Davante had a one-inch vertical leap. He reminded me a lot of kids in high school who grew very fast and looked very good until they ran up against very good competition. Davante had some great games, but he was never going to be a Maurice Lucas, Bo Ellis or even Scott Merritt. He was a one dimensional player and he was great at that dimension, but he never grew. Teams tried a "Hack-a-Shak" defense on him and, to his credit, he learned to shoot free throws very well. Davante's scoring performance came at the free-throw line.

I'm probably harsh on Davante, but there is a standard of excellence at Marquette that he did not attain. He was good but maybe I expected more out of him that he could give.

[tower912]

I don't remember Davante ever doing well against athletic bigs.    Maybe the Pitt game against Adams.    He was a bust against Florida.   

[HutchwasClutch]

Vander and Davante made great contributions and major impact to MU basketball during their careers.  But for all of the talents each brought, they both had major flaws in their games too, although Vander improved his more than Davante did.  

That said, who cares anymore who was better between the two?  I'm hoping Wojo doesn't bring in guys with all of the flaws that Buzz did.  Yes, Buzz brought in talented players, but their downsides at times were so easy for good coaches and programs to expose.

There's so much positive to look forward to for this program, why dwell on this futile debate. 

[GGGG]

Devante played above expectations; Vander played below expectations.
Just my opinion.

That's because your expectations for Vander were out of whack. 

[GGGG]

Is it possible to vote for both of them as disappointments?

If so, I do.

Vander was billed as a high-end prospect when he came to Marquette. We can debate where he belonged and whether he was four- or five-star, but clearly he was a "get." I remember watching him his freshman and sophomore years and thinking frequently, "son, you ain't in the WIAA anymore!"

You were the same guy who labelled him as a "bust" a few weeks ago.  As I said then, your outsized expectations for his play aren't his fault.  They are your's.

[GGGG]

Vander was, spare a few games here and there, mediocre for 2/3rds of his college career.   Vander's signature move his Freshman and Sophomore years was to drive the lane and put up a prayer that had zero chance of going in.   Hell, he looked like he hadn't progressed at all the first month of his, later quite superlative Junior year.

Davante, no contest.  He had a steady progression of being an out of shape foul machine to a solid junior and outstanding senior.

You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do.  Gardner was outstanding at one thing...low post scoring.  He certainly improved the other aspects of his game, but in no way would I label him outstanding.

Another way to look at it....Garder was second team Big East in 2014.  Blue was second team in 2013, when the conference was much stronger.

[mu_hilltopper]

You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do.  Gardner was outstanding at one thing...low post scoring.  He certainly improved the other aspects of his game, but in no way would I label him outstanding.

So, if you're only (super) good at one thing, you can't be called outstanding?  So Steve Novak, who wasn't a great defender, wasn't a slasher or low post-player, not a great ball handler either, but was a fantastic shooter 15+ feet out, he didn't have outstanding year(s)?   

(I suppose one could add a superlative skill to Novak, as his FT shooting was excellent .. but Gardner was auto-matic.  (admittedly he wasn't, hovered around 80%, but 10 points better than the rest of the team and league.)).

[GGGG]

So, if you're only (super) good at one thing, you can't be called outstanding?  So Steve Novak, who wasn't a great defender, wasn't a slasher or low post-player, not a great ball handler either, but was a fantastic shooter 15+ feet out, he didn't have outstanding year(s)? 

No.  I think if you are "outstanding" at one thing, but average or below average at others, you can't be considered "outstanding."  Gardner was a servicable defender and rebounder.  His conditioning was not very good either.  Because of those deficiencies he was limited to 26 mpg as a senior. 

Now don't get me wrong, I like Gardner.  He improved tremendously from freshman to senior year.  But at no point didn't I look at him and say "Now *there* is an outstanding college basketball player."

Honestly I never really said that about Vander until the second part of his junior year. 

[77ncaachamps]

Vander had the elite explosiveness and picked up the scoring at will much later in his career.

Ox was just a consistent force but couldn't create for himself. FTs though were pretty much automatic which won favor in many a fan's eye since big men "weren''t supposed to make FTs."

This is a tough one.

I voted for Ox because he was the low post scorer and a pretty consistent front court presence during his four years.

But Vander's ability to create his own shot/scoring opportunity deserves praise except it didn't happen until later in his MU career (part soph/junior years).


Vander Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/vander-blue-1.html

Davante Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/davante-gardner-1.html


EDIT:  Looking at Davante's last year with MU, he posted personal bests in almost every category despite playing 3 less games during a piss poor coaching season. DG with the nod.

[bilsu]

I think Gardner's senior year was somewhat disappointing. A lot of it had to do with him no longer being teamed with Cadougan, who was very good at dumping the ball off to Gardner. That was a skill that Derrick lacked. The team probably would not have been a disaster last year, if Cadougan had redshirted as a freshmen. I would say that letting Cadougan come back for at the end of his freshmen year resulted in no extra wins that year and probably cost us at least 7 wins last year.

[mu_hilltopper]

No.  I think if you are "outstanding" at one thing, but average or below average at others, you can't be considered "outstanding."  Gardner was a servicable defender and rebounder.  His conditioning was not very good either.  Because of those deficiencies he was limited to 26 mpg as a senior. 

Now don't get me wrong, I like Gardner.  He improved tremendously from freshman to senior year.  But at no point didn't I look at him and say "Now *there* is an outstanding college basketball player."

Honestly I never really said that about Vander until the second part of his junior year. 

I don't see how your comments invalidate my conjecture that you'd say Novak doesn't qualify as outstanding/having an outstanding year.   Novak and Gardner had areas they were serviceable, and one+ area they were outstanding.  

Not sure why you'd throw in conditioning as some form of "outstanding invalidator" but one could easily argue Gardner's lack of minutes was due to Buzz's rotations.  He used Ox as a 6th man offensive machine, and Otule as a better defender.  

We do 100% agree that few thought Vander was an outstanding player until the 2nd part of his junior year.   That's why I find this thread so strange, as 2/3rds of Vander's career was just plain mediocre with fits of frustrating awfulness.    How many times did we cover our eyes as you KNEW Vander was going to drive to the basket and flip an awful shot no where near the bucket... it was his signature move for two freaking years.    (True, after his Freshman year, at least Ox gave up his move: fouling guys within 8 seconds of being in the game.)

[ThatDude]

Gardner was not limited by in any way.

Gardner was very limited

[GGGG]

I don't see how your comments invalidate my conjecture that you'd say Novak doesn't qualify as outstanding/having an outstanding year.   Novak and Gardner had areas they were serviceable, and one+ area they were outstanding.  

Not sure why you'd throw in conditioning as some form of "outstanding invalidator" but one could easily argue Gardner's lack of minutes was due to Buzz's rotations.  He used Ox as a 6th man offensive machine, and Otule as a better defender.  

We do 100% agree that few thought Vander was an outstanding player until the 2nd part of his junior year.   That's why I find this thread so strange, as 2/3rds of Vander's career was just plain mediocre with fits of frustrating awfulness.    How many times did we cover our eyes as you KNEW Vander was going to drive to the basket and flip an awful shot no where near the bucket... it was his signature move for two freaking years.    (True, after his Freshman year, at least Ox gave up his move: fouling guys within 8 seconds of being in the game.)

I didn't address your conjecture regarding Novak because he wasn't part of the original discussion.  I don't think I would call Novak "outstanding" either though.

And I brought up conditioning and defense because I think both were major reasons why he didn't see the court more.

And I don't think 2/3 of Vander's career was mediocre at all.  I thought he was very good as a sophomore - MU doesn't win @UW without him for instance - and it wasn't because of his offense.  Offensively he wasn't great, but he was highly disruptive on the defensive end and rebounded extremely well for his position.

But 90% of what this board focuses on is offense so...

[jesmu84]

Vander had the elite explosiveness and picked up the scoring at will much later in his career.

Ox was just a consistent force but couldn't create for himself. FTs though were pretty much automatic which won favor in many a fan's eye since big men "weren''t supposed to make FTs."

This is a tough one.

I voted for Ox because he was the low post scorer and a pretty consistent front court presence during his four years.

But Vander's ability to create his own shot/scoring opportunity deserves praise except it didn't happen until later in his MU career (part soph/junior years).


Vander Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/vander-blue-1.html

Davante Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/davante-gardner-1.html


EDIT:  Looking at Davante's last year with MU, he posted personal bests in almost every category despite playing 3 less games during a piss poor coaching season. DG with the nod.

Against weaker competition

[mu_hilltopper]

  I don't think I would call Novak "outstanding" either though.

Ah, well then you were extremely correct when you said "You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do. " 

[77ncaachamps]

Against weaker competition

Which makes his junior year stats that much more amazing.
But he delivered. Maybe not with the same fanfare or success as previous years, but you can't pin that solely on him.

I think Gardner's senior year was somewhat disappointing. A lot of it had to do with him no longer being teamed with Cadougan, who was very good at dumping the ball off to Gardner. That was a skill that Derrick lacked. The team probably would not have been a disaster last year, if Cadougan had redshirted as a freshmen. I would say that letting Cadougan come back for at the end of his freshmen year resulted in no extra wins that year and probably cost us at least 7 wins last year.

Well, THE WHOLE SEASON Last year was more than somewhat disappointing.

But you're correct. The inability of the perimeter guards to score, penetrate, and threaten the defense, made the defense slack on Gardner. Despite that, he still posted darn good stats. Who cares if it was against weaker competition either? We SUCKED!