Carlino has it

[mu03eng]

This is really bad haiku.

I think that's his schtick now, terrible poetry...he's done it a couple of times now.  Much like the season, I'm going to watch and see if it gets better before I bail on it.

[bilsu]

I love how last year people were complaining about a PG who wont/can't shoot and now people are complaining of a guy who shoots too much on a team that doesn't have a ton of scorers. I like what Carlino can bring to the table for MU.

Carlino will not be playing point, so we may still have a point guard that will not shoot.

[Coleman]

They're both white guys who went to BYU that can shoot.  That's about all.

Ahem...the term we use around here is "traditional"

[GOO]

I love how last year people were complaining about a PG who wont/can't shoot and now people are complaining of a guy who shoots too much on a team that doesn't have a ton of scorers. I like what Carlino can bring to the table for MU.

Well, both are not great options.  If the point is a complete gunner with a low FG%, teammates will be upset and team chemistry will suffer if the point guard is a chucker.  We used to call them ball hogs and I played with a few.  Doesn't make for a team unless the guy is really really good and hits consistently at a high rate.

We know what happens when we have a point guard that can't at least force defenses to stay somewhat honest. Saw it with DWill and to a lesser extend with Tony Miller (blasphemy, I know, but I always wondered how well those teams with Mac and Key could have done with a point guard that could at least be a 3 point threat consistently).   

So either scenario is not good, of course.  Let's hope for some balance and for a couple of guys that shoot the 3 at even a mid to upper 30%.

Wojo is obviously big on developing talent, but rarely do players go from terrible shooters to great shooters in one summer.  It is usually a more steady rise over time, if they ever become better shooters (oddly, when players go to the NBA they seem to develop the ability to shoot, often, more quickly).  I am totally going by my somewhat faulty recollection on this one, so correct me if this is not usually the case.

[Johnny B]

This is really bad haiku.

Spades a spade

[Johnny B]

I think that's his schtick now, terrible poetry...he's done it a couple of times now.  Much like the season, I'm going to watch and see if it gets better before I bail on it.

Bail
On
It
?

[GGGG]

Take a peek at this to show you the kind of chucker Carlino has been.  Here are the senior stats for four Marquette point guards compared to Carlino last year.

Tony Miller:  Averaged a shot every 3.6 min.  33.2 FG%.  33.7 3FG%
Hutchins:  Shot every 3.05 min.  44.2 FG%.  41.0 3FG%
Cadougan:  Shot every 3.8 min.  43.1 FG%.  22.6 3FG%
Diener:  Shot every 2.5 min.  42.0 FG%.  40.2 3FG%

Carlino:  Shot every 2.2 min.  38.5 FG%.  33.9%

So Matt Carlino show the ball more often than Travis Diener did his senior year, when Diener and Novak were the only players on Marquette's team that had any offensive ability whatsoever.  Yet he shot the ball more like Tony Miller.

[Coleman]

Take a peek at this to show you the kind of chucker Carlino has been.  Here are the senior stats for four Marquette point guards compared to Carlino last year.

Tony Miller:  Averaged a shot every 3.6 min.  33.2 FG%.  33.7 3FG%
Hutchins:  Shot every 3.05 min.  44.2 FG%.  41.0 3FG%
Cadougan:  Shot every 3.8 min.  43.1 FG%.  22.6 3FG%
Diener:  Shot every 2.5 min.  42.0 FG%.  40.2 3FG%

Carlino:  Shot every 2.2 min.  38.5 FG%.  33.9%

So Matt Carlino show the ball more often than Travis Diener did his senior year, when Diener and Novak were the only players on Marquette's team that had any offensive ability whatsoever.  Yet he shot the ball more like Tony Miller.

Thats OK though. Carlino doesn't need to be Travis Diener.

[GGGG]

Well I hope not.  However the next time that any of the other guards routinely hits shots in game situations will be the first time.

[mu-rara]

We know what happens when we have a point guard that can't at least force defenses to stay somewhat honest. Saw it with DWill and to a lesser extend with Tony Miller (blasphemy, I know, but I always wondered how well those teams with Mac and Key could have done with a point guard that could at least be a 3 point threat consistently).   

Depends on who surrounds the PG.  Miller had Anglavar and Pieper.

[GGGG]

Depends on who surrounds the PG.  Miller had Anglavar and Pieper.

Logterman and Pieper.  Anglavar and Miller never played on the same team.

[NersEllenson]

Well, both are not great options.  If the point is a complete gunner with a low FG%, teammates will be upset and team chemistry will suffer if the point guard is a chucker.  We used to call them ball hogs and I played with a few.  Doesn't make for a team unless the guy is really really good and hits consistently at a high rate.

We know what happens when we have a point guard that can't at least force defenses to stay somewhat honest. Saw it with DWill and to a lesser extend with Tony Miller (blasphemy, I know, but I always wondered how well those teams with Mac and Key could have done with a point guard that could at least be a 3 point threat consistently).   

So either scenario is not good, of course.  Let's hope for some balance and for a couple of guys that shoot the 3 at even a mid to upper 30%.

Wojo is obviously big on developing talent, but rarely do players go from terrible shooters to great shooters in one summer.  It is usually a more steady rise over time, if they ever become better shooters (oddly, when players go to the NBA they seem to develop the ability to shoot, often, more quickly).  I am totally going by my somewhat faulty recollection on this one, so correct me if this is not usually the case.

Tony Miller could shoot it a heck of a lot better than what Derrick has shown thus far...and Tony was guarded everywhere on the floor..not to mention could single handedly break a press and create great looks for teammates.  33.7% from 3 is respectable at the college level....

As for the rest of your post - I agree that if you have a PG that is a gunner - he better shoot a high percentage, as if he doesn't get other guys involved and is entirely me first type of player - while shooting a low percentage...awful for team chemistry.  Now, the other guys on the team have to prove and show they are capable scorers/shooters as well too.

Take a peek at this to show you the kind of chucker Carlino has been.  Here are the senior stats for four Marquette point guards compared to Carlino last year.

Tony Miller:  Averaged a shot every 3.6 min.  33.2 FG%.  33.7 3FG%
Hutchins:  Shot every 3.05 min.  44.2 FG%.  41.0 3FG%
Cadougan:  Shot every 3.8 min.  43.1 FG%.  22.6 3FG%
Diener:  Shot every 2.5 min.  42.0 FG%.  40.2 3FG%

Carlino:  Shot every 2.2 min.  38.5 FG%.  33.9%

So Matt Carlino show the ball more often than Travis Diener did his senior year, when Diener and Novak were the only players on Marquette's team that had any offensive ability whatsoever.  Yet he shot the ball more like Tony Miller.

Think many failed to realize how damn good Hutch was...or perhaps not appreciate him as he came in on the back end of the O'Neill years and had to play with Deane recruits his last 2 years.  Hutch was Clutch.  

[willie warrior]

Tony Miller could shoot it a heck of a lot better than what Derrick has shown thus far...and Tony was guarded everywhere on the floor..not to mention could single handedly break a press and create great looks for teammates.  33.7% from 3 is respectable at the college level....

As for the rest of your post - I agree that if you have a PG that is a gunner - he better shoot a high percentage, as if he doesn't get other guys involved and is entirely me first type of player - while shooting a low percentage...awful for team chemistry.  Now, the other guys on the team have to prove and show they are capable scorers/shooters as well too.

Think many failed to realize how damn good Hutch was...or perhaps not appreciate him as he came in on the back end of the O'Neill years and had to play with Deane recruits his last 2 years.  Hutch was Clutch.  

Tony was never a great shooter, but he did improve significantly to his last year. He was flat out a stud. Very good D, and our all time assist leader.

[mu-rara]

Logterman and Pieper.  Anglavar and Miller never played on the same team.

You are correct sir.  Geez, I even went to the wiki to check.

[GOO]

FYI: In no way do I want to disparage Tony Miller, who was one of our greats.  He offered a whole lot on D, ball handling, passing, character, toughness (never was afraid or backed down), etc, etc, etc.

But, he was lacking on offense in a big way and teams did sag off of him or hedge on him  (nothing like they did to DWill last year).  Tony could keep a defense somewhat honest.  That is really the first time I realized having a point guard who can shoot it and draw defenders is so important. 

Could you imagine Mac and Key playing with a guy like Diener or a Tony Miller who was a better threat from outside?  That is all I am saying.  But I don't in anyway mean to disparage him as he was a great one and fun to watch, and did his job valiantly and got the ball to the big guys time and time again. 

The way he could break down a press on his own was simply extraordinary, best I've seen at Marquette. 

When I see that someone is referred to as a "pure point guard" I always wonder if that is often used as a code for they distribute but don't have an offensive game or can't shoot it.  A scoring point guard makes it so much easier on everyone else, as long as the point guard gets it that he has to involved others and can balance out scoring and distributing.