20-7

[79Warrior]

The 20-7 stat is fun but it's fairly empty. 15 of those wins and 3 of those losses came against teams that didn't make the tournament at all.

I'm not arguing that MU doesn't have talent or that they're "far away" but if MU wins one of those 6 games against 1-2 seeds, they'd be dancing.

I agree. Calling MU a good team is a bit of a stretch. We have some good pieces, but I just do not see this team jumping to the top 4 in the BE unless Wojo lands a few gems in the off season. If he cannot get a PG prepare for a repeat of this season.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I agree. Calling MU a good team is a bit of a stretch. We have some good pieces, but I just do not see this team jumping to the top 4 in the BE unless Wojo lands a few gems in the off season. If he cannot get a PG prepare for a repeat of this season.

. Wojo already has two gems coming in with Morrow and the younger Hauser.  Gotta get that PG.

[tower912]

In conference, 0-6 against Butler, Xavier, and Villanova.   9-3 against Creighton, Providence, SJU, Depaul,  Georgetown, and Seton Hall.  9-3.  OOC, losses to 2 seed Purdue and 4 seed Wichita.  BTW, the two oldest teams MU played in the OOC.  9-1 against the rest of college basketball.

Marquette is a good team.  A very young team.  Clearly with flaws.  And a lack of depth.

[Goose]

newsdreams

You obviously do not read my posts. If you truly believe that, you are off your rocker. Just because I do not agree with everyone here does not equate to my not wanting to see success. Actually, my bar for success might be higher than many on here.

wadesworld

Of course you do not need first team BE players to play at high level. That said, if you do not have that, you need everything to fall into place, role players to play their role everyday and outstanding coaching. For me, I think having some studs helps stack the deck in your favor. Again, that is my take.

[skianth16]

newsdreams

You obviously do not read my posts. If you truly believe that, you are off your rocker. Just because I do not agree with everyone here does not equate to my not wanting to see success. Actually, my bar for success might be higher than many on here.

wadesworld

Of course you do not need first team BE players to play at high level. That said, if you do not have that, you need everything to fall into place, role players to play their role everyday and outstanding coaching. For me, I think having some studs helps stack the deck in your favor. Again, that is my take.

Beware the intelligencia. Remember the SNL beygency skit? Where people come for you if you have anything less than complimentary of Beyonce? It's kinda like that around here most of the time too.

[wadesworld]

newsdreams

You obviously do not read my posts. If you truly believe that, you are off your rocker. Just because I do not agree with everyone here does not equate to my not wanting to see success. Actually, my bar for success might be higher than many on here.

wadesworld

Of course you do not need first team BE players to play at high level. That said, if you do not have that, you need everything to fall into place, role players to play their role everyday and outstanding coaching. For me, I think having some studs helps stack the deck in your favor. Again, that is my take.

I agree you need studs to succeed at a high level.  My point is that you don't need those superstar studs in every single class.  You need a couple on your roster at all times, and the rest of your guys need to know their role and play it well.  To me, the classes before and after this freshman class will produce the studs you need.  The freshman class needs to produce the role players.  If all 3 hang around for all 4 years, they will be a very important part of a number of highly successful teams without any of them individually playing at a First Team All Big East level.

[MerrittsMustache]

So, Marquette is 5-4 against tourney teams other than 1-2 seeds.   That makes my argument fairly sound.

This feels like a glass half-full vs. half-empty situation. My thinking is that going 5-4 against good teams is a nice record, but going 0-6 against very good/great teams isn't going to cut it.

[Floorslapper]

Goose, despite all you didn't see, Marquette is 20-7 against non 1-2 tourney seeds.  So either there is some talent, Wojo is a wizard, or all of college basketball is lousy.

We are an elite 3 point shooting team.  That is the "wizardry" of our team.  We lose a huge contributor to our "sauce" next year with Rowsey leaving.  NOBODY is going to come in and replicate what Rowsey accomplished.

I simply don't see enough defensive upside, or coaching ability, to suggest that we'll be able to improve to a "high seed" in the NCAA next year, given that it is highly probably we decline in the ranks on 3 point shooting percentage/attempts next year.  Yes, I'm aware Joey Hauser is thought to be a good 3 point shooter. 

High attempts and high 3-point shooting percentage is usually the formula for elite performance.  For us, it has led to a 10 seed and a missed NCAA. 

[tower912]

This feels like a glass half-full vs. half-empty situation. My thinking is that going 5-4 against good teams is a nice record, but going 0-6 against very good/great teams isn't going to cut it.

I choose to be a glass half full person.    MU accomplished what it did with the youngest team in the Big East.   One of the youngest in D1.     Only two of comparable youth made the dance.   Duke and Kentucky.      It all ties together if you choose to look at the big picuture and take a long view with a half-full perspective.    The youth, the small roster, the tough schedule.... and still with 20-7 record against non top-10 teams.    From my glass half full perspective, that is an accomplishment with this roster and a building block for next year.   

quote from Wojo..."nobody in this locker room has ever won a tournament game before."    Clearly talking about post Big East games.    Also indicative of where the program has been and the lack of experience.      Building block. 

[Herman Cain]

Does anyone know what the injury is that Greg's been dealing with? How limiting has it been? Is it more the actual injury that is likely affecting his play, or the brace he has to wear?

When you see Greg play in person , versus TV, you get a better feel for how the injury is limiting his handle. He is kind of restricted to being more of a north south player . I think when it heals he will have more tools at his disposal such as a crossover. The fact that he is playing through the injury, not using it as excuse and giving consistent strong performance speaks to his upside.

[skianth16]

I choose to be a glass half full person.    MU accomplished what it did with the youngest team in the Big East.   One of the youngest in D1.     Only two of comparable youth made the dance.   Duke and Kentucky.      It all ties together if you choose to look at the big picuture and take a long view with a half-full perspective.    The youth, the small roster, the tough schedule.... and still with 20-7 record against non top-10 teams.    From my glass half full perspective, that is an accomplishment with this roster and a building block for next year.

Good building block for next year for sure. After next year, we're no longer young. Some of the mistakes we saw even late this year need to get cleaned up. I expect they will, and I expect that to lead to more consistency next year. I think we'll have a good chance that we win all the games we're supposed to. Hopefully we win a few more than we lose of the toss-ups, and then we pull out a surprise or two. A year like that should have us dancing no problem, looking for a good seed.

[Marcus92]

Remember when Vander Blue couldn't run the fast break or drive the lane without committing an offensive foul? He was incredibly athletic and quick, but played out of control during his freshman year. His outside shooting was cringe-worthy. Was he the exact same player for the next two seasons? Of course not.

I see the potential in Greg, Jamal and Theo. I expect that it will develop because that's what young athletes do.

[GrimmReaper33]

0-7 against Ken Pom top 25.
4-9 if you stretch to Ken Pom top 30 which then includes SH, Butler, and Creighton.

I wouldn't say they are a "good team", they are an average major conference team.

[DCHoopster]

Here's what I see:

-Skinny kid who will bulk up with a full summer of weight training.
-Someone that still needs the game to slow down at times.
-Good outside shooter, who hasn't shot well in less than 1 FTA per game. That will improve.
-Excellent defensive awareness, with the length to be very disruptive in passing lanes and as a help defender at the rim.
-For a freshman, he has very good understanding of spacing and floor balance on the offensive end, and makes intelligent cuts to the basket.

You're right, it is up to him to improve. But he and Greg both have good understanding of the game, and the physical tools to be very good players.

I agree on your points, both Greg and Cain will be at MU for 3 more years.  I can see a big jump in body building in 2 years, Sam looked bigger
this year.  Saw the floor a lot this year, both will get better, both need to work on ball handling.  Greg you can tell has issues with his thumb.
Both can hit the three.  Both need to work on getting to the hole.  I like there upside potential. 

[MU82]

newsdreams

You obviously do not read my posts. If you truly believe that, you are off your rocker. Just because I do not agree with everyone here does not equate to my not wanting to see success. Actually, my bar for success might be higher than many on here.

wadesworld

Of course you do not need first team BE players to play at high level. That said, if you do not have that, you need everything to fall into place, role players to play their role everyday and outstanding coaching. For me, I think having some studs helps stack the deck in your favor. Again, that is my take.

Hi Goose. Curious as to how you define "stud."

I assume we can agree that Wade was a stud from the moment he put on an MU uni. Beyond that ...

Probably Jae, although when he was a junior averaging 12 points he hardly looked like a future BE POY. JFB as a sophomore ... not a single thing there screamed "stud to be." Lazar? Maybe, but he only averaged 13 as a sophomore. None of those 3 studs-to-be were as far along as Sam at this point in their careers, were they?

Dominic looked like a stud-to-be as a freshman but really became more of a role player. Novak ... didn't look even close to studly till his senior year. And so on.

Markus averaged 20 ppg in a tough conference, had 52 and 37 in consecutive road games against Providence and Villanova, led the nation in 3% as a freshman and is second nationally in FT% as a soph. He's neither a stud now nor has any chance of being one?

Sam improved across the board as a soph, averaged 15-6, finished second nationally in 3%, does everything well (not great, but well), and makes few mistakes. He's neither a stud now nor has any chance of being one?

If those two guys are role players, I'll take 2-3 more just like them, please! Maybe Joey, Morrow, Bailey, Cain and Elliott will be just as good "role players." I'd happily take that - especially if we get a real PG.

I covered the great Illinois teams of the mid-aughts, and the stud back then was thought to be Dee Brown ... until Deron Williams emerged as the true stud as a junior. Dee became more of a role player, as did Head, Augustine and Powell. Darn good players ... and a team that almost won the title.

What I'm saying is we might not know who our big stud is yet ... but we do already know that we have at least 2 big-time "role players," and probably a third in Morrow.

There is talent here.

[Goose]

wades

Again, this is were we differ in opinion. I believe Howard is very legit #2 guard and would play a lot of minutes at almost every program in the country. I expect him to have similar, not better, success his next seasons. Sam to me is an A++++ upper end role player. I hate using the word role player in regards to Sam, but I do not think he is someone that you would build a team around for the next two seasons. I expect him to play at similar level next two seasons. I think both have likely maxed out on their upside. For the record, I am big time fan of Sam's.

So, where are the studs? Are you counting on Joey being a sure fire stud, or one of the other newcomers? To me, Wojo is piecing together a very example of UW team/program and the Badgers have had great success. I have no problem with that model, if the coaching matches the Bo success. With this model, we better hope Wojo is more Bo than Gard.

[Goose]

MU82

Good post. To me, a stud is a guy that can change game in his team's favor on a consistent basis. As my previous post stated, I think Howard and Sam are very good players, but not game changers night in and night out. I get the game changed, but needing guys to score 30, 40 or 50 points to win a game is not a recipe for long term success, IMO.

[tower912]

0-7 against Ken Pom top 25.
4-9 if you stretch to Ken Pom top 30 which then includes SH, Butler, and Creighton.

I wouldn't say they are a "good team", they are an average major conference team.

So, 4-7 against the top 9%, 16-6 against the other 91%.   All in how you choose to look at it.

[Galway Eagle]

wades

Again, this is were we differ in opinion. I believe Howard is very legit #2 guard and would play a lot of minutes at almost every program in the country. I expect him to have similar, not better, success his next seasons. Sam to me is an A++++ upper end role player. I hate using the word role player in regards to Sam, but I do not think he is someone that you would build a team around for the next two seasons. I expect him to play at similar level next two seasons. I think both have likely maxed out on their upside. For the record, I am big time fan of Sam's.

So, where are the studs? Are you counting on Joey being a sure fire stud, or one of the other newcomers? To me, Wojo is piecing together a very example of UW team/program and the Badgers have had great success. I have no problem with that model, if the coaching matches the Bo success. With this model, we better hope Wojo is more Bo than Gard.

A bit harsh to write the guys off before the end of their sophomore years...

Let me ask you goose, what was Jimmy butler each year in your eyes?

[GGGG]

This feels like a glass half-full vs. half-empty situation. My thinking is that going 5-4 against good teams is a nice record, but going 0-6 against very good/great teams isn't going to cut it.

Exactly. But I think it shows we aren't far off if taken together.

[Goose]

Boxer

Hardly writing either guy off. They both will go down as very highly rated players in program history, simply by stats. If they have on court success, they will even be more highly rated.

As for Butler, he passed the eye test the first time I saw him play. That said, I would not have expected the ultimate end product being as good it was/is.

We have seen Howard and Sam play over sixty games and that is a pretty good sample size. To boot they have played at high level, making upside more difficult. If they end up showing great upside improvement over next two years, they likely would go down as very, very, very highly rated players in program history. I think that is expecting a lot.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

A bit harsh to write the guys off before the end of their sophomore years...

Let me ask you goose, what was Jimmy butler each year in your eyes?

Sophomore Jimmy Butler was when the name Jimmy F*ckin Butler was coined.  A buddy and I were sitting at Wilson's Bar in Madison watching the game.  He said "I don't know who this Jimmy F*ckin Butler is but he's pretty f*ckin good."  And JFB is pretty f*ckin good.

[GrimmReaper33]

So, 4-7 against the top 9%, 16-6 against the other 91%.   All in how you choose to look at it.

It's pretty hard to argue they are anything above "average" for a major conference team.  7th out of 10 team conference, .500 in conference, rated 57th on Ken Pom.

That is an average, at best, major conference team.  Certainly not "good." 

[Marcus92]

Jimmy Butler was good enough in his sophomore year to play all 35 games. Averaged 19.6 minutes, 5.6 points and 3.9 rebounds a game. Didn't make a single three-pointer. Great contributor and role player. But nowhere near the stud he would become in the next two seasons.

I think Sam has plenty of upside. His rebounding should continue to improve as he gains in strength. And there's room for development in his post-up and mid-range game. I expect him to make at least one all Big East team in the next two seasons.

[tower912]

It's pretty hard to argue they are anything above "average" for a major conference team.  7th out of 10 team conference, .500 in conference, rated 57th on Ken Pom.

That is an average, at best, major conference team.  Certainly not "good."

9-9 in the Big East with by far the youngest team.  Not great.  But not bad, considering context.