MARQUETTE: UNPREDICTABLE

[OneMadWarrior]

With the regular season all wrapped up, I want to see what all other Marquette Fans feel about the Following Statement.

"Marquette could win or lose to anyone at anytime."

Now I am pretty serious about this. I am not surprised about the how this season ended up working out. But a part of me watches them and believes that if they get on a good run, and shoot well, that we could have a repeat of 2003. (I know lofty prediction)

Unpredictability and Cinderella's are what March is all about but I have seen this brewing all season. Clearly they are not playing there best ball right now (I believe they played there best in Maui) But it is also clear to me that they can play with almost anyone as long as they are not too cold form outside, and James plays the part of distributer. If I am crazy please let me know. I want to hear thoughts on this.  I am stuck in Madison and have to deal with all this Badger crap when I knwo for a fact that the better team in Wisconsin at 17th and Wisconsin.

MU RARA

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I was pleasantly staggered when MU made the Final Four in 2003, but it is honestly something I, and many others, thought possible at the beginning of the tournament. I thought the same thing the year before, but may have been daydreaming.

I do not feel that way about this team. I think we can win one or two, but that's it. Too many holes. I think the 2006 team was the best of the James/McNeal/Matthews/Burke class (with last year being the worst...we had no chance in that MSU game).

[OneMadWarrior]

I just think the addition of a well schooled Lazar Hayward is something that peopel aren't looking close enough at. Granted I am his biggest fan, and I believe he will end up developing into their best player by next year (Alando Tucker with Range) I think the tournament has a chance to be a coming out party for the entire team. I think this is Crean's Most Talented TEAM the 2003 has more talent at the top but overall this is Crean's Deepest team and in the Tournament They will be able to wear more teams down. Again I don't think it is probable for them to go that far but I think that the talent to do it is there.

[NavinRJohnson]

I think this is Crean's Most Talented TEAM the 2003 has more talent at the top but overall this is Crean's Deepest team

Guess that depends how you define "the top"...Wade, Jackson, Novak, Diener, Merritt - All of those guys are either in the NBA or got a sniff. After that there was Sanders, Townsend, Bradley, Chapman who all had roles. This year's team is nowhere near as talented, and arguably not much deeper. Mu plays a lot of guys, and they are all decent players, but the overall quality is nowhere near as good. Don't get me wrong, I think we have some talented players, but having a rotation of 7-8 really good players is far better than a rotation of 10 guys. This team may be batter at the bottom, but If you go down the line, pound for pound, they couldn't hold a candle to '03.

[downtown85]

i am sorry, doesn't anyone else see the pattern.  MU is a very athletic team but lacks length and talent in in the post.  If we come accross another equally athletic team but with height and post talent, we lose.  it is fairly predictable.

i keep wishing i am wrong and this has been beaten to death on in other threads here but i do not understand what is so unpredictable.  

[RJax55]

I just think the addition of a well schooled Lazar Hayward is something that peopel aren't looking close enough at. Granted I am his biggest fan, and I believe he will end up developing into their best player by next year (Alando Tucker with Range) I think the tournament has a chance to be a coming out party for the entire team. I think this is Crean's Most Talented TEAM the 2003 has more talent at the top but overall this is Crean's Deepest team and in the Tournament They will be able to wear more teams down. Again I don't think it is probable for them to go that far but I think that the talent to do it is there.

I have to disagree ... This team is not that deep and our bench has been a major disappointment. Cubillan has been extremely inconsistent and Fitz has been terrible.

I hate to get on Fitz, but his production this season, especially in BE play has been horrible. MU needs him to score 6-10 points a night, and he hasn't been able to provide that. Cubillan has had some good games (ND, SH, Pitt) but more times than not, he has made no impact. As for the rest of the bench (Acker, Burke, Blackledge) they each have had their moments, but nothing you can count on.

[ecompt]

now that we're not playing any more home games, I'd say we're very predictable. If we play a team that has roughly the same athleticism and a littlle more height, we lose. If that same team can play a zone, we lose big-time.

[Marquette84]

now that we're not playing any more home games, I'd say we're very predictable. If we play a team that has roughly the same athleticism and a littlle more height, we lose. If that same team can play a zone, we lose big-time.

For all the credit given to SU's defense and zone, MU somehow managed to put up 72 points.  That should have been enough if MU merely holds SU to their average offense.

If we don't give up 22 points off turnovers, and allow 58% shooting (46% treys), it's a different game--even with the zone

We did what we had to do on the offensive end.  If the best zone coach in the country can only hold us to 72 points, its time to retire the meme that MU can't play against the zone.

[Wareagle]

With the regular season all wrapped up, I want to see what all other Marquette Fans feel about the Following Statement.

"Marquette could win or lose to anyone at anytime."

I'm not sure this is true.  We have beaten all the teams we were "supposed" to beat this year, and beaten madison to boot.  That said, generally speaking, we haven't beaten teams that ultimately finished ahead of us in the BEast or in the RPI.  In sum, to borrow from ecompt, I think it's pretty clear who we can and do lose to; teams that match or exceed our athleticism or have a serious post presence (ND, UCONN, GTOWN, LOU).

[bilsu]

If you look at the season MU was very predictable. They basically lost to every team that was more talented and beat every team that was less talented. The only possibel exception being the UW game.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

now that we're not playing any more home games, I'd say we're very predictable. If we play a team that has roughly the same athleticism and a littlle more height, we lose. If that same team can play a zone, we lose big-time.

For all the credit given to SU's defense and zone, MU somehow managed to put up 72 points.  That should have been enough if MU merely holds SU to their average offense.

If we don't give up 22 points off turnovers, and allow 58% shooting (46% treys), it's a different game--even with the zone

We did what we had to do on the offensive end.  If the best zone coach in the country can only hold us to 72 points, its time to retire the meme that MU can't play against the zone.

I concur.

As I was watching the game, I didn't think it was SU's defense that beat MU, I think it was SU's offense that was pretty efficient and also didn't turn the ball over a ton (thus limiting MU's offensive opportunities).

[CTWarrior]

i am sorry, doesn't anyone else see the pattern.  MU is a very athletic team but lacks length and talent in in the post.  If we come accross another equally athletic team but with height and post talent, we lose.  it is fairly predictable.

i keep wishing i am wrong and this has been beaten to death on in other threads here but i do not understand what is so unpredictable.  

You hit the nail right on the head.  This is the most predictable team I can remember.  If form holds as it has all season, we are going to beat Seton Hall (90+% chance of victory), play a tight game against ND (55% chance), and, should we survive that, lose comfortably to Louisville (10%).

[BrewCity83]

i am sorry, doesn't anyone else see the pattern.  MU is a very athletic team but lacks length and talent in in the post.  If we come accross another equally athletic team but with height and post talent, we lose.  it is fairly predictable.

i keep wishing i am wrong and this has been beaten to death on in other threads here but i do not understand what is so unpredictable.  

You hit the nail right on the head.  This is the most predictable team I can remember.  If form holds as it has all season, we are going to beat Seton Hall (90+% chance of victory), play a tight game against ND (55% chance), and, should we survive that, lose comfortably to Louisville (10%).

Agreed.

But, we were this close to beating Georgetown and this close to beating Duke.  Those are considered "more talented" teams that we could beat in a rematch with just a little luck or more favorable refereeing.

So, I do agree with Toughmover's original theory, that we could beat anyone at any time, with the exception of a tall athletic team that is put together like Louisville.  If the matchups aren't unfavorable, it would not shock me to get to the Final Four.