Just for fun, who would be your MVP of this year's team?

[Deano]

This is a tough one. At the beginning of the year I would say MCW, but then he went through some rough stretches, however he came back strong just in time for the BET and NCAA Tourney. However my pick would be CJ Fair. He was steady all year long. Always under the radar. When you look at the box score you would say, "Did CJ really have that many points and/or rebounds?". His play continued strong through the BET and NCAA Tourney, which led to him having to making a decision if he was coming back or headed to the league. I know like most of you on here, I was very, very happy when he decided last week to come back.

So let's here from some of you on your choice.

 

[goodroc]

Cj

 

[SoBeCuse]

CJ

 

[tee1222]

CJ

 

[Brian Orange]

Carter-Williams.

CJ was consistent all year, yes, but when MCW started playing better in March, as you can see we took off and made a Final Four. That proves his worth to me. Plus, when in doubt have to give it to a point guard.

 

[4evaOrange]

CJ, I don't think its very close.

 

[moqui]

if the question is "best" then there is an argument, but "valuable" was MCW and it isn't even close . . . the team rose and fell on his game

 

[cuseattle]

CJ.

 

[cap2nine]

MVP is undoubtedly MCW. He may not have always been our best player on the floor but he was certainly the one player that we could least afford to be without.

 

[jccuse]

This is a tough one. At the beginning of the year I would say MCW, but then he went through some rough stretches, however he came back strong just in time for the BET and NCAA Tourney. However my pick would be CJ Fair. He was steady all year long. Always under the radar. When you look at the box score you would say, "Did CJ really have that many points and/or rebounds?". His play continued strong through the BET and NCAA Tourney, which led to him having to making a decision if he was coming back or headed to the league. I know like most of you on here, I was very, very happy when he decided last week to come back.

So let's here from some of you on your choice.

CJ

 

[gilardino]

MCW, mainly his defense at the top of the zone

 

[OrangeTown]

CJW

 

[tee1222]

CJW

Ha, best answer by far!
But I tend to agree with the folks now about MCW. Although CJ, might have been our most consistent player, and probably our best player, we did "live and die" by MCW's play.

Either way, both go down as Cuse greats in my opinion.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

CJ. Without him we don't win 10 freakin' games.

 

[Knicks411]

Carter-Williams.

CJ was consistent all year, yes, but when MCW started playing better in March, as you can see we took off and made a Final Four. That proves his worth to me. Plus, when in doubt have to give it to a point guard.

But doesn't that kind of underrate CJ? When Mike took off and started playing better in March, we went to the Final Four, but that's also because CJ was a constant all year. If CJ wasn't so consistent, then maybe Mike takes off but we don't go as far because then CJ plays poorly for a few weeks, but that basically didn't happen all year.

 

[Col. Bleep]

if the question is "best" then there is an argument, but "valuable" was MCW and it isn't even close . . . the team rose and fell on his game

That's exactly right.

And next year the situation will be similar...with our fate generally in the hands of an untested freshman and no one who really can take over if he gets into foul trouble or suffers an injury.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Triche

he may have been a 2steps forward, 1 step back type of player...but without that net +1, i shudder to think of what the season wouldve been.

 

[cuseattle]

Triche

he may have been a 2steps forward, 1 step back type of player...but without that net +1, i shudder to think of what the season wouldve been.

Glad someone mentioned Brandon, but the answer is still CJ! (I am still very amped to have him back)

 

[cuseinseattle]

CJ. I think MCW was the most irreplacable though. If lost CJ for some reason Grant could come in and we would be worse but it wouldn't be as bad as having Triche and Cooney as a starting backcourt.

 

[br801]

Slice that MVP trophy up four ways because MCW, Brandon, CJ and James were all critically important to the team's success. Each of them was the best player on the court for significant periods of time, and there would have been no deep NCAAT run if any of them were removed from the mix for an extended period.

 

[SUintheVille]

I go with CJ for sure. Mr. Consistency.

Certainly nothing against MCW and Brandon. MCW was valuable obviously and yes the team did go as he went, but to be an MVP that shouldn't mean too many ups and downs (if the team went as he went). Same with Brandon - we definitely needed his game, but also had some ups and downs. CJ didn't have too much variability - he played a quiet but great game most of the time, and his type of play should be the model for others to emulate. So glad he's back next year.

 

[OttoMets]

if the question is "best" then there is an argument, but "valuable" was MCW and it isn't even close . . . the team rose and fell on his game

Yep, was going to post this same thing.

Most oustanding - Fair, easily.

Most valuable - look at our wins and losses. Good start, Mike played pretty well. Ugly February, Mike played poorly. Tournament run, Mike played quite well. Michigan loss, Mike was a non-factor.

 

[Knicks411]

Yep, was going to post this same thing.

Most oustanding - Fair, easily.

Most valuable - look at our wins and losses. Good start, Mike played pretty well. Ugly February, Mike played poorly. Tournament run, Mike played quite well. Michigan loss, Mike was a non-factor.

Right, but isn't that because CJ always played well pretty much? (Obviously it's not only just because of that, but its part of it). If you have 2 really good players, and one always plays well and one that is more hit or miss, then you're gonna do better when 2 of them play well, but that doesn't mean (to me, at least) that the inconsistent one is more valuable.

I guess put another way, would Mike have been less valuable to the team if he was more consistent? Or CJ would be more valuable if Mike was more consistent and CJ less consistent?

It's kind of like, though not really and on a much smaller scale (so not really like it all that much) a stat I remember seeing a lot from 2003. We had a really good record when Duany scored in double figures. That wasn't because he was our most valuable or anything like that, but he was our #4 option probably; when you're #4 option has a good game you're probably going to win because you're almost always getting at least solid contributions from guys 1-3.

Which isn't to say Mike was not necessarily the MVP; he still may have been because he had a really good season. But I'm not sure I agree with the line of reasoning being used in the thread, if that makes sense.

 

[OttoMets]

Right, but isn't that because CJ always played well pretty much? (Obviously it's not only just because of that, but its part of it). If you have 2 really good players, and one always plays well and one that is more hit or miss, then you're gonna do better when 2 of them play well, but that doesn't mean (to me, at least) that the inconsistent one is more valuable.

I guess put another way, would Mike have been less valuable to the team if he was more consistent? Or CJ would be more valuable if Mike was more consistent and CJ less consistent?

It's kind of like, though not really and on a much smaller scale (so not really like it all that much) a stat I remember seeing a lot from 2003. We had a really good record when Duany scored in double figures. That wasn't because he was our most valuable or anything like that, but he was our #4 option probably; when you're #4 option has a good game you're probably going to win because you're almost always getting at least solid contributions from guys 1-3.

Which isn't to say Mike was not necessarily the MVP; he still may have been because he had a really good season. But I'm not sure I agree with the line of reasoning being used in the thread, if that makes sense.

It's a valid point - sometimes the consistent guy gets overlooked. If he hadn't played so well for almost 40 games, we wouldn't be talking about any of his teammates.

 

[TBCuse11]

MCW by a large, large margin... We would not have made the Big Dance without him. We had Grant or even Rak to play the forward spot if CJ was out... but Cooney was the alternative to MCW.

When MCW played well, we won. period. When CJ played well, we still lost at times.
PS - i say this despite CJ being one of my three favorite Cuse players ever.