Some thoughts vs. Buffalo:
Buddy played well
Half the board will throw up in their mouths reading that sentence, i get it. I also get that he didn't *shoot* well (for a second straight game). I know, I know. Let me preface this by saying that two things are inherently true: 1) We won't be very good if we need buddy to create all night most nights and even in this game, we weren't very good the first 25 mins. And 2) We'd all be breathing a little easier if Buddy had finished 12 of 19 inside the arc instead of 8 of 19. I know, I get it.
But I will say this: Buddy was super active and had a nice night creating for others -- dished out four nice assists and had two passes that should have been finished as well. While he didn't finish well, he broke down the defense and created rebounding opportunities for our guys who were hammering the glass. You only get 14 offensive rebounds if you are either the tougher, more physical team (not sure we were) or you are getting their guys out of position (thought we did that). The aggressiveness also helped him get to the line 7 times -- some were obvious foul situations late but he had only been there three times on the season in three games before last night, so I'll take it.
Buddy also added three steals and played well defensively. The hustle was there, the aggressiveness was there. I like it. Not sure it's a blueprint for success going forward but he played a really active 42 minutes and helped us win that game.
Many folks still don't appreciate Marek, IMO
We come back from 16 down to win against at least an OK team -- that doesn't make us a final four contender, I get it -- and I read a few posts about how upset folks are that 'the backup center' (no one knows who this is or even should be) didn't get more time. Folks, I don't know what to say. Could Marek be more aggressive/assertive? Sure. Was it fun seeing him as the go-to on that last possession -- no, not the way it played out. But the kid just works hard and does so many good things.
Five assists -- he seems to put up 3 or 4 in his sleep -- 19 points on just 9 FG attempts, 8 boards, 4 blocks and, for good measure, draws three charges including a beauty on whoever it was that tried that euro-step late (that's an incredibly smart, intuitive play). The kid just plays, hard, and doesn't really care about numbers. That is such a valuable thing for a team and the idea that, even though he gets bullied around the basket, we should take him off the floor to get three minutes for Frank Edwarjok drives me nuts.
I wonder about the future of the zone
So I don't really care that we play zone 100% of the time b/c, well, whatever, it's what we do. But I wonder when JB retires in 2079 if we'll continue playing it? The issue to me is so many teams put five quality offensive players on the floor, which makes sense. AAU is all about skill development and offense, so even the Buffalos of the world come into the dome and have four guys who can make a three and five guys who can get into double-figures. And it would be one thing if they just went nuts from three, but they put up 44-ish points in the paint with really nice interior passing and finishing.
Yes, the zone would be better with two Kadary's out top and a big-time shot-blocker/athlete in the middle. And yes, teams that play man get burned some nights as well. It happens to any defense in this day and age. But we're six games in and we've already run into three teams that have absolutely torched that defense. Will be interesting to watch whenever JB hangs em up.
Is this the game Kadary eclipsed Girard?
This is likely to happen -- now or at some point in the future. Kadary is just such a factor defensively -- three blocks and a steal but just a constant factor. I don't have a dog in the fight -- still like Joe, for what it's worth. But it will be interesting to see regardless. The thing with Kadary is he's a little loose with the ball (not a knock, just observing) and he's going to struggle shooting a bit (so has Joe, obviously). But I've been really impressed with the way he has played in terms of being a good teammate. Not a kid who is focused on getting his and his effort on the defensive end has been super impressive. Based on reputation, I thought defense would be an issue and he might have a bit of a 'me first' streak but he's actually been the exact opposite of that. Really nice player. Fun to watch.
As for Girard -- Disappointing to see such a rough start for him. Still holding out hopes he can contribute in big ways eventually. IF -- and no one really knows -- if it doesn't happen for him this year, hope he goes out next offseason and commits to working his a$$ off to get in high-end hoops shape. Think the thing with him is he still looks like a football player playing basketball. A leaner, half-step quicker Girard who was able to sustain his energy for longer stretches could still be a very good player.
Q is a stud; nice bounceback for Griff
I don't have much to say on Guerrier. The kid has been a total monster. Not sure I see the NBA come calling for him, but if they do, we can't complain. The kid is a warrior and that second three was a really clutch shot. If he's confident enough and smart enough to be able to add that to his game while still spending a lot of time down low ... that would be huge for us.
Griff was engaged and active. I'll take it. And he'll shoot better. Just a really nice all-around game for him and hope the northeastern bump is in the rear-view.
What's the biggest takeaway?
The biggest takeaway to me is that we just don't know what this team is. We were bad enough to be losing to Buffalo by 16 after 25 minutes and then good enough to beat them by 27 in the last 20 minutes. We were good enough to hit every three we took against BC and then not hit more than 1 a game on average for the next 85 minutes. We were good enough to feel like we *should* have beaten rutgers but bad enough to cough it away and actually lose by 11. So I guess we just try to beat Notre Dame, try to work Sid in a bit at Wake (hopefully) and then buckle up for a stretch of three games against top 25 teams in four games. Who the hell knows. It's entertaining at least.
Buddy played well
Half the board will throw up in their mouths reading that sentence, i get it. I also get that he didn't *shoot* well (for a second straight game). I know, I know. Let me preface this by saying that two things are inherently true: 1) We won't be very good if we need buddy to create all night most nights and even in this game, we weren't very good the first 25 mins. And 2) We'd all be breathing a little easier if Buddy had finished 12 of 19 inside the arc instead of 8 of 19. I know, I get it.
But I will say this: Buddy was super active and had a nice night creating for others -- dished out four nice assists and had two passes that should have been finished as well. While he didn't finish well, he broke down the defense and created rebounding opportunities for our guys who were hammering the glass. You only get 14 offensive rebounds if you are either the tougher, more physical team (not sure we were) or you are getting their guys out of position (thought we did that). The aggressiveness also helped him get to the line 7 times -- some were obvious foul situations late but he had only been there three times on the season in three games before last night, so I'll take it.
Buddy also added three steals and played well defensively. The hustle was there, the aggressiveness was there. I like it. Not sure it's a blueprint for success going forward but he played a really active 42 minutes and helped us win that game.
Many folks still don't appreciate Marek, IMO
We come back from 16 down to win against at least an OK team -- that doesn't make us a final four contender, I get it -- and I read a few posts about how upset folks are that 'the backup center' (no one knows who this is or even should be) didn't get more time. Folks, I don't know what to say. Could Marek be more aggressive/assertive? Sure. Was it fun seeing him as the go-to on that last possession -- no, not the way it played out. But the kid just works hard and does so many good things.
Five assists -- he seems to put up 3 or 4 in his sleep -- 19 points on just 9 FG attempts, 8 boards, 4 blocks and, for good measure, draws three charges including a beauty on whoever it was that tried that euro-step late (that's an incredibly smart, intuitive play). The kid just plays, hard, and doesn't really care about numbers. That is such a valuable thing for a team and the idea that, even though he gets bullied around the basket, we should take him off the floor to get three minutes for Frank Edwarjok drives me nuts.
I wonder about the future of the zone
So I don't really care that we play zone 100% of the time b/c, well, whatever, it's what we do. But I wonder when JB retires in 2079 if we'll continue playing it? The issue to me is so many teams put five quality offensive players on the floor, which makes sense. AAU is all about skill development and offense, so even the Buffalos of the world come into the dome and have four guys who can make a three and five guys who can get into double-figures. And it would be one thing if they just went nuts from three, but they put up 44-ish points in the paint with really nice interior passing and finishing.
Yes, the zone would be better with two Kadary's out top and a big-time shot-blocker/athlete in the middle. And yes, teams that play man get burned some nights as well. It happens to any defense in this day and age. But we're six games in and we've already run into three teams that have absolutely torched that defense. Will be interesting to watch whenever JB hangs em up.
Is this the game Kadary eclipsed Girard?
This is likely to happen -- now or at some point in the future. Kadary is just such a factor defensively -- three blocks and a steal but just a constant factor. I don't have a dog in the fight -- still like Joe, for what it's worth. But it will be interesting to see regardless. The thing with Kadary is he's a little loose with the ball (not a knock, just observing) and he's going to struggle shooting a bit (so has Joe, obviously). But I've been really impressed with the way he has played in terms of being a good teammate. Not a kid who is focused on getting his and his effort on the defensive end has been super impressive. Based on reputation, I thought defense would be an issue and he might have a bit of a 'me first' streak but he's actually been the exact opposite of that. Really nice player. Fun to watch.
As for Girard -- Disappointing to see such a rough start for him. Still holding out hopes he can contribute in big ways eventually. IF -- and no one really knows -- if it doesn't happen for him this year, hope he goes out next offseason and commits to working his a$$ off to get in high-end hoops shape. Think the thing with him is he still looks like a football player playing basketball. A leaner, half-step quicker Girard who was able to sustain his energy for longer stretches could still be a very good player.
Q is a stud; nice bounceback for Griff
I don't have much to say on Guerrier. The kid has been a total monster. Not sure I see the NBA come calling for him, but if they do, we can't complain. The kid is a warrior and that second three was a really clutch shot. If he's confident enough and smart enough to be able to add that to his game while still spending a lot of time down low ... that would be huge for us.
Griff was engaged and active. I'll take it. And he'll shoot better. Just a really nice all-around game for him and hope the northeastern bump is in the rear-view.
What's the biggest takeaway?
The biggest takeaway to me is that we just don't know what this team is. We were bad enough to be losing to Buffalo by 16 after 25 minutes and then good enough to beat them by 27 in the last 20 minutes. We were good enough to hit every three we took against BC and then not hit more than 1 a game on average for the next 85 minutes. We were good enough to feel like we *should* have beaten rutgers but bad enough to cough it away and actually lose by 11. So I guess we just try to beat Notre Dame, try to work Sid in a bit at Wake (hopefully) and then buckle up for a stretch of three games against top 25 teams in four games. Who the hell knows. It's entertaining at least.
Last edited: