AO Article On CBS Sports

[diggerfoot]

If Dyson didn't go down in 08-09' JC would have 4 rings. We were killing teams early/mid in that season. The only teams that gave us a game was Gonzaga and surprisingly, Buffalo.

You can't compare JD to AO ever. JD got into some trouble, had some dumb plays, but he kept his mouth shut. AO was terrible at basketball and opened his mouth whenever he saw the opportunity. I have no respect for AO. I have respect for JD.

I'm responding to this not to dis Dyson but to give Austrie his due. His freshman year he started as point guard for the only tourney they won that year. It was a supremely talented squad that should have gone to the Final Four, so obviously they did not need Austrie to be a star but to facilitate the performance of the rest of the team, and that's precisely my point. At the end of that year we had horrible games against Albany and George Mason (ouch!), but Austrie was one of the only bright lights in both those important games.

Then comes the '08 season. Our best stretch of basketball, including beating Indiana at their place and some other surprise victories, came with Dyson down and Austrie in the starting line-up. Is Austrie a better individual player? Absolutely not. Can he facilitate the others around him to play better. Absolutely. So that brings us to '09, for which you make the rather far out claim that with Dyson we would have won it all. There are two problems with that claim. Yes, we beat up inferior competition except for Buffalo, but no inferior team did we beat more handily than Chattanooga, with Austrie as starting point guard. He missed all his three pointers, which contributes to the perception of the team being able to do better with Dyson, but he led the team in assists, steals and, once again, that was the worst beating we gave any team that year, including mid-majors not good enough to make the tournament.

We did as well against a top ten and twenty team in the tournament with Austrie starting, as we did against top those teams with Dyson as starting guard. You can provide plenty of evidence that Dyson is a better individual player but, please, I challenge you to provide some piece of evidence that shows Dyson makes his team play better than does Austrie.

But let's face it, even if Dyson does make a team around him play better than does Austrie, despite the solid evidence to the contrary, we were not beating North Carolina that year.

 

[CTBasketball]

I'm responding to this not to dis Dyson but to give Austrie his due. His freshman year he started as point guard for the only tourney they won that year. It was a supremely talented squad that should have gone to the Final Four, so obviously they did not need Austrie to be a star but to facilitate the performance of the rest of the team, and that's precisely my point. At the end of that year we had horrible games against Albany and George Mason (ouch!), but Austrie was one of the only bright lights in both those important games.

Then comes the '08 season. Our best stretch of basketball, including beating Indiana at their place and some other surprise victories, came with Dyson down and Austrie in the starting line-up. Is Austrie a better individual player? Absolutely not. Can he facilitate the others around him to play better. Absolutely. So that brings us to '09, for which you make the rather far out claim that with Dyson we would have won it all. There are two problems with that claim. Yes, we beat up inferior competition except for Buffalo, but no inferior team did we beat more handily than Chattanooga, with Austrie as starting point guard. He missed all his three pointers, which contributes to the perception of the team being able to do better with Dyson, but he led the team in assists, steals and, once again, that was the worst beating we gave any team that year, including mid-majors not good enough to make the tournament.

We did as well against a top ten and twenty team in the tournament with Austrie starting, as we did against top those teams with Dyson as starting guard. You can provide plenty of evidence that Dyson is a better individual player but, please, I challenge you to provide some piece of evidence that shows Dyson makes his team play better than does Austrie.

But let's face it, even if Dyson does make a team around him play better than does Austrie, despite the solid evidence to the contrary, we were not beating North Carolina that year.

That is arguable. You can say what you want about stats. Dyson scored more, dished out more passes, and stole more passes. One of the biggest things is the intangibles. He attacked the basket like no other and created fouls. Having Dyson in the lineup meant you had one other player that could score 30 points in a game. Austrie, as good as he was, was not capable of scoring 30ppg. He was cold at the time and teams basically left him open and double-teamed Thabeet, Price, or whoever. Having Dyson in the lineup was so important.

And Austrie didn't primarily play point guard. AJ Price was the primary point guard on that team by far. And you can't say that Austrie was a better scorer than Dyson.

 

[Gurleyman]

I think we all saw what that team was capable of at full strength when we gobsmacked a top-five Louisville team on the road.

Austrie and Dyson brought different things to the table - Austrie was steady, Dyson more explosive. Dyson would have given us another creator against Michigan State, when Price was pretty much locked up by MSU's defensive specialist and Kemba had a case of the freshmans.

We'd have been underdogs against UNC, but I'd have taken my shot against them. Not sure why anyone would think a top-five UConn team with Calhoun wouldn't have had a chance to win a game (other than UNLV '90).

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

[CTBasketball]

I think we all saw what that team was capable of at full strength when we gobsmacked a top-five Louisville team on the road.

Austrie and Dyson brought different things to the table - Austrie was steady, Dyson more explosive. Dyson would have given us another creator against Michigan State, when Price was pretty much locked up by MSU's defensive specialist and Kemba had a case of the freshmans.

We'd have been underdogs against UNC, but I'd have taken my shot against them. Not sure why anyone would think a top-five UConn team with Calhoun wouldn't have had a chance to win a game (other than UNLV '90).

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

If we could beat Duke in 99' I think we could have beaten UNC in 09'

 

[Tenspro2002]

By 2008-09, AJ Price had emerged as the undisputed leader of that team and had Dyson under control. He was a much better team player that season than any other year. A brief summary of that era:

2006-07: Dyson was basically the only offensive threat and was given free reign; team was awful
2007-08: AJ was finally back in game shape and took over the team when Dyson was suspended
2008-09: Dyson deferred to AJ's leadership and we played as a team, dominantly
2009-10: Dyson was the leader by default, with disastrous results

So it's not a contradiction to say that Dyson was (overall) a bad team player, while saying that in 2009 we were a much better team with Dyson.

 

[diggerfoot]

That is arguable. You can say what you want about stats. Dyson scored more, dished out more passes, and stole more passes. One of the biggest things is the intangibles. He attacked the basket like no other and created fouls. Having Dyson in the lineup meant you had one other player that could score 30 points in a game. Austrie, as good as he was, was not capable of scoring 30ppg. He was cold at the time and teams basically left him open and double-teamed Thabeet, Price, or whoever. Having Dyson in the lineup was so important.

And Austrie didn't primarily play point guard. AJ Price was the primary point guard on that team by far. And you can't say that Austrie was a better scorer than Dyson.

You are correct that Austrie was not starting point guard, obviously, since he replaced Dyson. That was just careless on my part, carrying over from when he replaced Williams as a point guard in a previous year. That matters not in the least to the case I was presenting.

I don't think you understood my argument. By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general. My case was about making teammates better, which is not reflected in one's own individual stats. My evidence was in the team's performance with Dyson v. Austrie. In '08 the evidence was clearly in favor of Austrie. In '09 we played 8 top ten teams at the time that we played them and went 4-4. With Austrie as starter and Dyson not even available we went 1-1. Not a clear verdict in favor of Austrie, but not in favor of Dyson either, certainly not enough to extrapolate definitively that if we only had Dyson we would win it all.

I'm adding on responses here but Louisville was #7 when we played them, not top five, and played even worse than their ranking. The highest ranked team we played that year was Pitt at #4 and we lost to them twice, certainly not a resounding case for assuming we automatically beat UNC. It's an overstatement for me to say UConn had no chance, but that's not overstating as much as saying UConn would definitely win.

 

[msgordon]

to further nit your nittery, louisville was the #1 overall seed in the tournament that year

 

[caw]

I don't think you understood my argument. By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general. My case was about making teammates better, which is not reflected in one's own individual stats. My evidence was in the team's performance with Dyson v. Austrie. In '08 the evidence was clearly in favor of Austrie. In '09 we played 8 top ten teams at the time that we played them and went 4-4. With Austrie as starter and Dyson not even available we went 1-1. Not a clear verdict in favor of Austrie, but not in favor of Dyson either, certainly not enough to extrapolate definitively that if we only had Dyson we would win it all.

I'm adding on responses here but Louisville was #7 when we played them, not top five, and played even worse than their ranking. The highest ranked team we played that year was Pitt at #4 and we lost to them twice, certainly not a resounding case for assuming we automatically beat UNC. It's an overstatement for me to say UConn had no chance, but that's not overstating as much as saying UConn would definitely win.

Umm Dyson did not play in either Pitt game, nor against MSU,

via ESPN, UConn beat the following ranked teams with Dyson: Miami (16), Wisconsin (19), Gonzaga (7), West Virginia (22) Villanova (21), ND (19), UL (7) and lost to Georgetown (8).

Without Dyson, UConn beat Marquette (10) and lost to Cuse (20) and Pittx2 (4).

They also won the Cuse game Dyson was injured in.

In the post season I think Purdue and Missouri were both ranked and MSU was also.

UConn was 7-1 against the top 25 with Dyson and 3-3 without Dyson and 1-0 with Dyson for part of the game.

Either way you are wrong, MSU and Pitt account for 3 losses without Dyson to top 10 teams (MSU was a 2 seed).

 

[Tenspro2002]

Dyson was clearly more of an asset than a liability to that 2009 team. You could debate about whether that was the case in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (and you'd have a strong case for "liability"), but in 2009 we were unquestionably a better team with him.

Among those 2009 wins vs. ranked teams, we snapped Notre Dame's like 50-game home winning streak. That was a historically good team for us, with Dyson, and we would have played a title game for the ages against North Carolina.

 

[diggerfoot]

Umm Dyson did not play in either Pitt game, nor against MSU,

via ESPN, UConn beat the following ranked teams with Dyson: Miami (16), Wisconsin (19), Gonzaga (7), West Virginia (22) Villanova (21), ND (19), UL (7) and lost to Georgetown (8).

Without Dyson, UConn beat Marquette (10) and lost to Cuse (20) and Pittx2 (4).

They also won the Cuse game Dyson was injured in.

In the post season I think Purdue and Missouri were both ranked and MSU was also.

UConn was 7-1 against the top 25 with Dyson and 3-3 without Dyson and 1-0 with Dyson for part of the game.

Either way you are wrong, MSU and Pitt account for 3 losses without Dyson to top 10 teams (MSU was a 2 seed).

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

 

[mauconnfan]

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

There is no doubt who the better basketball player was, talent wise. The numbers bring up an interesting point as to who was more important to the team but in the end I don't believe Austrie was as instrumental to winning as Dyson was over the course of their careers. Craig was a nice player despite being limited and while he may have been part of big wins I would guess coincidence played a part in may of the numbers you guys speak of. Nonetheless a pretty intriguing comparison!

 

[Rico444]

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

What's not conclusive? We were 7-1 against top 25 teams with Dyson, and lost 4 games without him.

The only thing conclusive in this thread is your bitterness towards JD.

 

[Waquoit]

Dyson was clearly more of an asset than a liability to that 2009 team. You could debate about whether that was the case in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (and you'd have a strong case for "liability"), but in 2009 we were unquestionably a better team with him.

Among those 2009 wins vs. ranked teams, we snapped Notre Dame's like 50-game home winning streak. That was a historically good team for us, with Dyson, and we would have played a title game for the ages against North Carolina.

You are right, something clicked with Dyson in 2009 and it stinks that he got hurt. But whatever it was, it got unclicked in 2010.

 

[diggerfoot]

What's not conclusive? We were 7-1 against top 25 teams with Dyson, and lost 4 games without him.

The only thing conclusive in this thread is your bitterness towards JD.

I have no bitterness towards Dyson. From the start I stated I was here to promote Austrie, not dis Dyson. I've conceded that Dyson was the better scorer and stat stuffer. I never said he was bad for the team. When Austrie started the team reliably performed well (though not necessarily Austrie's own stats) in big games in tournaments. The evidence is still not conclusive for Dyson because how many big games or tournaments did Dyson play in during 2009? Louisville was the one big game that I recall. Certainly he does not have the overall body of work of the team playing well in a big game or tournament that Austrie has.

I can sympathize with you if you are a fan who thinks a player you support is unfairly attacked. Dyson certainly has fallen into that category. So, too, has Austrie, which makes me that kind of fan as well. I always felt he was not fully appreciated because as an individual player he does not measure up to others. But basketball is a team game and Austrie was the consummate teammate. He made the teams he started on better, or at least play to their potential.

Hmm. Let me phrase it this way, then. Dyson was unavailable for the Final Four. If Austrie was the one unavailable instead our chances of winning the championship that year would have been no better.

 

[diggerfoot]

There is no doubt who the better basketball player was, talent wise. The numbers bring up an interesting point as to who was more important to the team but in the end I don't believe Austrie was as instrumental to winning as Dyson was over the course of their careers. Craig was a nice player despite being limited and while he may have been part of big wins I would guess coincidence played a part in may of the numbers you guys speak of. Nonetheless a pretty intriguing comparison!

Thanks, mauconnfan, you at least understand what I was getting at. "Coincidence" is a plausible argument, particularly coupled with an argument that 2009 is an outlier as a year. I think the overall bodies of work are enough to rule out "coincidences," we'll just have to disagree on that.

I also think the tournament Austrie started in right off the bat is particularly telling. That, of course, in no way disses Dyson because he was not even an option then. Calhoun had the confidence to start the freshman Austrie in that particular situation, and the freshman responded by facilitating all the stars on the team to play up to their potential, which they often failed to do over the course of that particular season.

 

[mauconnfan]

Austrie should have never been attacked by any fans. He is basically Donnell Beverly but needed to play a bigger role due to injuries/situations. Taken late in the recruiting efforts due to lack of depth he turned himself into a very solid performer after being thrust into an impact role and given expectations we should have had, he certainly exceeded those in his career as a Husky.

 

[diggerfoot]

Dyson was clearly more of an asset than a liability to that 2009 team. You could debate about whether that was the case in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (and you'd have a strong case for "liability"), but in 2009 we were unquestionably a better team with him.

Among those 2009 wins vs. ranked teams, we snapped Notre Dame's like 50-game home winning streak. That was a historically good team for us, with Dyson, and we would have played a title game for the ages against North Carolina.

I, for one, was not making a case for Dyson as a liability, more as Austrie as facilitating the potential of others. You do bring up an interesting explanation for why 2009 would be an outlier, Price was there to make the team better as well. Your case would imply that Austrie's value was coincidental to Price being more fully healed by the time of that run in 2008, which bolster's mauconnfan's case about coincidence as well. However, how 2008 ended suggests Austrie's role was not coincidental, and Price had nothing to do with the tournament Austrie helped us win as a starter his freshman year.

There's a fair argument to be made in pointing out that Austrie could not help the team to beat Pitt. My memories of those games revolve around how Blair got his way on both ends of the court, minimizing the ultimate value of any guard play. Still, I did neglect to consider how we could not handle Pitt with Austrie starting.

By big games I mean ones where there is considerable doubt we can win. There were plenty of those in the 2008 run. Louisville at their place was one in 2009, though I do think we benefited from Louisville playing badly that game, certainly worse than their ranking at the time. You bring up another legitimate big game in Notre Dame, and Notre Dame played well. I was more psyched about that win because Notre Dame played to their potential. Still not much of a sample size, but I can see your argument of 2009 being viewed as an outlier year where the make up of the team meant Austrie's comparative worth was not as great as it might have been in other years. Yet we played very well in the NCAA tournament with Austrie starting up until the Final Four round, held in Michigan State's territory, as well as we did early and mid season with Dyson starting. Claiming we automatically win a championship with Dyson, besides the fact that the highly talented UNC team was playing its best basketball at the end of the year, ignores or slights Austrie's demonstrated value to the team.

 

[Waquoit]

Austrie should have never been attacked by any fans.

Exactly. He was a Hail Mary that connected. JC owes him to this day, IMO.

 

[caw]

Austrie should have never been attacked by any fans. He is basically Donnell Beverly but needed to play a bigger role due to injuries/situations. Taken late in the recruiting efforts due to lack of depth he turned himself into a very solid performer after being thrust into an impact role and given expectations we should have had, he certainly exceeded those in his career as a Husky.

Someone attacked Austrie now? I missed that.

Austrie was the perfect 4th guard, but he was overmatched as a starting guard against top, top teams. He did hold his own defensively and was OK against any team outside the top 25. He would have been fantastic on last year's team backing up Napier/Boat and Lamb. Evans was playing the same role this year and hopefully will come back and continue in that role soon.

 

[diggerfoot]

Someone attacked Austrie now? I missed that.

Austrie was the perfect 4th guard, but he was overmatched as a starting guard against top, top teams. He did hold his own defensively and was OK against any team outside the top 25. He would have been fantastic on last year's team backing up Napier/Boat and Lamb. Evans was playing the same role this year and hopefully will come back and continue in that role soon.

Well, that's an easy statement to make without defining top, top teams. Austrie started for us when we beat some top ten teams in three different years of his career; I don't believe he ever started his sophomore year. We could not beat Pitt, so let us assume you define a top, top team as one ranked #4 or higher. How many top, top teams did we beat with Dyson as a starter? Consider again that Louisville was ranked #7 at the time, and played even worse than that ranking.

 

[CTBasketball]

Well, that's an easy statement to make without defining top, top teams. Austrie started for us when we beat some top ten teams in three different years of his career; I don't believe he ever started his sophomore year. We could not beat Pitt, so let us assume you define a top, top team as one ranked #4 or higher. How many top, top teams did we beat with Dyson as a starter? Consider again that Louisville was ranked #7 at the time, and played even worse than that ranking.

#7 Gonzaga. But besides the facts Dyson made this team better when he was in the lineup. They played better. When Robinson, Thabeet, Adrien, Walker, or Price didn't have a big game we knew Dyson would score a lot that night. It would work inversely for any of the people named. With Dyson out of the lineup, it put more stress on Austrie, Walker, and Robinson to score. They weren't developed scorers at the time.

 

[Gurleyman]

You keep coming back to the Louisville played "worse than their ranking" argument. I don't get your point. They ended the regular season ranked no. 1 in the country - not like they were overrated when we played them. If they played lousy that night, perhaps the other team had a little to do with it? It was a road game against one of the top teams in the country and we ran them out of their own gym. We looked like the 2004 team against Alabama or GT.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not arguing for Dyson instead of Austrie. I wanted them both. They both had valuable roles to fill when we had everyone.

As for 2009 v 2010, I think it comes down to some people being better as a complementary player rather than the go-to (happened with Burrell and Albie too). The 2010 team was also poorly constructed with Kemba-JD-Sticks at the 1-2-3, all of whom wanted to drive and all of whom had unreliable jumpers. The lane was always crowded. But Dyson deserves a lot of the heat for that year as a senior. The 2007 season isn't fair to hold over anyone - we had a bunch of very raw freshmen (Dyson was still raw, AJ was a shadow of himself, Thabeet couldn't stay upright, Sticks could jump but that was it, etc.) and Adrien as a sophomore. Our only hope of anything that year was to sign Durant - but the 2007 lumps led to 2009. The 2011 season we had a bunch of freshmen, but Kemba to lead them - makes a big difference.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

[CTBasketball]

You keep coming back to the Louisville played "worse than their ranking" argument. I don't get your point. They ended the regular season ranked no. 1 in the country - not like they were overrated when we played them. If they played lousy that night, perhaps the other team had a little to do with it? It was a road game against one of the top teams in the country and we ran them out of their own gym.

From a Marquette fan point of view (in 2005-2006), "The UConn home win doesn't count because they are worse than their ranking and were overrated."

 

[caw]

Well, that's an easy statement to make without defining top, top teams. Austrie started for us when we beat some top ten teams in three different years of his career; I don't believe he ever started his sophomore year. We could not beat Pitt, so let us assume you define a top, top team as one ranked #4 or higher. How many top, top teams did we beat with Dyson as a starter? Consider again that Louisville was ranked #7 at the time, and played even worse than that ranking.

It's not always about winning when talking about something like this. It wasn't Dyson or Austrie going 1 on 5. I mean specifically Austrie being able to do anything against top teams:

Top 25 Teams without Dyson, 2008-2009, Austrie Numbers

MSU: 6 PTS, 2/3, 2 ASTS, 3 REB, 37 Minutes
Missouri: 7 PTS, 1/4, 1 Ast, 1 Reb, 27 Minutes
Purdue: 17 PTS, 4/6, 4 Asts, 2 Reb, 32 Minutes
Cuse: 8 PTS, 2/13, 4 Asts, 2 Rebs 45 Minutes
Pitt: 0 PTS, 0/2, 3 Asts, 0 Rebs, ?? Minutes
Marquette: 2 PTS, 1/6, 2 Asts, 1 Reb, 18 Minutes
Pitt: 5 PTS, 2/9, 1 Asts, 1 Reb, 27 Minutes
Average: 6.4 PTS, 2.4 Asts, 1.4 Reb, 31 Minutes 12/43 = 27%

Top 25 Teams Dyson gets injured, Austrie Numbers
Cuse: 10 PTS, 4/10, 3 Asts, 5 Reb, 29 Minutes

Top 25 Teams with Dyson, Austrie Numbers
UL: 3 PTS, 0/1, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 21 Minutes
ND: 5 PTS, 1/5, 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 16 Minutes
Nova: 7 PTS, 2/10, 2 Reb, 2 Asts, 27 Minutes
WVU: 2 PTS, 1/2, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 21 Minutes
Georgetown: 4 PTS 2/5, 1 Reb, 0 Asts, 18 Minutes
Gonzaga: 6 PTS 2/7, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 27 Minutes
Wiscy: 8 PTS, 3/4, 1 REB, 2 Ast, 27 Minutes
Miami: 9 PTs, 1/6, 0 REB, 2 Ast, 34 Minutes
Averages: 5.5 PTS, 1.4 Asts, 1.3 Reb, 24 Minutes, 12/40 = 30%

Averages against top 25 teams: 6.2 PTS, 1.9 Asts, 1.6 Rebs, 30.1%, 27.4 Minutes
Averages that year: 7.2 PTS, 2.3 Asts, 1.8 Rebs, 35.5%, 25 minutes

Dyson versus Ranked Teams:
UL: 14 PTS, 5/12, 4 Reb, 2 Ast, 30 Minutes
ND: 15 PTS, 5/13, 9 Reb, 2 Ast, 35 Minutes
Nova: 7 PTS, 6/11, 4 Reb, 1 Asts, 30 Minutes
WVU: 11 PTS, 3/7, 2 Reb, 2 Ast, 18 Minutes
Georgetown: 4 PTS 1/10, 5 Reb, 3 Asts, 28 Minutes
Gonzaga: 21 PTS 5/12, 9 Reb, 4 Ast, 38 Minutes
Wiscy: 21 PTS, 8/13, 4 REB, 3 Ast, 33 Minutes
Miami: 12 PTs, 4/7, 3 REB, 3 Ast, 21 Minutes

Averages: 13.1, 2.5 Asts, 5 Rebs, 29 Minutes, 37/85 = 43.5%
Averages that year: 12.5, 2 Asts, 3.6 Rebs, 27 Minutes, 41.3%

I rushed this so feel free to check the numbers.

 

[ctchamps]

By 2008-09, AJ Price had emerged as the undisputed leader of that team and had Dyson under control. He was a much better team player that season than any other year. A brief summary of that era:

2006-07: Dyson was basically the only offensive threat and was given free reign; team was awful
2007-08: AJ was finally back in game shape and took over the team when Dyson was suspended
2008-09: Dyson deferred to AJ's leadership and we played as a team, dominantly
2009-10: Dyson was the leader by default, with disastrous results

So it's not a contradiction to say that Dyson was (overall) a bad team player, while saying that in 2009 we were a much better team with Dyson.

I disagree with your conclusion. Dyson was a much better supporting player when he didn't have to do most of the ball handling. He was not a pg but a decent enough 2 guard. He was forced, because of circumstances, to run the team when he lacked the skills to do this.

In the one year AJ ran the point, JD moved to his natural position and played well. This has nothing to do with "team player", this has to do with skill sets.

 

[ctchamps]

You are correct that Austrie was not starting point guard, obviously, since he replaced Dyson. That was just careless on my part, carrying over from when he replaced Williams as a point guard in a previous year. That matters not in the least to the case I was presenting.

I don't think you understood my argument. By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general. My case was about making teammates better, which is not reflected in one's own individual stats. My evidence was in the team's performance with Dyson v. Austrie. In '08 the evidence was clearly in favor of Austrie. In '09 we played 8 top ten teams at the time that we played them and went 4-4. With Austrie as starter and Dyson not even available we went 1-1. Not a clear verdict in favor of Austrie, but not in favor of Dyson either, certainly not enough to extrapolate definitively that if we only had Dyson we would win it all.

I'm adding on responses here but Louisville was #7 when we played them, not top five, and played even worse than their ranking. The highest ranked team we played that year was Pitt at #4 and we lost to them twice, certainly not a resounding case for assuming we automatically beat UNC. It's an overstatement for me to say UConn had no chance, but that's not overstating as much as saying UConn would definitely win.

And both those Pitt losses where when Dyson was out. After Dyson went down the only decent team UConn beat was Missouri. That was because KW had and incredible game. The four losses, two to Pitt, one to Cuse and one to MSU all had much better chances to be wins if JD were present.

 

[caw]

And both those Pitt losses where when Dyson was out. After Dyson went down the only decent team UConn beat was Missouri. That was because KW had and incredible game. The four losses, two to Pitt, one to Cuse and one to MSU all had much better chances to be wins if JD were present.

Purdue was pretty good also.

 

[aceboon]

Purdue was pretty good also.

As was Marq, on the road

 

[ctchamps]

You are right, something clicked with Dyson in 2009 and it stinks that he got hurt. But whatever it was, it got unclicked in 2010.

Dyson was never a pg. In 2009 he played the 2g while AJP played pg.

At the beginning of the 2010 season KW was the starting pg and JD's numbers were terrific. During that time he was in the lead for the Wooden Award. But as competition improved as the season progressed Kemba increasingly played out of control so JC made JD the pg. The results were horrible.

 

[ctchamps]

Thanks, mauconnfan, you at least understand what I was getting at. "Coincidence" is a plausible argument, particularly coupled with an argument that 2009 is an outlier as a year. I think the overall bodies of work are enough to rule out "coincidences," we'll just have to disagree on that.

I also think the tournament Austrie started in right off the bat is particularly telling. That, of course, in no way disses Dyson because he was not even an option then. Calhoun had the confidence to start the freshman Austrie in that particular situation, and the freshman responded by facilitating all the stars on the team to play up to their potential, which they often failed to do over the course of that particular season.

UConn's ranking gave them two easy teams at the beginning of that tournament.