Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1

    Beef with the All ACC Team

    I agree with the front page article's position that Marshall should have been on the team vice Barnes. My wife even agrees and she is as big a UNC fan as I am a Duke fan.

    Are we at the point now with Harrison Barnes that he is "too big to fail"? The media pumped this kid like no other in history and he really hasn't come close to meeting their expectations. Not saying he isn't a good player, he is. He is very talented, but no where near the "All American" that he was reported to be.

    How much of his vote for first team do you think was influenced by the media's "investment" in Barnes?

    I feel bad for Marshall in a way. That kid does nothing but lead that team in a very unselfish way, and he has shown that if needed he can score. He is head and shoulders above HB IMO and now has twice been upsurped by HB (ROY last year and now first team All ACC). I would love to see Marshall get some All American honors and see Barnes left off... (not going to happen), but would love it.

    Any one think that might bug him? If it doesn't then he is even more special IMO...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    DC and DE Beach
    OldNavy, I agree completely. Marshall is UNC's MVP. Barnes is the heels best outside shooter, but his other weaknesses leave him short of 1st team status, much less A-A worthy. The media, however, cannot surrender its earlier expectations.

  3. #3
    That's just how media work. They assume (sometimes correctly) that people WANT these simplistic narratives and are, in many cases, too stupid or lazy to process anything more complex.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Marshall, Henson, Barnes and Zeller are all very very good. Votes get split in odd ways when you have such a stacked team.

    It will be that much sweeter if we beat them in the Conference Championship game.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by oldnavy View Post
    I agree with the front page article's position that Marshall should have been on the team vice Barnes. My wife even agrees and she is as big a UNC fan as I am a Duke fan.

    Are we at the point now with Harrison Barnes that he is "too big to fail"? The media pumped this kid like no other in history and he really hasn't come close to meeting their expectations. Not saying he isn't a good player, he is. He is very talented, but no where near the "All American" that he was reported to be.

    How much of his vote for first team do you think was influenced by the media's "investment" in Barnes?

    I feel bad for Marshall in a way. That kid does nothing but lead that team in a very unselfish way, and he has shown that if needed he can score. He is head and shoulders above HB IMO and now has twice been upsurped by HB (ROY last year and now first team All ACC). I would love to see Marshall get some All American honors and see Barnes left off... (not going to happen), but would love it.

    Any one think that might bug him? If it doesn't then he is even more special IMO...
    I don't think it's really going to bug Kendall, his play is indicative of his unselfishness. The fact that all 3 front court players for UNC made first team could actually be seen as a compliment to him.

    But I also totally agree with you, Kendall should have been on the first team and not Barnes. Kendall brought it every night, Barnes did not. Not that I'm presenting this as the entire argument but who could UNC do least without this season - Kendall or HB? I believe as well that Barnes made 1st team partially on his rep coming into college. I even thought that last year Marshall should have been ACC rookie of the year and not Barnes. It was mostly because of Marshall's play that UNC finished 1st in the regular season in 2011 (and Kyrie being hurt). It makes me wonder if a lot of writers actually watch the games they're writing about and not just the box scores.
    "Just be you. You is Enough."

  6. #6
    Although we here on EK would have complained about it, the final spot should, IMO, have been between Barnes and Rivers.

    Assume, just for the delicious prospect of a good, pissed-off debate, that Marshall deserved 1st-team. Repeat: assume Marshall's on it.

    Now, did Rivers or Barnes have the better year? Or, if you prefer, did Rivers have a better year than any of the other 2d-teamers?

    I prefer the Rivers v. Barnes argument, because it's precisely focused on very talented players, raises the emotional ante, and is much more likely to draw fire, and even intelligent commentary, than, say, "Hell, yes, Rivers is better than Stoglin!"

    P.S. I vote for Bennett for ACC COY...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Several of us here even mused about have four () of the washed out blue persuasion on the 1st team and we were one writer's vote away (I think) from a tie for the 5th spot on the team.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My question is, what are the criteria that the voters are using? If they're voting for MVP, then Marshall is definitely more deserving than Barnes. I mean if you're UNC and you have to choose one of the big four to not have for a particular game, you'd probably choose Barnes. Marshall is the last guy you could do without.

    But I don't think they're voting for most valuable player. If that were the case, Scott, Marshall, Rivers, Stoglin, and Snaer would be the first team. I think they're voting more based on raw numbers, and they seem to value offense more than defense. And despite what deficiencies Barnes may have, he does put up really good numbers - the leading scorer on a very high-scoring team.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    My question is, what are the criteria that the voters are using? If they're voting for MVP, then Marshall is definitely more deserving than Barnes. I mean if you're UNC and you have to choose one of the big four to not have for a particular game, you'd probably choose Barnes. Marshall is the last guy you could do without.

    But I don't think they're voting for most valuable player. If that were the case, Scott, Marshall, Rivers, Stoglin, and Snaer would be the first team. I think they're voting more based on raw numbers, and they seem to value offense more than defense. And despite what deficiencies Barnes may have, he does put up really good numbers - the leading scorer on a very high-scoring team.
    Yes, and it's worth noting that Marshall's value lies almost entirely in his ability to quarterback the team. His defense, rebounding, and scoring ability are varying levels of undistinguished for his position. Barnes, by comparison, does everything well except pass. I hardly think it's a media conspiracy to prefer one over the other.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Des Esseintes View Post
    Yes, and it's worth noting that Marshall's value lies almost entirely in his ability to quarterback the team. His defense, rebounding, and scoring ability are varying levels of undistinguished for his position. Barnes, by comparison, does everything well except pass. I hardly think it's a media conspiracy to prefer one over the other.
    Put another way, if you put Marshall on Wake Forest or Boston College's team, how good would he be? Conversely, if you put Barnes on one of those teams, imagine what kind of numbers he would put up.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Put another way, if you put Marshall on Wake Forest or Boston College's team, how good would he be? Conversely, if you put Barnes on one of those teams, imagine what kind of numbers he would put up.
    Indeed. Greg Paulus never again put up the assist numbers he did as a freshman throwing the ball to Shelden and JJ. Marshall is a special passer, far superior to Paulus, but I think it's incontrovertible that his numbers are juiced by the talent with whom he plays. This fact matters if you aren't great at anything but passing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    1. Barnes should have been high on the 2nd Team and he only beat out Marshall by 2 voting points. So it's not that egregious a result. Clearly plenty of folks agreed that Marshall should have been 1st Team ahead of Barnes, and I'd have done so too. Sometimes these things happen.

    2. I think 4 things led to the result: preseason hype; a strong non-conference performance by Barnes; general bias toward scoring over assists; a very low scoring average for Marshall.

    3. I don't see either player making an All-American team, so I think it's moot moving forward. I think there are too many better options: Robinson (KU), Davis (UK), McDermott (Creighton), Sullinger (OSU), Green (MSU), Denmon (Mizzou), Crowder (Marquette), Zeller (UNC), Joseph (Syracuse), Jones (WVU), Scott (UVa), Lillard (Weber St), Canaan (Murray St), Machado (Iona), Hummel (Purdue), Henson (UNC), Shurna (Northwestern), White (ISU), Lamb (UConn), Johnson-Odom (Marquette), Rivers (Duke), Gordon (UNM), Wolters (SDSU), Brown (Texas), and Barton (Memphis) will probably all get more votes than either of those two.

    4. I agree with gumbomoop and that the real debate should have been between Rivers and Barnes. I'd still favor Rivers, but I'd have considered Marshall over both of Barnes and Rivers.

  13. #13
    Beef? I prefer my All-ACC team with chicken.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Roxboro, NC
    One argumnent that I have heard from a few different UNC fans is that if the voters had done it by position then they would have gotten 4 on the first team. However, I don't agree with that either. In that case Mike Scott would bump Henson out because Scott is 2nd in the POY race and got more votes than Henson. So they still would only have 3. PG Marshall, SG Rivers, SF Barnes, PF Scott, C Zeller.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Des Esseintes View Post
    Yes, and it's worth noting that Marshall's value lies almost entirely in his ability to quarterback the team. His defense, rebounding, and scoring ability are varying levels of undistinguished for his position. Barnes, by comparison, does everything well except pass. I hardly think it's a media conspiracy to prefer one over the other.
    I agree that it's no conspiracy, but I don't agree with the bolded part. Barnes shoots well and does a good job of positioning himself well. He's not a terribly great rebounder, he's not a strong ballhandler, he's just a decent defender, and he's not a great passer as you note. I'd say the one thing he does notably well is score (which is a good quality, of course).

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I agree that it's no conspiracy, but I don't agree with the bolded part. Barnes shoots well and does a good job of positioning himself well. He's not a terribly great rebounder, he's not a strong ballhandler, he's just a decent defender, and he's not a great passer as you note. I'd say the one thing he does notably well is score (which is a good quality, of course).
    I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, so our difference may be semantic. When I said "well," that is what I meant. I think his rebounding is solid, as is his defense, though neither are All-Anything. You're very correct that his ballhandling underwhelms. I wasn't even thinking of that, but it is a factor in why that team, on the occasions it doesn't click, grinds its gears a little.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Des Esseintes View Post
    I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, so our difference may be semantic. When I said "well," that is what I meant. I think his rebounding is solid, as is his defense, though neither are All-Anything. You're very correct that his ballhandling underwhelms. I wasn't even thinking of that, but it is a factor in why that team, on the occasions it doesn't click, grinds its gears a little.
    Yup. UNC relies very heavily on Marshall and rebounding to create the scoring chances. Only Zeller and maybe Henson are really gifted at creating their own shot, and that's to a degree just due to playing against other big men. Bullock, Barnes, and Hairston are more or less catch-and-shoot or catch-and-finish guys. When they aren't hitting shots and teams can handle the defensive rebounds, UNC's offense can struggle unless Marshall is threading the needle (see UVa, FSU).

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    1. Barnes should have been high on the 2nd Team and he only beat out Marshall by 2 voting points. So it's not that egregious a result. Clearly plenty of folks agreed that Marshall should have been 1st Team ahead of Barnes, and I'd have done so too. Sometimes these things happen.

    2. I think 4 things led to the result: preseason hype; a strong non-conference performance by Barnes; general bias toward scoring over assists; a very low scoring average for Marshall.

    4. I agree with gumbomoop and that the real debate should have been between Rivers and Barnes. I'd still favor Rivers, but I'd have considered Marshall over both of Barnes and Rivers.

    I agree with all the reasons that CDU put forward as to why Barnes and Rivers made it and Marshall did not. I'd also add that a lot of writers probably thought four UNC players was too many and felt they had to cut one. So it became a Marshall vs. Barnes issue when to me it should have been Rivers v. Barnes.

    Like most UNC fans, I think Barnes and Marshall should have made 1st team and Rivers should have been second. It's tough though. Rivers had a great season, but I think Barnes' numbers are better. Below are their number for ACC play (I'm borrowing these from ICC). Looking at the numbers, it's pretty clear that both are scorers. Barnes gets a decent number of rebounds and Rivers a few assists, but nothing earth shattering. I would also point out that Barnes is scoring more in less minutes, maybe 4 less per game.

    PPG
    Barnes 17.6
    Rivers 15.6

    FG%
    Rivers 45%
    Barnes 43%

    FT%
    Barnes 74%
    Rivers 60%

    RPG
    Barnes 5.4
    Rivers 3.4

    APG
    Rivers 2.0
    Barnes 0.9

    TOPG
    Rivers 2.3
    Barnes 1.8

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    The last two positions on the ALL ACC team this year were hard to pick between Rivers, marshall and barnes. All three were deserving and could have easily made first team. Posters have made good reasons for each one. If the award was given by positon it would probably have been this way: PG-marshall, SG-Austin, Center-zeller, Forward-Scott, Forward- henson. But the award is not given by position any longer if I'm not mistaken. Being a Duke fan I'm glad Austin made first team and wish marshall had made it over barnes for the simple reason, I like marshall better as a person and player. GoDuke!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    First of All, Second of All, ...

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoHeel View Post
    I agree with all the reasons that CDU put forward as to why Barnes and Rivers made it and Marshall did not. I'd also add that a lot of writers probably thought four UNC players was too many and felt they had to cut one. So it became a Marshall vs. Barnes issue when to me it should have been Rivers v. Barnes.

    Like most UNC fans, I think Barnes and Marshall should have made 1st team and Rivers should have been second. It's tough though. Rivers had a great season, but I think Barnes' numbers are better. Below are their number for ACC play (I'm borrowing these from ICC). Looking at the numbers, it's pretty clear that both are scorers. Barnes gets a decent number of rebounds and Rivers a few assists, but nothing earth shattering. I would also point out that Barnes is scoring more in less minutes, maybe 4 less per game.

    PPG
    Barnes 17.6
    Rivers 15.6

    FG%
    Rivers 45%
    Barnes 43%

    FT%
    Barnes 74%
    Rivers 60%

    RPG
    Barnes 5.4
    Rivers 3.4

    APG
    Rivers 2.0
    Barnes 0.9

    TOPG
    Rivers 2.3
    Barnes 1.8
    First of all, the logic that comes out of the collective votes by the press on All-ACC is basically a grab bag. It would be wrong to try and put too much meaning to the outcomes.

    Second of all, UNC had four of the top six positions in the All-ACC voting. Duke had one of the top ten. UNC was one game ahead of Duke in the standings, and they split during the season. Are you arguing that the one Duke player should be demoted from his current standing, so that there would be four UNC players in the top five? I mean, how bad is the UNC coach, if the teams had comparable results and if there were no Duke players as good as any of the best four UNC players?

    Third of all, there was clearly "fratricide" among the UNC players in attracting votes. "Fratricide" is most often used by the nuclear warfare folks to describe the deleterious effect of one nuclear explosion on other bombs going off at the same time. These folks also gave us "megadeaths," "overkill," and "isomorts." What this means is that, if Kendall Marshall were not a factor in the voting, Barnes would have gotten (even) more first-team votes.

    sagegrouse

Similar Threads

  1. Do early season losses by a good team actually help a team focus?
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 07:56 PM
  2. Any punk who thinks pork < beef...
    By Lord Ash in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 10:54 PM
  3. Better team on paper: 2003-2004 Duke (final four) or next year's team?
    By houstondukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 07:19 AM
  4. Beef-A-Roni
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 04:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •