You are hereMizzou better without Bowers?
Mizzou better without Bowers?
Rich Zvosec, who was in some of the most entertaining TV spots while he coached UMKC basketball and before he turned to hoops commentary, came up with an interesting opinion on 610-AM with Bob Fescoe on Tuesday morning.
Zvosec said of Missouri's loss for the season of Laurence Bowers to a knee injury: "It's a weird dichotomy. It's addition by subtraction.
"Losing Laurence Bowers I think may have been the best thing for Frank Haith and this team.
"They certainly wouldn't be as good an offensive team with Bowers in there as opposed to the extra guard."
Ah, now, there's where I think Rich went an opinion too far.
At the start of the season, Laurence Bowers was considered key - along with Ricardo Ratliffe - to Missouri being able to get points in the paint, and rebounds.
In my opinion: "They certainly would be a better offensive team with Bowers in there as opposed to the extra guard."
In between those extremes rests the reliance of Haith and Missouri on a four-guard lineup that has worked well enough to boost Missouri to 18-1 and the No. 2 ranking in the country.
I think Rich was correct when he said that with Bowers available Missouri would not have used a four-guard lineup nearly as much as the Tigers have without him.
I think Rich was wrong in assuming that the four-guard lineup is the reason Missouri is 18-1 and ranked No. 2 in the nation.
Missouri's success is not based on a formation. If it was there would be a lot more four-guard lineups out there.
It is kind of like saying Syracuse is good because of its zone defense without considering that it isn't the zone but the way Syracuse plays it that is the key.
The key for Missouri so far has been the way MU's guards - Marcus Denmon, Kim English, Phil and Matt Pressey and Michael Dixon - have bought into the way Haith uses a four-guard offense.
If every one of those players - plus bigs Ricardo Ratliffe and Steve Moore - doesn't buy what Haith has been selling, then Missouri might be the same kind of team that collapsed down the stretch last season under "In my mind, I'm going to Arkansas" Mike Anderson.
Now, consider this: Laurence Bowers would have bought into what Haith was selling as well. Because Bowers has always been more about the MU team than he has himself.
It is why he allowed Anderson to put him in the lineup earlier than he should have been following a concussion last season.
To this day Bowers will not criticize Anderson for that move, or for saying he wanted to retire at MU and then used the back door of Mizzou Arena to leave for Arkansas.
Bowers would have done what Haith told him to do and done so willingly.
Would Missouri have been better with Bowers than with the four-guard lineup that Bowers' injury made a necessity?
Perhaps. Bowers scored 26 points with 12 rebounds and hit 10 of 11 free throws as Missouri split two games with Kansas State last season.
In Bowers' absence in Missouri's only loss of this season - 75-59 at Kansas State - the four-guard Missouri lineup did not seem so magical.
Bowers' return for a delayed senior season will certainly help Haith's Tigers next season when MU loses Denmon, English, Matt Pressey, Ricardo Ratliffe and Steve Moore.
But I'm not buying that Missouri somehow fashioned this team BECAUSE of Bowers' injury so much as I believe it has come together inspite of the loss of one of the team's best players.
Posted in
I can certainly see how one might ponder the question, but there is no way to convince me they wouldn't be better with Bowers. His defense and shot-blocking skills alone would benefit the fast-break possibilities.
He has also been a pretty consistent scoring threat and determined rebounder.
While adding him to this active roster would obviously change some of the dynamic, I can't help but think they would be better. Having said that, it is hard to imagine that would necessarily translate to more wins, at least so far. But by the end of the season, we may look back and see a couple games where he may have made a significant difference.
The team would certainly have been different. But how can you say it's better or not?
One thing I think would have been different is that Bowers would have done most of the defending on the other teams' big man, so how many more minutes of playing time might we have seen from Ratliffe and Moore if they hadn't missed so much time with foul trouble? How different would they have played if they weren't trying to avoid picking up another foul?
I think, given the limited number of players that Haith uses in his regular rotation, any seasoned player that can give the team quality minutes can only help things overall.
The one thing about Bower's absence this year is that the team will start out with three very experienced players...Bowers, Pressey and Pressey...next year and that will be huge, considering that there will also be a lot of new faces. Like English, Denmon and Dixon, Bowers is a good guy and will represent The University well, regardless of his role. It will also be interesting to see how Haith does in year two. He is far beyond anything that I thought that we could ever hope for!
Matt Pressey is a senior