Quick Hit: The MBA Quandary

The sense I’m getting from a lot of comments here and around the Husky-verse is that fans are pinning a larger portion of the blame for the team’s terrible Pac-10 start on Matthew Bryan-Amaning.

In 22.1 minutes per game, the team’s former starting center has averaged 7.3 points, 5.3 rebounds, shot 45.3% from the field, and more than a block and steal per game.

Are these the stats I would’ve hoped for from the big Brit? No.

The litany of complaints about MBA is well-tred: he’s not aggressive enough, he gets down on himself and disappears, he’s not a great one-on-one defender. . .

Clearly, to this point, MBA is not everything we could ever want in a big man. But, he feels like the quintessential example of a guy who’s always being recognized for what he doesn’t do, rather than what he does.

Because Matthew’s also not a bad rebounder, gets his hands on loose balls, blocks (and goaltends!) reasonably well, and does have his share of post moves.

So, in my opinion, is he main reason for the team’s recent woes? No way. Of late, the Huskies have trouble shooting, penetrating, and pounding the ball inside. Matthew’s a big part of the latter, but our big men aren’t helped by the fact that neither of the other two are going well.

I’m not aiming to make excuses for the big guy. I just want to see the coaches use the pieces they have at this point, since we’re not reloading with guys like C.J. Wilcox, Desmond Simmons or Enes Kanter until next year. I do believe that if the Huskies can get things straightened out, MBA will be a big part of the answer.

But knowing how fragile the big guy’s confidence can be, I’m worried that the recent move to the bench will have diminishing returns.

What do you think? Let me hear you! And, thanks for coming!