Time to give Jamarius Burton his due credit (so far)!
A case can EASILY be made right now for Jamarius being the ACC Player of the Year.
Why are the Pitt fans not talking about Jamarius Burton for ACC PLAYER OF THE YEAR?
Why is the talk only questionably making 1st team ACC (which he should easily be, possibly the leading vote getter)?
Is the fan base this jaded that they have an obvious ACC PoY candidate, yet they’re questioning if he’s 1st team ACC?
At this point, 1st team ACC is a shoe-in. He’s not a ball hog (like Traquavion Smith from NC State who has attempted 374 FGs to Burtons 255, yet only has a 19.8 to 18.0 PPG edge in ACC play), so there are other ACC players that will have more PPG. But JB is in that neighborhood with the ACC’s highest scorers and he performs at the highest level defensively, as well, conference game after conference game.
He does whatever is required to help will his team to victories more than any other player in the ACC, which is what being “outstanding” is all about. His teammates love him and he loves them… he’s not a selfish player and does exactly what his teammates want him to do, expect him to do, or need him to do.
He does everything great (sans 3 point shooting, which he’s above average percentage wise, had 2 halfway down the other night at UNC when he went 1-5 from 3): He handles the ball great, runs the offense, can drive to the basket great, shoot FTs great (elite in ACC play at 91.8%), has an elite mid-range game, can rebound very well, and is arguably an elite defender (a great defender at the very least). He seems to impose his will and wear others down. He’s the glue on what has currently become a great team (he’s surrounded by other great and good players, so what?). They’ve played all of the best teams in the ACC and he has outperformed the other teams’ best players in mostly every instance, especially during “crunch time.”
For instance, Wong from Miami MIGHT be a better scorer, just because he’s an elite ball handler (he might be the best in the country at that though) but he’s not a better all-around player, whenever you consider rebounding and defense (which is half of the game).
Does the award only go to great players that take a high percentage of the team’s shots on average or bad teams, and therefore end up with greater PPG? Or like 🏈 does it go to the MVP on one of the top teams?
In contrast, you could argue that Pitt has a better team and players around him (1-5 and 6th man) than mostly all the other teams in the ACC, and you wouldn’t be wrong, in my opinion. At this juncture, Pitt does look like the best team in the conference (with Virginia and Miami; they’ve certainly played the strongest ACC schedule to this point), yet that never stops Duke & UNC from getting POY’s whenever their teams are better than most of the others.
Point blank: I haven’t seen an ACC player perform with an all-around high/elite level game as consistently as JB, and do it when it matters the most. He’s my ACC PoY if the award were given right now.
If the team continues to win down the stretch, he’s the ACC PoY.
A case can EASILY be made right now for Jamarius being the ACC Player of the Year.
Why are the Pitt fans not talking about Jamarius Burton for ACC PLAYER OF THE YEAR?
Why is the talk only questionably making 1st team ACC (which he should easily be, possibly the leading vote getter)?
Is the fan base this jaded that they have an obvious ACC PoY candidate, yet they’re questioning if he’s 1st team ACC?
At this point, 1st team ACC is a shoe-in. He’s not a ball hog (like Traquavion Smith from NC State who has attempted 374 FGs to Burtons 255, yet only has a 19.8 to 18.0 PPG edge in ACC play), so there are other ACC players that will have more PPG. But JB is in that neighborhood with the ACC’s highest scorers and he performs at the highest level defensively, as well, conference game after conference game.
He does whatever is required to help will his team to victories more than any other player in the ACC, which is what being “outstanding” is all about. His teammates love him and he loves them… he’s not a selfish player and does exactly what his teammates want him to do, expect him to do, or need him to do.
He does everything great (sans 3 point shooting, which he’s above average percentage wise, had 2 halfway down the other night at UNC when he went 1-5 from 3): He handles the ball great, runs the offense, can drive to the basket great, shoot FTs great (elite in ACC play at 91.8%), has an elite mid-range game, can rebound very well, and is arguably an elite defender (a great defender at the very least). He seems to impose his will and wear others down. He’s the glue on what has currently become a great team (he’s surrounded by other great and good players, so what?). They’ve played all of the best teams in the ACC and he has outperformed the other teams’ best players in mostly every instance, especially during “crunch time.”
For instance, Wong from Miami MIGHT be a better scorer, just because he’s an elite ball handler (he might be the best in the country at that though) but he’s not a better all-around player, whenever you consider rebounding and defense (which is half of the game).
Does the award only go to great players that take a high percentage of the team’s shots on average or bad teams, and therefore end up with greater PPG? Or like 🏈 does it go to the MVP on one of the top teams?
In contrast, you could argue that Pitt has a better team and players around him (1-5 and 6th man) than mostly all the other teams in the ACC, and you wouldn’t be wrong, in my opinion. At this juncture, Pitt does look like the best team in the conference (with Virginia and Miami; they’ve certainly played the strongest ACC schedule to this point), yet that never stops Duke & UNC from getting POY’s whenever their teams are better than most of the others.
Point blank: I haven’t seen an ACC player perform with an all-around high/elite level game as consistently as JB, and do it when it matters the most. He’s my ACC PoY if the award were given right now.
If the team continues to win down the stretch, he’s the ACC PoY.
