1. MU will be the most experienced team in the Big East, starting a third year Senior, a second year Senior, a true Senior, two Junior prep school guards, with two Juniors and a fifth year Senior off the bench with significant playing time. MU is actually much older than last season despite losing three starters (two true Seniors and a very young Junior). Experience wins on the road as the players have been there in crunch time. Buzz's system is well known and understood, and teamwork, communication and offensive and defensive efficiency improves with experience.
2. Home win streak second in the nation at 25. With more Saturday games, the BC will be a very intimidating place, especially for young teams or new conference teams. Cuse, Georgetown and ND were shaken, let's see how a Creighton will do. TOSU will be an early challenge, but MU will be deep with resolve with its experience. High seed is necessary for a national championship so locking up home takes MU a long way. St. Louis and Indianapolis would be ideal as a 1 seed with MU's strong OOC and if they can run through the conference with only a few divots. Does the B1G and MSU steal that seed? MU has not seen a Midwest site in a while...and Milwaukee takes up one of those.
3. Turnovers will be down and efficiency will be up. MU was a crazy 234th last season in turnover rate at 20.6%. As much as we all love Junior, that was way too high. As a comparison, Michigan was #1 at 14.6%, or 82% better than Marquette. This was Buzz's worst turnover rate team including New Orleans by a wide margin (and eFG%, most likely related). His best team was 2010 team with a 16% TO rate. Yikes!
4. Depth...McKay, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, the Fab Freshman are all more offensively skilled than the crew off the bench last season, even the returnees...and certainly are better outside shooters than who they replace. If two or three step up with their scoring contributions, look out. Anderson, DuWilson and Burton are my picks to click...but JJJ is the highest rated MU recruit since Doc Rivers.
5. Three NBA players. The book "Scorecasting" statistically shows you need three all stars to contend for a championship. Wade, Diener, Novak. Whitehead, Ellis, Lee. Lucas, Tatum, Ellis. Who will be the NBA players to take MU to Dallas? Jamil, Gardner, and ??? Mayo, Otule, Juan, McKay, one of the frosh? It will have to be a guard for MU to make the final weekend. So, based on projected minutes, Mr. Mayo better be ready to step up...MU needs his shooting to be on, and family will be nearby to push him. Burton is a man-beast and DuWilson could make the offense hum in the open court as a PG not seen since DJ, except with a better shot. This is MU's biggest question mark...although there are plenty of answers waiting there.
Show of hands here-----who doesn't have their tix for Texas yet?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 07, 2013, 09:15:36 PM
Show of hands here-----who doesn't have their tix for Texas yet?
.
Says the medical professional who said/bet that Wes, Zar, Jimmy, Trent and Dwight were NOT NBA talents. Did I miss any? ;D
It might just be gas, but I feel a wager comin' on.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 07, 2013, 09:27:24 PM
It might just be gas, but I feel a wager comin' on.
Although betting is against the Scoop guidelines and will get you banned...I note that Vegas had MU at 100:1 odds. I would be good for that action. The old lady open up her purse for you with that kind of bling? Maybe you should start on JayBee's investment plan in preparation?
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 07, 2013, 09:40:57 PM
Although betting is against the Scoop guidelines and will get you banned..
It is, since when?
I think a FF run is very much in the cards but I think that means Duane Wilson becomes a PG starter and an extremely consistent one at that. I just don't think Derrick Wilson can get you to the 3rd Weekend. I don't want to knock Derrick, but I personally do not see his ceiling being high enough to lead a FF team.
Nonetheless we have an AMAZING front line with decades of experience. And we have talented but unproven guards. If these guards come around, look out. 3-4 years ago Jamil Wilson would have been playing center, now he's poised to destroy the BE from the 3 spot.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 07, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
It is, since when?
Yeah, if that's true, we'd better update the handbook.
BTW .. Really? They peg UW having a better shot? Pass me some of that..
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on October 07, 2013, 10:36:28 PM
Yeah, if that's true, we'd better update the handbook.
BTW .. Really? They peg UW having a better shot? Pass me some of that..
UW will beat MU this year if I had to bet, which may or may not be illegal and banishable by death here.
We'll go as far as our guards take us....that's what worries me. How good are our guards? If they are good, we'll be really good.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on October 07, 2013, 10:36:28 PM
Yeah, if that's true, we'd better update the handbook.
As quoted from the top of the page. Under that little section that includes the word "Rules". So ZFB is free to ignore the porn restrictions? ;D
QuoteNo illegal activities (duh)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 07, 2013, 10:42:42 PM
UW will beat MU this year if I had to bet, which may or may not be illegal and banishable by death here.
We'll go as far as our guards take us....that's what worries me. How good are our guards? If they are good, we'll be really good.
UW is an imperfect team.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 07, 2013, 09:40:57 PM
Although betting is against the Scoop guidelines and will get you banned...I note that Vegas had MU at 100:1 odds. I would be good for that action. The old lady open up her purse for you with that kind of bling? Maybe you should start on JayBee's investment plan in preparation?
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/
Wish I would have seen that, I got 70-1 this weekend at Caesars, they had Bucky 90-1, Georgetown was the favorite for big east at 60-1. Creighton opened at 25-1 but is now at 100-1.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 07, 2013, 09:40:57 PM
Although betting is against the Scoop guidelines and will get you banned...I note that Vegas had MU at 100:1 odds. I would be good for that action. The old lady open up her purse for you with that kind of bling? Maybe you should start on JayBee's investment plan in preparation?
100:1 does sound lovely for someone betting MU. Marquette could be excellent.
Saw Steve, John-Daw and Buzz on Friday. They are flat out ready to play.
If anyone is nervous and wants to short something for the upcoming weeks, WFM asking $59.45 in after hours; looks ripe for a tumble. Stock has gotten out ahead of itself.
If anyone can bet on Northwestern making the NCAA tourney for a nice payoff, I'd consider that one. Wonder what kind of odds are out there for that bet?...
Quote from: Jay Bee on October 07, 2013, 10:53:38 PM
flat out ready to play.
You've been listening to too much Digger, my friend.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 07, 2013, 10:45:55 PM
UW is an imperfect team.
So are 347 other D1 teams, and the Miami Heat for that matter
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 07, 2013, 09:15:36 PM
Show of hands here-----who doesn't have their tix for Texas yet?
I do!
Oh...you mean the final four, I'm just in Texas
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 12:40:53 AM
So are 347 other D1 teams, and the Miami Heat for that matter
Except IU, who is a Final 4 team. Witty you are.
Why don't you try discussing your Badgers merits? Like their unbalanced line up, skewed even more to the perimeter? Who their point guard is? How will replace their three starters in the front court? Will Gasser be 100% early on? Will Koenig get off the bench to start? Their match up advantage to Marquette? How they will gel after a sluggish Canadian trip? Can Dekker be the man? They lost a lot of defense, how will they adjust?
I think the B1G will be down from last year. MSU is #1 overall, IMO, preseason. Michigan has talent but lost a lot too. Illinois and NU on the rise. Iowa maturing. OSU lost its best player early to the draft and may start there guards. The rest of the teams are sideways or down. Maybe Bucky finishes Top 4 but they have major holes, especially early. Ulthoff leaving upset the Bo master plan. Looks like he too will go three guard without one being a natural point.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 07, 2013, 10:42:42 PM
UW will beat MU this year if I had to bet, which may or may not be illegal and banishable by death here.
We'll go as far as our guards take us....that's what worries me. How good are our guards? If they are good, we'll be really good.
Never fear Chicos--Derek Wilson owns the Wisc. guards. MU will dominate Bucky.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 07, 2013, 10:42:42 PM
UW will beat MU this year if I had to bet, which may or may not be illegal and banishable by death here.
Which by no means indicates that they have a better shot at the Final Four. They very well might win that game - it is in the Kohl Center after all. However their lack of front court depth and experience is really going to harm them later down the road.
While it is certainly possile that Duane will be less turnover prone than Junior he is still a freshmen with no experience. The one advantage he will have over Junior is that he will not be facing Louisville or Uconn.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 08, 2013, 06:35:25 AM
Except IU, who is a Final 4 team. Witty you are.
Why don't you try discussing your Badgers merits? Like their unbalanced line up, skewed even more to the perimeter? Who their point guard is? How will replace their three starters in the front court? Will Gasser be 100% early on? Will Koenig get off the bench to start? Their match up advantage to Marquette? How they will gel after a sluggish Canadian trip? Can Dekker be the man? They lost a lot of defense, how will they adjust?
I think the B1G will be down from last year. MSU is #1 overall, IMO, preseason. Michigan has talent but lost a lot too. Illinois and NU on the rise. Iowa maturing. OSU lost its best player early to the draft and may start there guards. The rest of the teams are sideways or down. Maybe Bucky finishes Top 4 but they have major holes, especially early. Ulthoff leaving upset the Bo master plan. Looks like he too will go three guard without one being a natural point.
I don't disagree with a word you said. You are taking a great leap and extrapolating on all kinds of stuff when I said nothing of the kind about UW, IU, the Big Ten in general. I think MU is a better team than UW-madison, but as we all know the best team doesn't always win. I think UW-madison will beat us this year in Madison. That is all I said...that I think UW will beat MU this year. All the other stuff you said, sure.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 07:31:45 AM
Which by no means indicates that they have a better shot at the Final Four. They very well might win that game - it is in the Kohl Center after all. However their lack of front court depth and experience is really going to harm them later down the road.
Correct. Not sure why they have better odds, though as we know with odds, they change based on bettors. If a bunch of people are putting money on Becky, the odds move. Maybe that is part of the reason their odds are better, because they have a bunch of fans betting on them? Who knows, but we agree, I would have MU as a better bet to make the Final Four than UW-madison even though its a total crapshoot, no one knows who is playing who, where, etc.
Forgetting about the Badgers and getting back to the topic!
Think of this. If Junior doesn't waste a year of eligibility coming back his freshman year. If Vander stays in school.
You then start 2 seniors and 2 redshirt seniors with a point guard that has played in 10 NCAA tournament games.
THAT is a Final 4 team with a real shot at the title.
What might have been.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 07:31:45 AM
Which by no means indicates that they have a better shot at the Final Four. They very well might win that game - it is in the Kohl Center after all. However their lack of front court depth and experience is really going to harm them later down the road.
Exactly. Indiana probably would have beaten us in Bloomington last year, yet when the rubber met the road we had a better chance at the final four.
01-29-92
09-02-91
03-26-91
11-21-90
01-04-90
Those are the birthdays of our 5 anticipated starters, barring a frosh or Steven Taylor's son breaking the line-up.
By Sweet 16 time, the average age will be over 22.5 --- imagine our old men vs. UK's kids. Would be interesting.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 09:01:07 AM
I don't disagree with a word you said. You are taking a great leap and extrapolating on all kinds of stuff when I said nothing of the kind about UW, IU, the Big Ten in general. I think MU is a better team than UW-madison, but as we all know the best team doesn't always win. I think UW-madison will beat us this year in Madison. That is all I said...that I think UW will beat MU this year. All the other stuff you said, sure.
.
Uummmm okay Chief....I asked for your analysis on your pick...and then went into my assessment of the B1G and Bucky. So your analysis is UW wins because it is a home game? I was looking for a little more from you...but that will do if that is all you got.
As to my retort about IU...it was a funny dating back to Crean talking about the Final 4 team he left at MU. You said, "theoretically" every team is a Final 4 team before the season. So that is my story on them this year. After all, they have two University Games starters in the lineup.
Do I need to buy you a context dictionary?
Quote from: NotAnAlum on October 08, 2013, 09:09:32 AM
Forgetting about the Badgers and getting back to the topic!
Think of this. If Junior doesn't waste a year of eligibility coming back his freshman year. If Vander stays in school.
You then start 2 seniors and 2 redshirt seniors with a point guard that has played in 10 NCAA tournament games.
THAT is a Final 4 team with a real shot at the title.
What might have been.
Obviously, Vander would have helped this team. But I prefer our point guards this season over Junior.
While JC's intangibles were off the chart, his play (especially against good, quick teams) wasn't. He was a turnover machine who couldn't shoot. While there is a real risk/reward with the Wilson's this year, I think we will be better off by tournament time.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 08, 2013, 09:34:07 AM
.
Uummmm okay Chief....I asked for your analysis on your pick...and then went into my assessment of the B1G and Bucky. So your analysis is UW wins because it is a home game? I was looking for a little more from you...but that will do if that is all you got.
As to my retort about IU...it was a funny dating back to Crean talking about the Final 4 team he left at MU. You said, "theoretically" every team is a Final 4 team before the season. So that is my story on them this year. After all, they have two University Games starters in the lineup.
Do I need to buy you a context dictionary?
Some people get caught up on what's logically true vs. what's 'pragmatically felicitous'. I left a FF team. How so? Because every team is a potential FF team. Technically/logically, yea, but pragmatically infelicitous as linguists would say.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 08, 2013, 09:34:07 AM
Uummmm okay Chief....I asked for your analysis on your pick...and then went into my assessment of the B1G and Bucky. So your analysis is UW wins because it is a home game? I was looking for a little more from you...but that will do if that is all you got.
Because Chicos said what he said simply to rile people up, not to provide a counter argument. The sun rises in the east....fall turns into winter...etc. etc. etc.
MU's season is controlled by how well the freshman guards play. If they are ready from day 1, a la the amigos, MU is a legit final 4 team. If they aren't, all bets are off. How they handle OSU and Craft will be an early indicator.
Quote from: tower912 on October 08, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
MU's season is controlled by how well the freshman guards play. If they are ready from day 1, a la the amigos, MU is a legit final 4 team. If they aren't, all bets are off. How they handle OSU and Craft will be an early indicator.
Actually I don't think that will be much of an indicator. I think MU is going to have some trouble in that game because of the inexperience in their backcourt. As others have mentioned here, I think they will get better as the year goes on, but that first game has the potential to be ugly with poor backcourt play.
Quote from: The Lens on October 08, 2013, 09:22:09 AM
01-29-92
09-02-91
03-26-91
11-21-90
01-04-90
Those are the birthdays of our 5 anticipated starters, barring a frosh or Steven Taylor's son breaking the line-up.
By Sweet 16 time, the average age will be over 22.5 --- imagine our old men vs. UK's kids. Would be interesting.
That's some grown men, Lens.
I didn't mean MU has to win. If they don't get completely destroyed by Craft, then there is hope.
Quote from: tower912 on October 08, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
I didn't mean MU has to win. If they don't get completely destroyed by Craft, then there is hope.
Let me put it another way. We very well might be destroyed by Craft. And I still wouldn't lose hope despite the inevitable meltdown that will occur on Scoop.
Remember last year's team was absolutely destroyed by Florida on national television...and things worked out just fine by the end of the year.
Quote from: tower912 on October 08, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
I didn't mean MU has to win. If they don't get completely destroyed by Craft, then there is hope.
I'm not even a little bit concerned about Craft destroying us. Craft will get points, but OSU was terrible in the half court last year and was mediocre at rebounding and lost their top two rebounders. That makes their eFG% pretty low I think. To overcome their difficulty in the half court they are going to have to get out and run which helps our defense as Buzz teams aren't likely to be caught napping in transition. With our bulk down low and length on the wings, I like our chances.
Assuming OSU isn't red hot from the arc I think we win.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 10:41:52 AM
Let me put it another way. We very well might be destroyed by Craft. And I still wouldn't lose hope despite the inevitable meltdown that will occur on Scoop.
Remember last year's team was absolutely destroyed by Florida on national television...and things worked out just fine by the end of the year.
I'm with you. The idea is to be playing your best ball in March, not November or December. Takes a lot of the "crap" out of crapshoot.
Quote from: The Lens on October 08, 2013, 09:22:09 AM
01-29-92
09-02-91
03-26-91
11-21-90
01-04-90
Those are the birthdays of our 5 anticipated starters, barring a frosh or Steven Taylor's son breaking the line-up.
By Sweet 16 time, the average age will be over 22.5 --- imagine our old men vs. UK's kids. Would be interesting.
Let's hope we're not past our prime!
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 10:34:01 AM
Actually I don't think that will be much of an indicator. I think MU is going to have some trouble in that game because of the inexperience in their backcourt. As others have mentioned here, I think they will get better as the year goes on, but that first game has the potential to be ugly with poor backcourt play.
I tend to agree...but I don't know if I would use the word ugly. These are two juniors who have seen plenty of playing time. I just think that they will not push the advantage as well to start the season.
But, the freshmen will indeed have ugly moments early and often. However, DuWilson's mistakes will be forcing the action at the basket and not with the loose handle or wild pass in transition that would lead to quick turnaround points. Du is used to feeding the post with Stone.
As for Craft, his efficiency and the team's took a big drop after Sullinger's departure....and now with Thomas gone, what will it look like with three guards starting? He is a great playmaker and he keeps turnovers down, but a playmaker needs a scorer. Lots of question marks there too like MU, all with good potential.
As for Willie's sarcastic comment on DeWilson...UW may be the one game he actually owns a PG. Jackson is not the answer, although he knows the Swing. He was exposed in Canada, and with the frontline gone, teams are going to lock him down high to disrupt the slow developing offense even more. He had a 90 off efficiency last year as a starter in that role that requires him controlling the ball. Ouch. Brust and Dekker are going to have to create on their own. Bo's system doesn't work that way, though. How will he adjust? They need a healthy Gasser to beat MU early.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 10:41:52 AM
Let me put it another way. We very well might be destroyed by Craft. And I still wouldn't lose hope despite the inevitable meltdown that will occur on Scoop.
Remember last year's team was absolutely destroyed by Florida on national television...and things worked out just fine by the end of the year.
This is a crazy statement to make, but could Derrick Wilson ever evolve into a Craft type of player? Craft is a beast defensively, due to his physicality and quickness - similar to Derrick. I don't think Craft is much of a shooter, perhaps a better facilitator/penetrator than Derrick - yet I see similarities in their styles of play. Derrick is strong/solid with the ball - don't see Craft being able to turn him over - yet don't see Derrick doing much beyond being able to initiate offense.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 08, 2013, 06:35:25 AM
Why don't you try discussing your Badgers merits? Like their unbalanced line up, skewed even more to the perimeter? Who their point guard is? How will replace their three starters in the front court? Will Gasser be 100% early on? Will Koenig get off the bench to start? Their match up advantage to Marquette? How they will gel after a sluggish Canadian trip? Can Dekker be the man? They lost a lot of defense, how will they adjust?
I've got Bucky rolling out this as a starting lineup:
Jackson
Brust
Gasser
Dekker
Kaminsky
Assuming Gasser is good to go, they have a talented and experienced backcourt that could give our guys fits. Dekker definitely has the potential to "be the man" but he hasn't had to do it yet. I would personally take J Wilson over Dekker right now. The real mismatch is at the 5. Bo's system requires a dominate big man who can also take jumpshots. I'm not convinced Kaminsky is that player. Gardner should eat him alive. But if anyone can develop a player like Kaminsky, it is Bo.
I think we have the more talented team but that's assuming our frosh guards live up to their potential. We should win but you can never count Bucky out in Madison. Should be a close one.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 08, 2013, 11:24:39 AM
I've got Bucky rolling out this as a starting lineup:
Jackson
Brust
Gasser
Dekker
Kaminsky
Assuming Gasser is good to go, they have a talented and experienced backcourt that could give our guys fits. Dekker definitely has the potential to "be the man" but he hasn't had to do it yet. I would personally take J Wilson over Dekker right now. The real mismatch is at the 5. Bo's system requires a dominate big man who can also take jumpshots. I'm not convinced Kaminsky is that player. Gardner should eat him alive. But if anyone can develop a player like Kaminsky, it is Bo.
I think we have the more talented team but that's assuming our frosh guards live up to their potential. We should win but you can never count Bucky out in Madison. Should be a close one.
That is one small line up that would give MU huge frontcourt mismatches. I could see MU going very big that game and rotating McKay, Otule and Gardner in constantly.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 11:29:18 AM
That is one small line up that would give MU huge frontcourt mismatches. I could see MU going very big that game and rotating McKay, Otule and Gardner in constantly.
Not to mention freeing Steve Taylor to rebound like the apocalypse is coming.
Quote from: mu03eng on October 08, 2013, 10:51:37 AM
I'm not even a little bit concerned about Craft destroying us. Craft will get points, but OSU was terrible in the half court last year and was mediocre at rebounding and lost their top two rebounders. That makes their eFG% pretty low I think. To overcome their difficulty in the half court they are going to have to get out and run which helps our defense as Buzz teams aren't likely to be caught napping in transition. With our bulk down low and length on the wings, I like our chances.
Assuming OSU isn't red hot from the arc I think we win.
tOSU lost their best player to the draft, as well as their most experienced center. But we can't take this team lightly. They will roll out a much more balanced attack this year and potentially be better than last year's elite 8 squad.
I'm projecting their starters as:
Aaron Craft
Lenzelle Smith Jr.
Sam Thompson
Quinton Ross
Amir Williams
Craft and LSJ are one of the strongest defensive backcourts (if not the most) in college ball. Their backup Shannon Scott is also very talented. With us relying on either frosh or last year's back ups at the guard position, I see a lot of turnovers and easy scores for the Buckeyes. Thompson and Ross are big athletic forwards who will be able to keep up with and match J Wil, McKay, and Taylor. Thompson is a freak athlete (some of last year's best dunks) and Ross is a sharpshooter. Williams was underwhelming last season but he was a top 50 center coming out of high school. If he realizes his potential, that can be dangerous.
The Buckeyes weakness is their depth. Their recruiting class this year was good but not up to usual Buckeye standards (neither was their class last year). The bench players who are returning from last season are Della Vella, a sharpshooter from Italy, and Trey McDonald, an undersized center. Both only played garbage minutes last season and average around 2 ppg.
So to beat the Buckeyes, we need to keep Craft and LSJ from turning TOs into easy buckets. That's going to mean early passes into the paint. Let Big Smooth work his magic on Williams (very foul prone last season). If Williams gets in foul trouble, tOSU will be playing seldom used 6"8 backup center Trey McDonald who can be abused in the paint. On defense, stop the Buckeyes from raining threes. Four of their projected starters shot better than 30% from beyond the arc last season. This will be an early test of our three point D.
I think tOSU has a better starting lineup, but our depth might be enough to win the game. It will be a tough one. Until I see the frosh in action, I don't feel comfortable calling the game for either side.
Quote from: The Lens on October 08, 2013, 09:22:09 AM
01-29-92
09-02-91
03-26-91
11-21-90
01-04-90
Those are the birthdays of our 5 anticipated starters, barring a frosh or Steven Taylor's son breaking the line-up.
By Sweet 16 time, the average age will be over 22.5 --- imagine our old men vs. UK's kids. Would be interesting.
My 7 grandkids have a lot more energy than me. :)
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 11:29:18 AM
That is one small line up that would give MU huge frontcourt mismatches. I could see MU going very big that game and rotating McKay, Otule and Gardner in constantly.
I agree, Dekker isn't big enough or athletic enough to cover McKay, Taylor, J Wilson, or Gardner. So I think we get a lot of easy scores. But Dekker can shoot the lights out, and J Wilson can be suspect on defense
I would be more worried about Craft, if we were depending on our point guard for scoring. As long as the point guard postion keeps the turnovers down to 3-4, I do not really care if Craft holds Derrick Wilson scoreless. I figure Duane will average about 6 pts a game this year, so even if he holds both of our point guards scoreless it will not matter much. It will matter if they throw the ball away 10 times. Offensively Craft could be a problem. He was the one that carried Ohio St. to a win in the tournament by hitting some timely shots. I think it was the game to get to final four, but it could of been the game before that.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 08, 2013, 09:34:07 AM
.
Uummmm okay Chief....I asked for your analysis on your pick...and then went into my assessment of the B1G and Bucky. So your analysis is UW wins because it is a home game? I was looking for a little more from you...but that will do if that is all you got.
As to my retort about IU...it was a funny dating back to Crean talking about the Final 4 team he left at MU. You said, "theoretically" every team is a Final 4 team before the season. So that is my story on them this year. After all, they have two University Games starters in the lineup.
Do I need to buy you a context dictionary?
Sorry, happy to define further.
Yes, theoretically every team is a Final Four team by definition. Ask Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, etc.
By the way, I'm deeply offended that you referred to me as chief and think that is racial and uncalled for. ;D
My analysis....the game is at the Kohl Center, our guards are unproven, they've lost 3 straight to MU, I think they will have the edge. It will be our first true hostile road environment (sorry, I don't count Tempe or Disneyland adjacent in that same realm). Just a guess, nothing more. 50-50 proposition. UWGB was unbalanced last year, and they beat us. Syracuse was better than MU, but MU beat them at home. Anything can happen, I just think they get us this year at their place. Probably not the context or deep analysis you are looking for.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 08, 2013, 10:30:58 AM
Because Chicos said what he said simply to rile people up, not to provide a counter argument. The sun rises in the east....fall turns into winter...etc. etc. etc.
Not at all. I don't find it that out of the ordinary to pick the home school over MU when both teams are quality teams. Nothing earth shattering. It's not like I said UW-madison will beat us by 34 points or 15 or destroy us or whatever. I just think they will get us this year. You guys way overanalyze things....the keyboard psychology degrees that have been earned are impressive.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
Sorry, happy to define further.
Yes, theoretically every team is a Final Four team by definition. Ask Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, etc.
By the way, I'm deeply offended that you referred to me as chief and think that is racial and uncalled for. ;D
My analysis....the game is at the Kohl Center, our guards are unproven, they've lost 3 straight to MU, I think they will have the edge. It will be our first true hostile road environment (sorry, I don't count Tempe or Disneyland adjacent in that same realm). Just a guess, nothing more. 50-50 proposition. UWGB was unbalanced last year, and they beat us. Syracuse was better than MU, but MU beat them at home. Anything can happen, I just think they get us this year at their place. Probably not the context or deep analysis you are looking for.
A little picky, but it's only two straight losses
Quote from: I don't care on October 08, 2013, 01:09:02 PM
A little picky, but it's only two straight losses
it will be 3 come Pearl Harbor Day!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
My analysis....the game is at the Kohl Center, our guards are unproven, they've lost 3 straight to MU, I think they will have the edge. It will be our first true hostile road environment (sorry, I don't count Tempe or Disneyland adjacent in that same realm). Just a guess, nothing more. 50-50 proposition. UWGB was unbalanced last year, and they beat us. Syracuse was better than MU, but MU beat them at home. Anything can happen, I just think they get us this year at their place. Probably not the context or deep analysis you are looking for.
Chicos - I'll take a little action there... 6 pack of beer, winner's choice?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
My analysis....the game is at the Kohl Center, our guards are unproven, they've lost 3 straight to MU, I think they will have the edge. It will be our first true hostile road environment (sorry, I don't count Tempe or Disneyland adjacent in that same realm). Just a guess, nothing more. 50-50 proposition. UWGB was unbalanced last year, and they beat us. Syracuse was better than MU, but MU beat them at home. Anything can happen, I just think they get us this year at their place. Probably not the context or deep analysis you are looking for.
So, basically it's a crapshoot.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 08, 2013, 11:46:40 AM
tOSU lost their best player to the draft, as well as their most experienced center. But we can't take this team lightly. They will roll out a much more balanced attack this year and potentially be better than last year's elite 8 squad.
I'm projecting their starters as:
Aaron Craft
Lenzelle Smith Jr.
Sam Thompson
Quinton Ross
Amir Williams
Craft and LSJ are one of the strongest defensive backcourts (if not the most) in college ball. Their backup Shannon Scott is also very talented. With us relying on either frosh or last year's back ups at the guard position, I see a lot of turnovers and easy scores for the Buckeyes. Thompson and Ross are big athletic forwards who will be able to keep up with and match J Wil, McKay, and Taylor. Thompson is a freak athlete (some of last year's best dunks) and Ross is a sharpshooter. Williams was underwhelming last season but he was a top 50 center coming out of high school. If he realizes his potential, that can be dangerous.
The Buckeyes weakness is their depth. Their recruiting class this year was good but not up to usual Buckeye standards (neither was their class last year). The bench players who are returning from last season are Della Vella, a sharpshooter from Italy, and Trey McDonald, an undersized center. Both only played garbage minutes last season and average around 2 ppg.
So to beat the Buckeyes, we need to keep Craft and LSJ from turning TOs into easy buckets. That's going to mean early passes into the paint. Let Big Smooth work his magic on Williams (very foul prone last season). If Williams gets in foul trouble, tOSU will be playing seldom used 6"8 backup center Trey McDonald who can be abused in the paint. On defense, stop the Buckeyes from raining threes. Four of their projected starters shot better than 30% from beyond the arc last season. This will be an early test of our three point D.
I think tOSU has a better starting lineup, but our depth might be enough to win the game. It will be a tough one. Until I see the frosh in action, I don't feel comfortable calling the game for either side.
Not taking them lightly, just have some confidence in the match-up on paper....of course games aren't played on paper....they are played in television sets, so we'll wait and see.
Quote from: I don't care on October 08, 2013, 01:09:02 PM
A little picky, but it's only two straight losses
Well crap, then I am changing my pick. MU wins going away. ;)
Quote from: Jay Bee on October 07, 2013, 10:53:38 PM
If anyone is nervous and wants to short something for the upcoming weeks, WFM asking $59.45 in after hours; looks ripe for a tumble. Stock has gotten out ahead of itself.
WFM has continued to rise before releasing earnings after market close today. Closed up 1.22% to $64.47.
After hours has 'em at down around $58.50, a drop of more than 9%.
Get at your boy.
Nostradamus clearly has nothing on you guys.
Quote from: Ooops on January 09, 2014, 12:20:03 PM
Nostradamus clearly has nothing on you guys.
This post was written prior to losing three players who were supposed to make an impact... Jameel McKay (last-second transfer), Duane Wilson (medical redshirt), and Steve Taylor (missed lot of action and still recovering from surgery.)
Quote from: Ooops on January 09, 2014, 12:20:03 PM
Nostradamus clearly has nothing on you guys.
Great first post! Lots of constructive comments there.
Quote from: downtown85 on January 09, 2014, 12:53:39 PM
Great first post! Lots of constructive comments there.
Maybe his handle is what his mom and dad said when he was born.
Quote from: Ooops on January 09, 2014, 12:20:03 PM
Nostradamus clearly has nothing on you guys.
Tu Holloway fan?
Quote from: Jay Bee on October 07, 2013, 10:53:38 PM
If anyone is nervous and wants to short something for the upcoming weeks, WFM asking $59.45 in after hours; looks ripe for a tumble. Stock has gotten out ahead of itself.
If anyone can bet on Northwestern making the NCAA tourney for a nice payoff, I'd consider that one. Wonder what kind of odds are out there for that bet?...
Finally. WFM tumbles to $38.92, down 34.5% since my Oct 7 note.
Meanwhile, the Nasdaq composite is up 7.2% during the same period.
$$$.
Quote from: tower912 on October 08, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
MU's season is controlled by how well the freshman guards play. If they are ready from day 1, a la the amigos, MU is a legit final 4 team. If they aren't, all bets are off. How they handle OSU and Craft will be an early indicator.
Bump.
Quote from: Ners on October 08, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
This is a crazy statement to make, but could Derrick Wilson ever evolve into a Craft type of player? Craft is a beast defensively, due to his physicality and quickness - similar to Derrick. I don't think Craft is much of a shooter, perhaps a better facilitator/penetrator than Derrick - yet I see similarities in their styles of play. Derrick is strong/solid with the ball - don't see Craft being able to turn him over - yet don't see Derrick doing much beyond being able to initiate offense.
Ironic bump.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 07, 2014, 11:01:48 AM
Ners is a woman scorned
Ohio State would have won the National Championship with John Dawson playing 30+ minutes at the point! LOL
Oh boy.
Now you see why things went the way they did at Jonestown.
Sometime in January or February, in The Al's media room.
Michael Hunt: "Coach have you seen what respected Scoop poster Ners says about Derrick Wilson?"
Buzz: "Yes, he likened him to Aaron Craft, and while I have had my doubts, I'm going to give Derrick a longer leash because I have great respect for Ners basketball knowledge"
Quote from: The Lens on May 07, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Sometime in January or February, in The Al's media room.
Michael Hunt: "Coach have you seen what respected Scoop poster Ners says about Derrick Wilson?"
Buzz: "Yes, he likened him to Aaron Craft, and while I have had my doubts, I'm going to give Derrick a longer leash because I have great respect for Ners basketball knowledge"
Oh man, I just lost my crap laughing at work!
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 07, 2014, 10:45:46 AM
Finally. WFM tumbles to $38.92, down 34.5% since my Oct 7 note.
Meanwhile, the Nasdaq composite is up 7.2% during the same period.
$$$.
You can stop talking about $$$ until you frame some pictures around your place.
Quote from: The Lens on May 07, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Sometime in January or February, in The Al's media room.
Michael Hunt: "Coach have you seen what respected Scoop poster Ners says about Derrick Wilson?"
Buzz: "Yes, he likened him to Aaron Craft, and while I have had my doubts, I'm going to give Derrick a longer leash because I have great respect for Ners basketball knowledge"
To be fair to Ners, this was before John Dawson established himself as the next Magic Johnson!
Quote from: The Lens on May 07, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Sometime in January or February, in The Al's media room.
Michael Hunt: "Coach have you seen what respected Scoop poster Ners says about Derrick Wilson?"
Buzz: "Yes, he likened him to Aaron Craft, and while I have had my doubts, I'm going to give Derrick a longer leash because I have great respect for Ners basketball knowledge"
Perfect.
This is a fun thread, especially the first 20 posts or so......people were just a weeeeeee bit overvaluing.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 09, 2014, 01:02:17 PM
Maybe his handle is what his mom and dad said when he was born conceived
Who's this Dr. Blackhart guy?
I'm just amazed that he called Jamil and Otule Nba talent.
Quote from: real chili 83 on May 07, 2014, 08:37:38 PM
Who's this Dr. Blackhart guy?
Where did Blackheart go? He used to be a fixture here.
Quote from: keefe on May 08, 2014, 03:37:42 AM
Where did Blackheart go? He used to be a fixture here.
Blackheart to Virginia Tech!
Quote from: keefe on May 08, 2014, 03:37:42 AM
Where did Blackheart go? He used to be a fixture here.
He got in an argument with some people on the Internet and rage-quit. It was classic.
Quote from: tower912 on May 07, 2014, 11:00:17 AM
Ironic bump.
If only Derrick could have reached the ceiling I described for him in that post - to be an Aaron Craft type of PG. I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO. Craft's numbers were quite a bit better than Derrick's. Craft is/was an overrated player in general.
My expectations for Derrick weren't to be a world beater kind of PG....but they definitely were higher than how he performed. I figured he'd need to be defended on the offensive end of the floor...and would be willing to shoot some perimeter shots, and be capable of making more than 7% of them...as well as more than 43% of his FTs.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 08:18:45 AM
If only Derrick could have reached the ceiling I described for him in that post - to be an Aaron Craft type of PG. I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO. Craft's numbers were quite a bit better than Derrick's. Craft is/was an overrated player in general.
My expectations for Derrick weren't to be a world beater kind of PG....but they definitely were higher than how he performed. I figured he'd need to be defended on the offensive end of the floor...and would be willing to shoot some perimeter shots, and be capable of making more than 7% of them...as well as more than 43% of his FTs.
Could you for once talk about something else? Anything else?
This is making your obsession with Larry Williams look normal in comparison.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 09, 2014, 08:22:01 AM
Could you for once talk about something else? Anything else?
This is making your obsession with Larry Williams look normal in comparison.
I mean to be fair he was deliberately goaded into it on this occasion, as well as many others.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on May 09, 2014, 09:04:52 AM
I mean to be fair he was deliberately goaded into it on this occasion, as well as many others.
Will power is a good thing. Ignoring trolls is something Scoopers should learn to do more often.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 08:18:45 AM
If only Derrick could have reached the ceiling I described for him in that post - to be an Aaron Craft type of PG. I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO. Craft's numbers were quite a bit better than Derrick's. Craft is/was an overrated player in general.
My expectations for Derrick weren't to be a world beater kind of PG....but they definitely were higher than how he performed. I figured he'd need to be defended on the offensive end of the floor...and would be willing to shoot some perimeter shots, and be capable of making more than 7% of them...as well as more than 43% of his FTs.
I think it is ironic because those of us who are "pro-Derrick" had much lower preseason expectations than the loudest and proudest member of the "anti-Derrick" crowd.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 09, 2014, 09:25:21 AM
I think it is ironic because those of us who are "pro-Derrick" had much lower preseason expectations than the loudest and proudest member of the "anti-Derrick" crowd.
I don't think it's as ironic as much as it is more of a natural reaction to when your expectation and reality are so far separated.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 08:18:45 AM
My expectations for Derrick weren't to be a world beater kind of PG....but they definitely were higher than how he performed. I figured he'd need to be defended on the offensive end of the floor...and would be willing to shoot some perimeter shots, and be capable of making more than 7% of them...as well as more than 43% of his FTs.
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 08:18:45 AM
If only Derrick could have reached the ceiling I described for him in that post - to be an Aaron Craft type of PG. I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO. Craft's numbers were quite a bit better than Derrick's. Craft is/was an overrated player in general.
My expectations for Derrick weren't to be a world beater kind of PG....but they definitely were higher than how he performed. I figured he'd need to be defended on the offensive end of the floor...and would be willing to shoot some perimeter shots, and be capable of making more than 7% of them...as well as more than 43% of his FTs.
Based on all available evidence at the time, I seriously doubted Derrick could be an effective PG for a team with Big East-title aspirations. To this day, I don't know what you or anybody else possibly could have seen in his first two seasons to make you believe otherwise.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 09, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Post of the year? No.
Post of the century? Yes.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 09, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Nice...there's a reason Wojo went out and got a 1-year rental at the PG position, even though he had a returning senior who just gained 975 minutes of experience running the point the prior year...because he knows that guy was flat out AWFUL..otherwise you don't go get a guy at the same position when you have a serviceable returning max minute senior.
As for your comparisons, I prefer to make apples to apples comparisons - comparing Derrick who got the most consistent playing time of any player on the team 30+ minutes a game damn near every game, versus the guy on the team who got the most spotty play, inconsistent PT - just isn't valid. Dawson was given exactly 1 chance all season to run the show for Derrick's 30 minutes a game and it worked out well...it was an outlier...in that it was the ONLY chance Buzz gave Dawson all season long.
Buzz was awful as a coach last year Lenny. I know your obsession with Buzz is having a hard time fading away, but...to say he wasn't awful last year is ridiculous. He returned more letter winners than any time in his career. Coming off Elite 8. His 6th year at the helm...and he couldn't even get the team to the freaking NIT?? I know you ripped the hell out of Crean for the aftermath of the Final Four season...yet...last year's coaching performance was as bad if not worse than anything Crean did.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
Nice...there's a reason Wojo went out and got a 1-year rental at the PG position, even though he had a returning senior who just gained 975 minutes of experience running the point the prior year...because he knows that guy was flat out AWFUL..otherwise you don't go get a guy at the same position when you have a serviceable returning max minute senior.
As for your comparisons, I prefer to make apples to apples comparisons - comparing Derrick who got the most consistent playing time of any player on the team 30+ minutes a game damn near every game, versus the guy on the team who got the most spotty play, inconsistent PT - just isn't valid. Dawson was given exactly 1 chance all season to run the show for Derrick's 30 minutes a game and it worked out well...it was an outlier...in that it was the ONLY chance Buzz gave Dawson all season long.
Buzz was awful as a coach last year Lenny. I know your obsession with Buzz is having a hard time fading away, but...to say he wasn't awful last year is ridiculous. He returned more letter winners than any time in his career. Coming off Elite 8. His 6th year at the helm...and he couldn't even get the team to the freaking NIT?? I know you ripped the hell out of Crean for the aftermath of the Final Four season...yet...last year's coaching performance was as bad if not worse than anything Crean did.
What does getting a new PG for this year have to do with the limited PG options we had last year? Not sure how many times people need to tell you they don't think Derrick was good, they just don't think there was a better option at PG before it finally sinks in.
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
Nice...there's a reason Wojo went out and got a 1-year rental at the PG position, even though he had a returning senior who just gained 975 minutes of experience running the point the prior year...because he knows that guy was flat out AWFUL..otherwise you don't go get a guy at the same position when you have a serviceable returning max minute senior Dawson.
FTFY
Quote from: Ners on May 09, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
As for your comparisons, I prefer to make apples to apples comparisons - comparing Derrick who got the most consistent playing time of any player on the team 30+ minutes a game damn near every game, versus the guy on the team who got the most spotty play, inconsistent PT - just isn't valid. Dawson was given exactly 1 chance all season to run the show for Derrick's 30 minutes a game and it worked out well...it was an outlier...in that it was the ONLY chance Buzz gave Dawson all season long.
Except, you know, for the 1 million times you've compared Dawson to Derrick, whether through percentage stats, per40 stats, etc. etc.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on May 09, 2014, 12:58:57 PM
What does getting a new PG for this year have to do with the limited PG options we had last year? Not sure how many times people need to tell you they don't think Derrick was good, they just don't think there was a better option at PG before it finally sinks in.
It never will.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on May 09, 2014, 12:58:57 PM
What does getting a new PG for this year have to do with the limited PG options we had last year? Not sure how many times people need to tell you they don't think Derrick was good, they just don't think there was a better option at PG before it finally sinks in.
That's a fair point you make. And as for them not thinking there was a better option on the roster, well, that's where all of the debate stems from. I simply refuse to believe Dawson wasn't a better option, as the guy in front of him turned in likely the worst offensive performance in the last 20 years for a starting PG on a high major team. I also prefer a player, Dawson, who has to be guarded everywhere on the floor, as opposed to a PG who was constantly sagged off of 5'. Pretty hard to turn the ball over when the opposition never applies any pressure to you because they have zero respect for you as a shooter.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 09, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Next time, you need to drop the mic after you make a most like this.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 09, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Nicely stated.
Succinct. Accurate. Logical. Reasonable.
You have no place on the internet.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 09, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
So you had higher expectations on the offensive end for Derrick. Based on what? Hope? Certainly not past performance. Having expectations based on hope and an outlier or two (see Dawson at Georgetown for example) will almost invariably lead to disappointment. You've written the equivalent of a doctoral thesis based on an outlier, ignoring a 32 game season and an extremely well respected coach's opinion (after watching a guy play every day for 6 months).
You trot out the same stats (Derrick's 3 point and FT percentages) over and over. Derrick was a lousy offensive player. We get it. Guess what? So was Dawson. Derrick shot a paltry 39% on all field goals. John shot 32%. Derrick scored 123 points on 156 shots, an anemic .79 points per shot. John scored 39 points on 50 shots, an even worse .78 points per shot. John did make 9 of 11 free throws which is very good, but he only got to the line 1.8 times per 40 minutes, not enough to make a difference.
What about other stats? Turnovers? Dawson averaged 30% more per minute. Rebounds? Derrick averaged 18% more per minute. Assists? Derrick (despite your assertion that nobody guarded him, making scoring almost impossible for the other 4 guys on the floor) averaged 35% more per minute. Steals? Derrick averaged an incredible 350% more per minute.
Nobody on this board has suggested that Derrick was good last year, but when you look at ALL the numbers instead of cherry picking a couple of them he was the best we had at the position. When you throw in his vastly better on ball defense it's a no brainer.
I understand that many fans overvalued our team last year (especially after Blue, Du Wilson and McKay were lost) and need a scapegoat, but the fault is not with Buzz the coach or who played the big minutes. Blame Buzz the general manager who didn't have enough good/experienced players when defections and injury struck. Maybe that's not as interesting a storyline as claiming that our heretofore young genius coach went nuts or threw games but it is what happened. Giving John Dawson Derrick's minutes would only have made it worse.
Nailed it.
I am done with this subject forever. Lenny has said it so accurately, so succinctly, so eloquently, that to continue would be folly.
Quote from: tower912 on May 10, 2014, 08:30:49 AM
I am done with this subject forever. Lenny has said it so accurately, so succinctly, so eloquently, that to continue would be folly.
Thankfully next season we won't be subject to 30-47 minutes per game of the most inept PG play seen at the high major level, so therefore the subject will go to bed forever anyway...
But of course when the team has a better record next year - and I'll say drastically better record - even though it loses its two leading scorers and best big man at MU in 20 years...the same 5 posters here won't concede that the primary and virtually only reason we were so bad last year was due to the PG.
But, of course, if we'd have played Dawson those 30 minutes per game...things sure would have been worse...like worse than 9-9 in Big East, and no wins over Top 25 teams...yeah.....whatever...and for what it's worth, Lenny needs a course in remedial math as his stats he cited are totally miscalculated...and this past season was far and away Buzz's worst team in Offensive Efficiency/O Rating...he all of a sudden didn't forget how to coach offense...he just insisted on trotting out a guy at the most important position on the floor who had ZERO offensive ability and would not take a shot outside of 3' from the basket.
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 09:29:16 AM
Thankfully next season we won't be subject to 30-47 minutes per game of the most inept PG play seen at the high major level, so therefore the subject will go to bed forever anyway...
Again, drop the hyperbole, and you will make a lot more friends.
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 09:29:16 AM
But, of course, if we'd have played Dawson those 30 minutes per game...things sure would have been worse...like worse than 9-9 in Big East, and no wins over Top 25 teams...yeah.....whatever...
...he just insisted on trotting out a guy at the most important position on the floor who had ZERO offensive ability and would not take a shot outside of 3' from the basket.
See for all of Ners' bluster and repetitiveness, here is where I have to agree with him.
Even as I generally supported Buzz last season -- mostly because I felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt based upon his first five seasons -- I questioned his rotation.
As I looked at what we accomplished -- amazingly little -- I just kept coming back to, "We need to try something else, just because." When Buzz did try something else, Dawson against Georgetown, it worked but Buzz never really gave Dawson much of a run again. It took Buzz until the last few games of the season to give Burton any kind of extended run, too. And JJJ never got more than a minute here or there.
If we were having any success at all, I would have been 100% behind Buzz's decisions. But we weren't ... so common sense dictates you try something different. If something different ends up not working either ... oh well, at least you tried.
Back in February, I dismissed claims that Buzz was just being stubborn. But using 20/20 hindsight, that does appear to be the case. He seemed to have had an ulterior motive above and beyond trying to win.
For the record, I am not a "Dawson guy." I haven't seen enough of him to make the kind of claims that Ners does about him. But I certainly would have liked to have seen more of him -- and JJJ and Burton and Taylor.
Why? Just because.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 10, 2014, 04:38:56 PM
Again, drop the hyperbole, and you will make a lot more friends.
There isn't any hyperbole about it TAMU. Go find 1 other starting PG who got 975 minutes (30.3 minutes per game) a season who turned in worse offensive numbers than Derrick in the last 20 years. Good luck. May be possible to find a guy who played 30 minutes a game at the PG and averaged 5ppg, yet I doubt you'll find one that shot 7% from 3 point line, and made exactly ONE three point shot for the year, and shot worse than 43% from the FT Line. Derrick simply did not need to be guarded within 5' feet on the perimeter....it was a joke...I've never seen anything like it before in 25 years of high major college basketball at the PG position.
Quote from: MU82 on May 10, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
See for all of Ners' bluster and repetitiveness, here is where I have to agree with him.
Even as I generally supported Buzz last season -- mostly because I felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt based upon his first five seasons -- I questioned his rotation.
As I looked at what we accomplished -- amazingly little -- I just kept coming back to, "We need to try something else, just because." When Buzz did try something else, Dawson against Georgetown, it worked but Buzz never really gave Dawson much of a run again. It took Buzz until the last few games of the season to give Burton any kind of extended run, too. And JJJ never got more than a minute here or there.
If we were having any success at all, I would have been 100% behind Buzz's decisions. But we weren't ... so common sense dictates you try something different. If something different ends up not working either ... oh well, at least you tried.
Back in February, I dismissed claims that Buzz was just being stubborn. But using 20/20 hindsight, that does appear to be the case. He seemed to have had an ulterior motive above and beyond trying to win.
For the record, I am not a "Dawson guy." I haven't seen enough of him to make the kind of claims that Ners does about him. But I certainly would have liked to have seen more of him -- and JJJ and Burton and Taylor.
Why? Just because.
Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best." Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:
Was Jake a better player than Todd? (Why did Jake start and get more minutes?)
Is there anything Juan Anderson does better on a court than Deonte Burton? (Yet why did Juan start and play more minutes than Burton?)
Why was Davante Gardner not played 32 minutes per game, every game/not started?
Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them. He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes. What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 05:46:02 PM
Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best." Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:
Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them. He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes. What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)
I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.
However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).
Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.
Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.
Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 10, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.
However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).
Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.
Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.
Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.
JB - You have had some good stock calls...tip of the cap to you..Decker Outdoor was very good about a year ago when you rec'd that stock...
I discount the turnover rate between Derrick/Dawson simply because Derrick almost NEVER faced any true on ball defense/pressure - due to his awful shooting. When Derrick was defended aggressively on ball...it was quite shaky. Furthermore...I just don't put a lot of "stock" in overall stats when one guy's minutes were so incredibly inconsistent, and spotty...comparative to the other guy who got more consistent minutes than any guy on the team.
Dawson absolutely his a much higher upside than Derrick, and I would have preferred that been tapped into last year...so he'd have more game experience coming into this season....while also, potentially having been able to help the team last year...as it was clear from very early on if Derrick were getting 30+ minutes per game...we weren't going to be very good.
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 10, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.
However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).
Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.
Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.
Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.
But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."
When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.
I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 09:29:16 AM
Thankfully next season we won't be subject to 30-47 minutes per game of the most inept PG play seen at the high major level, so therefore the subject will go to bed forever anyway...
But of course when the team has a better record next year - and I'll say drastically better record - even though it loses its two leading scorers and best big man at MU in 20 years...the same 5 posters here won't concede that the primary and virtually only reason we were so bad last year was due to the PG.
But, of course, if we'd have played Dawson those 30 minutes per game...things sure would have been worse...like worse than 9-9 in Big East, and no wins over Top 25 teams...yeah.....whatever...and for what it's worth, Lenny needs a course in remedial math as his stats he cited are totally miscalculated...and this past season was far and away Buzz's worst team in Offensive Efficiency/O Rating...he all of a sudden didn't forget how to coach offense...he just insisted on trotting out a guy at the most important position on the floor who had ZERO offensive ability and would not take a shot outside of 3' from the basket.
Ners, why do you love pounding on Derrick. I am sure he is acutely aware of his stats, etc. from last year. So are we.
Derrick is an outstanding human being. A great representative for MU. I doubt, no, I know you would be most apologetic to Derrick if you ever met him.
Yes, we understand your point on his performance last year. Ad naseum.
Let's move on. You up for that Ners?
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 05:41:06 PM
There isn't any hyperbole about it TAMU. Go find 1 other starting PG who got 975 minutes (30.3 minutes per game) a season who turned in worse offensive numbers than Derrick in the last 20 years. Good luck. May be possible to find a guy who played 30 minutes a game at the PG and averaged 5ppg, yet I doubt you'll find one that shot 7% from 3 point line, and made exactly ONE three point shot for the year, and shot worse than 43% from the FT Line. Derrick simply did not need to be guarded within 5' feet on the perimeter....it was a joke...I've never seen anything like it before in 25 years of high major college basketball at the PG position.
I already found you one that averaged 1.8 ppg with worse free throw shooting, 1 more three, and much worse defense. I'd take Derrick Wilson over Tom Maayan every day of the week.
And you are taking it out of context. Derrick plays on a high major team where at any given time, he is the fifth scoring option. You put him on a mid or low major team and suddenly he's a fourth, third, second, or even first scoring option. His role changes and he scores more points. Derrick is better than most D1 PGs at most things. Just not shooting. I'd take Derrick Wilson over most low major and a lot of mid major PGs.
Again, not saying he's good. Just counteracting your use of hyperbole. Because when you use it incorrectly, you go from discussion about basketball to blasting a 21 year old kid.
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 05:46:02 PM
Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best." Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:
Was Jake a better player than Todd? (Why did Jake start and get more minutes?)
Is there anything Juan Anderson does better on a court than Deonte Burton? (Yet why did Juan start and play more minutes than Burton?)
Why was Davante Gardner not played 32 minutes per game, every game/not started?
Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them. He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes. What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)
1. Jake didn't start over Todd. They both got starters minutes. Who starts doesn't matter. It's who gets the minutes.
2. Jake was the only legitimate three point threat on the team. You take him out and the defense collapses on the paint even more. You need him to have max minutes on a team that had as much trouble shooting as we did. He was our poor man's Brady Heslip.
3. Juan played better defense than Burton for the half of the season, which HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE a Buzz Williams requirement for playing time. When Juan started to fade and Burton started to shine, Burton did get more minutes than Juan.
4. Because Davante is a nearly 300 lb C who has little to no D. Sometimes you need to play your 6"11 shot blocker.
5. Neither of the top scorers got bench player minutes. It's not about who starts, it's about who gets minutes.
Again, not saying they were the right calls. But they were calls made with strategy in mind. The very same strategy that Buzz used in previous season to make 2 sweet 16s and an elite 8. You make it sound like Buzz was part of some conspiracy to make Marquette fail. He wasn't. He kept coaching the way he had always coached. It didn't work last season. It worked the previous 5. We didn't have a problem with it because we were winning.
It is possible for two people to come to different conclusions about the same basketball situation. Accept that and move on!
nm
It is simply amazing that we had the worst season in about a dozen years with a PG that has obvious flaws, not being able to shoot from the field or the line, and not being the great defender a few hyped him to be, and we still have slurpers defending the gamechanger and the phony downhome lonesome cowboy decisions for that season.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 11, 2014, 04:42:25 AM
I already found you one that averaged 1.8 ppg with worse free throw shooting, 1 more three, and much worse defense. I'd take Derrick Wilson over Tom Maayan every day of the week.
And you are taking it out of context. Derrick plays on a high major team where at any given time, he is the fifth scoring option. You put him on a mid or low major team and suddenly he's a fourth, third, second, or even first scoring option. His role changes and he scores more points. Derrick is better than most D1 PGs at most things. Just not shooting. I'd take Derrick Wilson over most low major and a lot of mid major PGs.
Again, not saying he's good. Just counteracting your use of hyperbole. Because when you use it incorrectly, you go from discussion about basketball to blasting a 21 year old kid.
A guy who can't shoot the basketball isn't going to be a 1st, 2nd or 3rd scoring option on a low major team...And, there are MANY PGs on high major teams who are scoring options..and frequently first and 2nd scoring options - Napier and Harrison come to mind.
And as for your example...of Tom Maayan (a freshman) (the guy who in your post you mentioned because you recalled Seton Hall having an AWFUL PG) - the guy only started 17 games, averaged 21 minutes per game - nowhere near what Derrick got.....my whole problem is you and the 5 others who are SO incredibly convinced that we didn't have a better option on the roster...you acknowledge Tom Maayan was awful...and he was...so was Derrick...it wasn't going to be this major fall off if Dawson was given 20 minutes a night consistently...and it very likely would have made the team better.
Quote from: MU82 on May 10, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."
When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.
I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!
Perfectly stated...and I can agree with everything written here...including Dawson very well may not be a godsend...but...what we were getting from Derrick at PG wasn't going to win games...and that proved itself out to a stunning degree...missing the NIT for God sakes...
Quote from: MU82 on May 10, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."
When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.
I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!
It's not like we were routinely getting blown out. We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.
In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones.
It does, however, confirm the fact that as a
TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good. For a lot of reasons. PG play being
one of them.
Good coaches don't simply "change for the sake of change." They change because they have a decent idea that the change will bring about better results. Buzz didn't think so.
Quote from: Ners on May 11, 2014, 08:04:43 AM
Perfectly stated...and I can agree with everything written here...including Dawson very well may not be a godsend...but...what we were getting from Derrick at PG wasn't going to win games...and that proved itself out to a stunning degree...missing the NIT for God sakes...
OK...so your opinion has evolved from Dawson being by far the better option...to "well hell, we might as well have tried it."
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on May 11, 2014, 08:27:19 AM
It's not like we were routinely getting blown out. We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.
In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones.
It does, however, confirm the fact that as a TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good. For a lot of reasons. PG play being one of them.
In games we weren't getting blown out (and, BTW, there were plenty of those), the point is that we were still losing at the very end.
And one can make the argument that the reason we lost those close games was specifically becuase of our PG position. We had in our PG a player who was not a scoring threat, which meant our opponents had an easier time keeping us from scoring.
In those close games we generally only needed one or two more scores than the other team. But we routinely failed to get those scores at least in part becuase our opponents' defense was able to concentrate its efforts on the other four players on the court.
There may have been other problems with the "TEAM" as well. Those other problems don't negate that we had a specific one at the point, nor does raising them negate the argument that playing Dawson more may have helped us win some of those close games (and maybe helped us avoid some of the others from turning into blowouts.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 11, 2014, 08:57:39 AM
Good coaches don't simply "change for the sake of change." They change because they have a decent idea that the change will bring about better results. Buzz didn't think so.
This is wrong.
Many of the best coaches in hockey history would change goalies with their team losing, say, 3-0 after one period. Later, they'd say something like: "It wasn't Goalie X's fault. I just wanted to do something to get the team going."
In 1972, Bob Griese got hurt in the 5th game and Earl Morrall replaced him for the rest of the season. The Dolphins went undefeated and Morrall was named AFC Player of the Year. The Dolphins then won their first playoff game. In the AFC title game against Pittsburgh, the Dolphins and Steelers were tied 7-7 at halftime but Shula didn't think his team was playing very well. So he benched Morrall for Griese, who still wasn't 100% but was able to play. The Dolphins went on to win that game and the Super Bowl.
So there you had the winningest coach in football history benching the conference player of the year for a guy who wasn't even totally healthy. And the Dolphins weren't even losing at halftime! Why? "Because we needed a spark," Shula said.
And those are just a couple examples. Some of the all-time great coaches have done "change for the sake of change." It isn't even rare.
Great coaches know that if something isn't working, you try something else. Great business leaders, educators and athletes know the same thing.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on May 11, 2014, 08:27:19 AM
It's not like we were routinely getting blown out. We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.
In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones.
It does, however, confirm the fact that as a TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good. For a lot of reasons. PG play being one of them.
Yes....and think if our PG could have just been an average scorer in the Big East at the position - 12.2ppg was the average of Big East PGs...7.1 more ppg from the position from Derrick would have won us a lot more games. What isn't debatable is that one PG is clearly a better 3 point and FT shooter than the other, (and was a threat to shoot from everywhere on the floor) and needs to be defended everywhere on the court, thus making life easier for his teammates through that alone. Derrick left roughly 35 points at the Free Throw line that an 80% shooter would have scored...those would have meant a lot in those close games you cite.
Buzz blew it last year. Period. End of story. Awful coaching all around. Jake Thomas starting and playing more 7 more minutes per game than Todd Mayo? Deonte Burton only getting 12 minutes per game - or 7 less per game than the next least used freshman on All Big East team? Gardner not getting 32 minutes per game.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 11, 2014, 08:58:53 AM
OK...so your opinion has evolved from Dawson being by far the better option...to "well hell, we might as well have tried it."
My primary position all along is that it CERTAINLY WOUDN'T HAVE GOTTEN WORSE with Dawson getting 30 minutes per game, and likely would have gotten better. Sadly, Buzz only gave us 1 game where Dawson was given 30 minutes (the outlier in his usage), and guess what....you got an "outlier" as some of you like to refer to the performance. That GTown game alone should have earned him 20 minutes a game moving forward. Period.
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
This is wrong.
Many of the best coaches in hockey history would change goalies with their team losing, say, 3-0 after one period. Later, they'd say something like: "It wasn't Goalie X's fault. I just wanted to do something to get the team going."
In 1972, Bob Griese got hurt in the 5th game and Earl Morrall replaced him for the rest of the season. The Dolphins went undefeated and Morrall was named AFC Player of the Year. The Dolphins then won their first playoff game. In the AFC title game against Pittsburgh, the Dolphins and Steelers were tied 7-7 at halftime but Shula didn't think his team was playing very well. So he benched Morrall for Griese, who still wasn't 100% but was able to play. The Dolphins went on to win that game and the Super Bowl.
So there you had the winningest coach in football history benching the conference player of the year for a guy who wasn't even totally healthy. And the Dolphins weren't even losing at halftime! Why? "Because we needed a spark," Shula said.
And those are just a couple examples. Some of the all-time great coaches have done "change for the sake of change." It isn't even rare.
Great coaches know that if something isn't working, you try something else. Great business leaders, educators and athletes know the same thing.
Those aren't examples of "change for the sake of change."
Those are example of a coach having what he feels are legitimate options available.
Quote from: Ners on May 11, 2014, 10:15:31 AM
My primary position all along is that it CERTAINLY WOUDN'T HAVE GOTTEN WORSE with Dawson getting 30 minutes per game, and likely would have gotten better. Sadly, Buzz only gave us 1 game where Dawson was given 30 minutes (the outlier in his usage), and guess what....you got an "outlier" as some of you like to refer to the performance. That GTown game alone should have earned him 20 minutes a game moving forward. Period.
Only fools base their opinions on outliers.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 11, 2014, 10:20:27 AM
Those aren't examples of "change for the sake of change."
Those are example of a coach having what he feels are legitimate options available.
Well, the Griese-Morrall thing certainly is what you say. I should be tarred and feathered for comparing either of those two to Derrick Wilson and John Dawson!
But the hockey goalie situation is an excellent analogy. For most NHL teams, one goalie is considered far superior to the other and gets the vast majority of playing time. But coaches will still go to their backup -- often an unproven guy, sometimes just called up from the minors -- just to change for the sake of change. Almost always the coaches don't blame the goalie who was benched; they say they just wanted to shake things up.
Buzz did exactly that in the Georgetown game -- benched someone he felt was proven just to shake things up. Most importantly, he stayed with the kid longer than the usual 2-3 minutes, and it worked wonderfully. Buzz didn't all of a sudden have unshakable confidence in Dawson; he did change for the sake of change and it worked. I'm surprised he didn't try something like that more often, though he did finally relent with Mayo and Burton.
And please remember, I spent most of the season as a Buzz defender and I'm far from convinced that Dawson is a legit D1 PG. I'm thrilled Wojo went out and got Carlino, and I'm hoping Duane is the goods.
I will know we are a better team if Derrick can go back to the role he played as a freshman and soph. Just as it would have been a sign we were a good team last year if Jake didn't play much.
Quote from: willie warrior on May 11, 2014, 08:00:38 AM
It is simply amazing that we had the worst season in about a dozen years with a PG that has obvious flaws, not being able to shoot from the field or the line, and not being the great defender a few hyped him to be, and we still have slurpers defending the gamechanger and the phony downhome lonesome cowboy decisions for that season.
Not defending him. I didn't agree with his rotations either. I would have played Dawson at least 15 minutes a game, Burton at least 25 minutes a game, and played Mayo until he dropped.
My only issue is when posters make it seem like Buzz was trying to "lose on purpose," "send a message," or "forgot how to coach." Buzz coached the exact same way he did the previous five seasons, but it wasn't working this season. Like MU82 suggested, I would have made more drastic changes just to try something new. Not all coaches think this way. Buzz decided to double down on his style, it didn't work.
Winning fixes everything.
Quote from: Ners on May 11, 2014, 08:02:25 AM
A guy who can't shoot the basketball isn't going to be a 1st, 2nd or 3rd scoring option on a low major team...
Yes, they can be. It happens quite often. The difference between Big East basketball and like Southland basketball is huge. Derrick could abuse low major point guards with his strength and penetrating ability. If Derrick can score 5 ppg in BEast basketball, he could score double digits a game in a low major league, which would make him a top scoring option for a team.
Quote from: Ners on May 11, 2014, 08:02:25 AM
And, there are MANY PGs on high major teams who are scoring options..and frequently first and 2nd scoring options - Napier and Harrison come to mind.
I'm not sure what the point of this is. I never suggested that there aren't high major point guards who are scoring options. I would love to have a Napier or a Harrison on the team. I'm hoping Carlino can be a poor man's Harrison.
Quote from: Ners on May 11, 2014, 08:02:25 AM
And as for your example...of Tom Maayan (a freshman) (the guy who in your post you mentioned because you recalled Seton Hall having an AWFUL PG) - the guy only started 17 games, averaged 21 minutes per game - nowhere near what Derrick got.....my whole problem is you and the 5 others who are SO incredibly convinced that we didn't have a better option on the roster...you acknowledge Tom Maayan was awful...and he was...so was Derrick...it wasn't going to be this major fall off if Dawson was given 20 minutes a night consistently...and it very likely would have made the team better.
I am convinced that Dawson was not the better option. I did want his minutes to increase. I also agree that Derrick was bad for a high major PG.
My issue, as it has always been, is that you feel the necessity to use hyperbole to tear down Derrick in order to make your point. That and your seeming need to have everyone agree with you 100%. We have a lot of common ground. But because we don't see eye to eye on certain points you have labeled me and 5 posters as pro-Derrick slurpers who must be assimilated.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 11, 2014, 01:40:14 PM
Not defending him. I didn't agree with his rotations either. I would have played Dawson at least 15 minutes a game, Burton at least 25 minutes a game, and played Mayo until he dropped.
My only issue is when posters make it seem like Buzz was trying to "lose on purpose," "send a message," or "forgot how to coach." Buzz coached the exact same way he did the previous five seasons, but it wasn't working this season. Like MU82 suggested, I would have made more drastic changes just to try something new. Not all coaches think this way. Buzz decided to double down on his style, it didn't work.
Winning fixes everything.
We are in agreement on most things, TAMU. We would have been in total agreement on Jan. 5 or Feb. 5 or March 5, but given what has taken place since the season -- Buzz either quitting or being run off (or both), I do confess that I now wonder if Buzz did have some ulterior motives that affected his coaching style.
He was willing to live with the nice ups and often dramatic downs that both Vander and Mayo went through as freshmen. So it has to make me wonder about his rotations this past season.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 11, 2014, 10:22:14 AM
Only fools base their opinions on outliers.
Only fools can't admit they were wrong - Buzz Williams being one of them....and of course you and the handful of other guys.
Still waiting for you to find one other PG in the last 20 years who played more minutes, and shot worse percentages from the FT line and 3 point line...but carry on and continue thinking and making the argument that we didn't have a better option than the historically bad performance we got from Derrick. Keep thinking a PG who HAS to be defended everywhere on the court is a worse option, than a guy teams sag 5-6' off of and have ZERO respect for his ability to hurt them. I know you and others thought, don't worry...it's still early in the season..Buzz will figure it out...his teams always get better as the season wears on....but at what point do you not just say....clearly...this ain't working and we need to change?? Buzz himself said they were playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end - at what point do you not make a change, realizing your team is about 60 spots worse than your worst O-Rated team in your 6 year career at MU??
I should re-state, my frustration and annoyance is directed at Buzz Williams - even though Derrick gets the brunt of the discussion. Buzz had other and better options not just at PG, but at shooting guard, at the 3, and at center....yet he basically refused to max their minutes/give minutes to the more talented guys...
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
This is wrong.
Many of the best coaches in hockey history would change goalies with their team losing, say, 3-0 after one period. Later, they'd say something like: "It wasn't Goalie X's fault. I just wanted to do something to get the team going."
In 1972, Bob Griese got hurt in the 5th game and Earl Morrall replaced him for the rest of the season. The Dolphins went undefeated and Morrall was named AFC Player of the Year. The Dolphins then won their first playoff game. In the AFC title game against Pittsburgh, the Dolphins and Steelers were tied 7-7 at halftime but Shula didn't think his team was playing very well. So he benched Morrall for Griese, who still wasn't 100% but was able to play. The Dolphins went on to win that game and the Super Bowl.
So there you had the winningest coach in football history benching the conference player of the year for a guy who wasn't even totally healthy. And the Dolphins weren't even losing at halftime! Why? "Because we needed a spark," Shula said.
And those are just a couple examples. Some of the all-time great coaches have done "change for the sake of change." It isn't even rare.
Great coaches know that if something isn't working, you try something else. Great business leaders, educators and athletes know the same thing.
You're not wrong... but think of what we are saying:
In the HISTORY of sports... thousands of games have been played in he past 40 years. You had to go back to 1972 for an example.
Now, certainly it has happened since then, but the percentage of coaching decisions that get justified by "change for change's sake" are miniscule. Tiny. Almost irrelevant.
Buzz did try Jamil at PG, which was sort of a "change for change's sake", but that failed quickly and Buzz went away from it.
Truthfully, I think we're all arguing over about 12mpg. If you played Derrick 20-25mpg, and some combo of Dawson & Mayo the other 15-20mpg, then all of these threads probably die. (at least I hope so).
12mpg. We've killed HOURS arguing about 12mpg that Buzz could have used to limit Derrick deficiencies and hopefully get some offensive production out of Dawson.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 12, 2014, 07:19:30 AM
12mpg. We've killed HOURS arguing about 12mpg that Buzz could have used to limit Derrick deficiencies and hopefully get some offensive production out of Dawson.
Ah ... it's the offseason! Hours are there to be killed!!
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2014, 06:54:45 AM
Only fools can't admit they were wrong - Buzz Williams being one of them....and of course you and the handful of other guys.
(http://www.ptm.org/08PT/Nov/conform.jpg)
Ners, for the millionth time. You are not right. Neither is Sultan or anyone else for that matter. We are here to share our OPINIONS on Marquette basketball. No one can prove one way or another if we would have been better if Dawson had started last season.
Ners, in two separate posts (on page 4 for those keeping score), you show why many here find it hard to take you seriously. First, you admit you made an assumption that turned out to be wrong:
"I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO."
...and then you make another assumption that you "simply refuse to believe" could be wrong:
"I simply refuse too believe Dawson wasn't a better option."
So you made an assumption about Derrick that you readily admit was wrong...and then you make an assumption about Dawson, and "refuse to believe" that it could be wrong too. Wise people learn from their mistakes.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on May 12, 2014, 09:29:29 AM
Ners, in two separate posts (on page 4 for those keeping score), you show why many here find it hard to take you seriously. First, you admit you made an assumption that turned out to be wrong:
"I was optimistic coming into the last season...and what Derrick could bring. Not sure what was so ironic about my post/question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG? It became evident early on in the season, the answer was NO."
...and then you make another assumption that you "simply refuse to believe" could be wrong:
"I simply refuse too believe Dawson wasn't a better option."
So you made an assumption about Derrick that you readily admit was wrong...and then you make an assumption about Dawson, and "refuse to believe" that it could be wrong too. Wise people learn from their mistakes.
First...there's about 5 of you in this debate that can't take me seriously on the topic..and have battled all season long on it: Tower, Tamu, Sultan, Ammo, You, Jesmu84....none of you could let go of the assertion that Derrick was the best option at PG last season...though Sultan waffled somewhat at least...you all thought it and team would get better as season went on..and some have even tried to argue Derrick improved over the course of the season....I mean...just ridiculous...go look at his last 5 games of the year...
As for making an "assumption" about Derrick - asking a question: COULD Derrick be an Aaron Craft type of PG....is not making an assumption that he would be Aaron Craft good...it was a hopeful/optimistic QUESTION.
And yes, I refuse to believe things would have GOTTEN WORSE with Dawson getting 30....as we got historically bad play at the position all season long...historically bad....hard to do worse than some of the worst play in history at PG. I mean, come on....teams didn't even defend Derrick within 5' on perimeter....he wouldn't shoot a perimeter shot unless in desperation mode....he's made 2, 3 pt shots in his entire college basketball career through the end of his junior year...is a 45% FT shooter for his career...
Contrast that with a guy who can at least shoot the basketball from the FT line at 81% (usually indicative of a guy who can shoot the basketball from everywhere), that has tripled the 3 point makes of the junior in front of him....as a freshman in spotty minutes...who shoots them at 4 times the percentage...
Yeah...hard for me to be so convinced we didn't have a better option sitting on the bench 32+ minutes virtually every game. Even harder to believe that the one game he got fair/normal playing time/comparable to Derrick...he certainly didn't pee down his leg and choke...in fact quite the opposite...led us to victory in Overtime on the road...in arguably our best win of an otherwise AWFUL season.
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2014, 10:07:02 AM
First...there's about 5 of you in this debate that can't take me seriously on the topic..and have battled all season long on it: Tower, Tamu, Sultan, Ammo, You, Jesmu84....none of you could let go of the assertion that Derrick was the best option at PG last season...
I have noticed that you bring this up a lot lately. As if I care if my opinion is in the minority on this board.
But I just would like to make one thing clear. I don't care how many times you say the same thing in dozens of different threads...I don't care how many minutes Derrick or Dawson plays next year....I don't care if John Dawson is an All-American by his senior year...
Nothing is going to convince me that Derrick shouldn't have been the primary point guard last year. Nothing. So was he a good option? No. Should Dawson have been given more minutes as a back up? Yes. But was Derrick the best option to receive starter's minutes? Absolutely.
And with that, I am done with this debate for good. The horse is a bloody pulp that even the glue factory wouldn't accept by this point.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 12, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Nothing is going to convince me that Derrick shouldn't have been the primary point guard last year. Nothing. So was he a good option? No. Should Dawson have been given more minutes as a back up? Yes. But was Derrick the best option to receive starter's minutes? Absolutely.
+1
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 12, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
I have noticed that you bring this up a lot lately. As if I care if my opinion is in the minority on this board.
But I just would like to make one thing clear. I don't care how many times you say the same thing in dozens of different threads...I don't care how many minutes Derrick or Dawson plays next year....I don't care if John Dawson is an All-American by his senior year...
Nothing is going to convince me that Derrick shouldn't have been the primary point guard last year. Nothing. So was he a good option? No. Should Dawson have been given more minutes as a back up? Yes. But was Derrick the best option to receive starter's minutes? Absolutely.
And with that, I am done with this debate for good. The horse is a bloody pulp that even the glue factory wouldn't accept by this point.
I agree, and maybe we could even sum it up shorter:
MU needed better performance out of the PG spot last season. Neither Derrick or JD are 35mpg players, so it's up to the coach to figure out how to get the best performance(s) out of them. Buzz Williams failed in this area.
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2014, 09:29:16 AM
...and for what it's worth, Lenny needs a course in remedial math as his stats he cited are totally miscalculated...
Really?
I'll show you how I reached my "totally miscalculated" stats and you can show me where I'm wrong.
I said Derrick shot 39% on all field goals and Dawson shot 32%. Derrick made 61 of 156. 61/156 = .391, just over 39%. Dawson made 16 of 50. 16/50 = 32%.
I said Derrick scored .79 points per field goal attempt and Dawson scored .78. Derrick scored 123 points (60 2s and one 3 =123) on 156 attempts. 123/156 = .789. I rounded to .79. Dawson scored 39 points (9 2s and 7 3s) on 50 attempts. 39/50 =.78.
I said that Dawson averaged 30% more turnovers per minute than Derrick. Dawson had 17 in 245 minutes. 17/245 = .07 per minute. Derrick had 48 in 987 minutes. 48/987 = .049 per minute. So Dawson actually had slightly more than 40% (42.9%) more TOs per minute.
I'll let you do the rest of the recalculating. Please show your work. Thanks.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 12, 2014, 10:16:05 AM
+1
Why is a guy who is historically bad at his position in high major basketball the best option to receive starters minutes...especially when the one game his alternative was given those starters minutes...he played really well?
Why is it so important that everyone agree with you on this? Do you get some sort of prize if you can beat everyone down until you achieve unanimity? You have spent a thousand posts on this. No matter how many times you say the same thing, it will not change my opinion on this issue.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 12, 2014, 11:18:26 AM
I agree, and maybe we could even sum it up shorter:
MU needed better performance out of the PG spot last season. Neither Derrick or JD are 35mpg players, so it's up to the coach to figure out how to get the best performance(s) out of them. Buzz Williams failed in this area.
Wonderfully stated.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 12, 2014, 11:18:26 AM
I agree, and maybe we could even sum it up shorter:
MU needed better performance out of the PG spot last season. Neither Derrick or JD are 35mpg players, so it's up to the coach to figure out how to get the best performance(s) out of them. Buzz Williams failed in this area.
I'll throw in my support for this statement.
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2014, 10:07:02 AM
First...there's about 5 of you in this debate that can't take me seriously on the topic..and have battled all season long on it: Tower, Tamu, Sultan, Ammo, You, Jesmu84....none of you could let go of the assertion that Derrick was the best option at PG last season...though Sultan waffled somewhat at least...you all thought it and team would get better as season went on..and some have even tried to argue Derrick improved over the course of the season....I mean...just ridiculous...go look at his last 5 games of the year...
(http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/xx163/mobile2/2432/attitude/attitd011.gif)
Ners, 5 guys on the internet have a different opinion than you. Why is that so difficult to accept? None of us are leading experts in basketball strategy. All of us know a little bit more than the casual fan. We look at the same two players, the same stats, the same results, and we come to two different conclusions. It happens all the time. Why is that such a terrible thing?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 12, 2014, 01:03:45 PM
(http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/xx163/mobile2/2432/attitude/attitd011.gif)
Ners, 5 guys on the internet have a different opinion than you. Why is that so difficult to accept? None of us are leading experts in basketball strategy. All of us know a little bit more than the casual fan. We look at the same two players, the same stats, the same results, and we come to two different conclusions. It happens all the time. Why is that such a terrible thing?
Because, to quote the legendary Ivan Drago ... "I must break you."
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2014, 12:01:36 PM
Why is a guy who is historically bad at his position in high major basketball the best option to receive starters minutes...especially when the one game his alternative was given those starters minutes...he played really well?
Derrick had a good A/T ratio & no supporting cast. He didn't get repeatedly lost on defense and rarely dribbled the ball off of his foot.
I believe that he was as good as Cadougan, but that Cadougan had more talent around him.
I believe that Dawson would have struggled mightily had we given him more minutes. He would have struggled in different ways (turnovers & getting lost in offensive/defensive sets) but he would have struggled.
Buzz stuck with his steady PG because, I believe, he thought that the risk was too great for the potential reward of giving Dawson minutes. I don't think that Buzz was wrong.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 12, 2014, 02:09:58 PM
Derrick had a good A/T ratio & no supporting cast. He didn't get repeatedly lost on defense and rarely dribbled the ball off of his foot.
I believe that he was as good as Cadougan, but that Cadougan had more talent around him.
I can't say this nicely without sounding like a dick, so a dick I shall be.
You're outta your friggin' mind.
Cadougan wasn't Chris Paul, but he could shoot well enough to keep defenses honest, could make free throws, could break down a defense with the dribble and kick out to teammates for wide-open jumpers and, in case you forgot, could display cajones the size of cantaloupes by hitting a tying 3 against UConn.
Junior had more turnovers because he endeavored to create more. He wasn't satisfied standing 30 feet from the basket and passing it to the guy standing next to him. He tried to make his teammates better, and he succeeded well enough to help his team go S16-S16-E8.
Buzz constantly said he should start Derrick over Junior, but it obviously was something to motivate Junior because Derrick never did start over Junior, who averaged more than twice as many minutes as Derrick -- thank God.
Derrick is a better defender than Junior was, but Junior wasn't awful on that end. And like first base, PG is not a defensive position. The PG needs to deliver some extra-base hits ... and Derrick has delivered none in three years.
Please.