http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/89969/ohio-state-marquette-a-year-in-the-making (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/89969/ohio-state-marquette-a-year-in-the-making)
Apparently, we're one dimensional.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 14, 2013, 10:45:34 AM
Apparently, we're one dimensional.
Just read the story twice. I don't see where Katz even suggests we're one-dimensional, and he certainly doesn't say it outright.
He says we lost our starting guards, that Gardner is a load inside and that Buzz likes an aggressive, physical defense. Trying to figure out where the factual errors are there.
Isn't it enough when we actually are criticized? Do we have to look for criticism when it isn't there to fuel our "nobody respects Marquette" angst?
Quote from: MU82 on November 14, 2013, 10:50:48 AM
Just read the story twice. I don't see where Katz even suggests we're one-dimensional, and he certainly doesn't say it outright.
He says we lost our starting guards, that Gardner is a load inside and that Buzz likes an aggressive, physical defense. Trying to figure out where the factual errors are there.
Isn't it enough when we actually are criticized? Do we have to look for criticism when it isn't there to fuel our "nobody respects Marquette" angst?
+++++++++++++
Quote from: MU82 on November 14, 2013, 10:50:48 AM
Just read the story twice. I don't see where Katz even suggests we're one-dimensional, and he certainly doesn't say it outright.
He says we lost our starting guards, that Gardner is a load inside and that Buzz likes an aggressive, physical defense. Trying to figure out where the factual errors are there.
Isn't it enough when we actually are criticized? Do we have to look for criticism when it isn't there to fuel our "nobody respects Marquette" angst?
Yes, I read between the lines. All platitudes aside, the main focus is Gardener in the article and how OSU stops him. No mention of any other player. None. It's not a stretch to insinuate from the article that the author sees us as one-dimensional (and I don't care, that's his opinion--he may end up being right).
Quote from: windyplayer on November 14, 2013, 10:43:49 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/89969/ohio-state-marquette-a-year-in-the-making (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/89969/ohio-state-marquette-a-year-in-the-making)
Damn mainstream Ohio-biased media. I agree, next time someone's going to write a short blurb on Marquette, I don't want to know how the two best players from each team will be guarded. No, what the world wants to know is how John Dawson matches up with Amedeo Della Valle.
True. I understand the piece was indeed a short blurb, but they did mention Shannon Scott for them as well. All I'm asking for is a sprinkling of J Wilson or perhaps a little Mayo on top. Yes, I'm nitpicking, slow day at work.
Quote from: MisterDMU on November 14, 2013, 11:32:49 AM
Damn mainstream Ohio-biased media. I agree, next time someone's going to write a short blurb on Marquette, I don't want to know how the two best players from each team will be guarded. No, what the world wants to know is how John Dawson matches up with Amedeo Della Valle.
*sigh* Hearing the name "Amedeo Della Valle" makes me wish there was more interest in the "coolest-named opponent" polls.
I believe that name is Italian for "God'sgift Achiuwa".
Quote from: warriorchick on November 14, 2013, 11:39:23 AM
*sigh* Hearing the name "Amedeo Della Valle" makes me wish there was more interest in the "coolest-named opponent" polls.
I believe that name is Italian for "God'sgift Achiuwa".
I wonder who opponents would pick for Marquettes coolest name this year. We lost some quality names with Junior and Vander leaving.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 14, 2013, 11:26:00 AM
Yes, I read between the lines. All platitudes aside, the main focus is Gardener in the article and how OSU stops him. No mention of any other player. None. It's not a stretch to insinuate from the article that the author sees us as one-dimensional (and I don't care, that's his opinion--he may end up being right).
Don't do that.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 14, 2013, 11:39:15 AM
or perhaps a little Mayo on top.
Like what you did there
ANDY KATZ WENT TO UW-MADISON!!! THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF HIS BADGER TRICKS TO MINIMIZE MARQUETTE. I BET DIAMOND STONE IS GOING TO READ THIS AND GO TO MADISON NOW!!!
I'm going outside right now to check the sky
No mention of Pistol Pete Dawson? Katz should be expecting some hatemail from Ners.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 14, 2013, 12:30:26 PM
No mention of Pistol Pete Dawson? Katz should be expecting some hatemail from Ners.
Nice.
Oh boy, this has taken a turn for the worse.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 14, 2013, 11:39:23 AM
*sigh* Hearing the name "Amedeo Della Valle" makes me wish there was more interest in the "coolest-named opponent" polls.
I believe that name is Italian for "God'sgift Achiuwa".
I, for one, always enjoyed those polls!
personal faves - former Big Easters God Shammgod and Bubacar Aw.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 14, 2013, 12:30:26 PM
No mention of Pistol Pete Dawson? Katz should be expecting some hatemail from Ners.
That's "Magic" Dawson to you.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 14, 2013, 12:19:04 PM
ANDY KATZ WENT TO UW-MADISON!!! THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF HIS BADGER TRICKS TO MINIMIZE MARQUETTE. I BET DIAMOND STONE IS GOING TO READ THIS AND GO TO MADISON NOW!!!
(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/golf-clap.gif)
Quote from: brandx on November 14, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
That's "Magic" Dawson to you.
John Awesome Dawson .... Has a better ring to it. But sheesh let
The kid play. Its about to be Daw-sanity if this hype keeps building..
People so quick to shoot a player Down. I fully understand why kids 1 and done with college.
He's 2 games and 26 Minutes played into his career and gets crap from bloggers who couldnt play a lick of basketball themselves..
Im glad hes on our team.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 14, 2013, 12:30:26 PM
No mention of Pistol Pete Dawson? Katz should be expecting some hatemail from Ners.
Lol
Quote from: Nevada233 on November 14, 2013, 04:05:51 PM
John Awesome Dawson .... Has a better ring to it. But sheesh let
The kid play. Its about to be Daw-sanity if this hype keeps building..
People so quick to shoot a player Down. I fully understand why kids 1 and done with college.
He's 2 games and 26 Minutes played into his career and gets crap from bloggers who couldnt play a lick of basketball themselves..
Im glad hes on our team.
Ugh...*no one* is hating on the kid.
Some of us just don't want to crown him after playing two games of college basketball against SWAC opponents.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 08:32:19 AM
Ugh...*no one* is hating on the kid.
Some of us just don't want to crown him after playing two games of college basketball against SWAC opponents.
Indeed.
I'm not ready to admit that Derrick Wilson is a high-major-caliber PG after watching him for two years, so I sure as heck am not ready to anoint John Dawson after two games.
Quote from: MU82 on November 15, 2013, 09:09:54 AM
Indeed.
I'm not ready to admit that Derrick Wilson is a high-major-caliber PG after watching him for two years, so I sure as heck am not ready to anoint John Dawson after two games.
Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 10:18:06 AM
Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.
That is simply an inaccurate statement. Wilson has done more than Dawson has. Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 10:22:58 AM
That is simply an inaccurate statement. Wilson has done more than Dawson has. Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.
Care to go more in depth?
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 10:18:06 AM
Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.
Based on Dawson's "flashes" in a game that was 80% garbage time against the worst team in D1, you're ready to hand the reins over to him? At the same time, you were underwhelmed with Derrick's 10 assists and 1 TO in that same game.
Is that accurate?
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on November 15, 2013, 10:33:23 AM
Care to go more in depth?
Sure. De Wilson has played against high level D1 competition previously. He hasn't been great, but has has been fine. Dawson has yet to do that.
Even in the first two games, I think Wilson has looked better. Statistically he was better against Grambling than Dawson was. But again, that's crap competition.
All I get is stuff like "he looks the part" or "he has more potential." That's all fine and dandy, but don't exaggerate what Dawson has accomplished vis-a-vis Wilson.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 10:46:46 AM
Sure. De Wilson has played against high level D1 competition previously. He hasn't been great, but has has been fine. Dawson has yet to do that.
Even in the first two games, I think Wilson has looked better. Statistically he was better against Grambling than Dawson was. But again, that's crap competition.
All I get is stuff like "he looks the part" or "he has more potential." That's all fine and dandy, but don't exaggerate what Dawson has accomplished vis-a-vis Wilson.
Well all we have to go off of is 2 games for Dawson, and over 2 years of footage on Derrick. Let's also not get excited about his 10 assists in garbage time against Grambling - It was funny to note - Derrick played a lot more aggressively after watching Dawson come in the game for his first stint and make things happen.
Dawson flashed more in his 20 minutes against Grambling than has Derrick at any point in his 2 year career. Dawson played more confidently, and simply sees the floor better. Derrick should be the better defender of the two after being in the program 2+ years, and is a solid ball protecting point guard. Dawson can be a game changer, Derrick a game manager. And that's not a bad tag team to have at the point position...
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 10:22:58 AM
That is simply an inaccurate statement. Wilson has done more than Dawson has. Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.
I said nothing about accomplishments. Only that he looks a lot more fluid at the point then Wilson ever has ever been including these first two games. The 10 assists are nice, but what ultimately matters is how you run the point. It's not about individual stat lines for point guards, it's about how the point guard orchestrates the offense. You can't deny that you've seen more from Dawson in that department than Wilson in the first two games. Keep in mind that Wilson played against this competition, too, so the comparisons are just.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 11:11:42 AM
I said nothing about accomplishments. Only that he looks a lot more fluid at the point then Wilson ever has ever been including these first two games. The 10 assists are nice, but what ultimately matters is how you run the point. It's not about individual stat lines for point guards, it's about how the point guard orchestrates the offense. You can't deny that you've seen more from Dawson in that department than Wilson in the first two games. Keep in mind that Wilson played against this competition, too, so the comparisons are just.
I most certainly can deny that. Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?" That makes no sense.
If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine. But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Dawson flashed more in his 20 minutes against Grambling than has Derrick at any point in his 2 year career. Dawson played more confidently, and simply sees the floor better. Derrick should be the better defender of the two after being in the program 2+ years, and is a solid ball protecting point guard. Dawson can be a game changer, Derrick a game manager. And that's not a bad tag team to have at the point position...
Bad basketball cliche count....5. In four sentences. Impressive!
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
I most certainly can deny that. Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?" That makes no sense.
If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine. But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"
Sure, you can deny that the world is round as well.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
I most certainly can deny that. Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?" That makes no sense.
If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine. But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"
Because, I've NEVER seen Wilson do what Dawson has done in the first couple of games. It's that simple. I don't know if Dawson can sustain it, but that's the truth.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 11:26:28 AM
Because, I've NEVER seen Wilson do what Dawson has done in the first couple of games. It's that simple. I don't know if Dawson can sustain it, but that's the truth.
SEEN WHAT??!!!??
And don't give me hey-i'm-a-basketball-scout-type cliches. Tell me what he has actually done, that Wilson hasn't. Because that is all that really matters.
And for the third time, I don't have a problem with the notion that Dawson could potentially be a better player. But don't exaggerate the performance and then say you have "seen more." That's silly.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
I most certainly can deny that. Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?" That makes no sense.
If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine. But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"
Please state Wilson's accomplishments. Be specific.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:32:22 AM
SEEN WHAT??!!!??
And don't give me hey-i'm-a-basketball-scout-type cliches. Tell me what he has actually done, that Wilson hasn't. Because that is all that really matters.
And for the third time, I don't have a problem with the notion that Dawson could potentially be a better player. But don't exaggerate the performance and then say you have "seen more." That's silly.
Why can't I say that I've seen more. The offense has looked more fluid with Dawson in the game. Why can't I opine on that? It's only two games so I'm not exaggerating by only saying "seen more," which apparently you're misconstruing as some broad proclamation. And why do you think Dawson can be potentially better? Is it because you "saw somthing" in the first two games. It's OK to admit it, it feels good.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
I most certainly can deny that. Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?" That makes no sense.
If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine. But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"
Notice that he said we have seen more
in the first two games.
Quote from: keefe on November 15, 2013, 11:34:28 AM
Please state Wilson's accomplishments. Be specific.
More assists. Less turnovers.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 11:35:46 AM
Why can't I say that I've seen more. The offense has looked more fluid with Dawson in the game. Why can't I opine on that? It's only two games so I'm not exaggerating by only saying "seen more," which apparently you're misconstruing as some broad proclamation. And why do you think Dawson can be potentially better? Is it because you "saw somthing" in the first two games. It's OK to admit it, it feels good.
I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.
And I never said that Dawson had more potential. I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that. Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid." I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:42:36 AM
I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.
And I never said that Dawson had more potential. I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that. Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid." I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations.
Sorry I can't quantify everything for you and wrap it in a nice bow, and that you're obsessed with referring to everyone's arguments as cliches (you know why they call them cliches, right). And, hmm, you want to wait for decent competition before making "such proclamations" yet Wilson is more "accomplished" at this point due to his assist/turnover ratio? Your best bet is to just stay neutral with your line of logic.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 11:42:36 AM
I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.
And I never said that Dawson had more potential. I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that. Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid." I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations.
Dawson is taller and appears to be more athletic than Derrick. He also made 2 really nice passes against an awful team. What else is there to see?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 15, 2013, 12:02:38 PM
Dawson is taller and appears to be more athletic than Derrick. He also made 2 really nice passes against an awful team. What else is there to see?
Sigh.
Is this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?
I mean, I would LOVE if JD was like Magic Johnson. I would LOVE if he was significantly better than DW.
I'm not sure that 2 games against bad opponents have told me that.
Call me conservative, but I'd like to see him some more.
Another example: Deonte Burton was physically unstoppable against Grambling. I assume as the competition gets better, he won't be able to physically dominate. He's have to be more patient, pick his spots, and he'll probably be less effective.
Same goes for Dawson.
If we win tomorrow, it will because Gardner and Otule have great games, our PGs don't turn the ball over like crazy, and we hit some timely threes. And we are one dimensional. No one on this roster showed that can consistently hit jumpers or create off the dribble and we don't have a suffocating defense that will create alot of fast breaks. We do have proven post players. That sounds pretty one dimensional to me. Maybe we will see something tomorrow that will show we can score in a number of ways consistently.
QuoteIs this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?
I think its simply that people want more out of the point guard position and are hoping that someone else shows flashes or takes the reins from Derrick. Duane Wilson was supposed to compete with Derrick for the starting pg role. Derrick is consistent and you know what you are going to get with him.
The fact that Derrick still can't shoot doesn't bode well. Do you want your point guard, the guy who brings the ball up the court every possession, to not be able to create for others? How can you create for others when you can't shoot? Dribble penetration...but Derrick is to short when he gets down low..etc. etc. Derrick works hard but if he can't make a basket and continues to let quicker guards get around him Buzz may have a short leash for him once he has Duane back in the fold.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 15, 2013, 12:12:22 PM
Is this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?
I mean, I would LOVE if JD was like Magic Johnson. I would LOVE if he was significantly better than DW.
I'm not sure that 2 games against bad opponents have told me that.
Call me conservative, but I'd like to see him some more.
Another example: Deonte Burton was physically unstoppable against Grambling. I assume as the competition gets better, he won't be able to physically dominate. He's have to be more patient, pick his spots, and he'll probably be less effective.
Same goes for Dawson.
We absolutely need to see more, no question. But JD and DW played in the exact two games, and based on that small sample size, I feel better about JD for this fleeting moment. But you would be foolish to proclaim that JD is better suited for the position moving forward, period.
I think D.Will has been just fine. Kind of reminds me back when Cubillian and Acker were running the offense and some people on here had a collective aneurysm. We don't need points out of our PG, we just need someone that'll distribute the ball without turning it over.
In DWill's first year, in extremely limited minutes, he had almost a 4:1 Assist/Turnover ratio. His second year, in limited minutes, he had a better than 3:1 Assist/Turnover ratio. This year, with higher minutes, he's actually attempting less shots than last year. And he's got a better than 4:1 Assist/Turnover ratio. The .5 ppg isn't sparking, and the 25% FT% is pretty brutal, but as a director for the other 4 scorers, he's done what he's supposed to do: put people in the right places on the court and give them the ball without giving it to the other team.
And Dawson's been fine, too. His FT% is also 25%, so that isn't great. And his TOs are a little high. But I guess I don't see the statistical reason to use him over DW. Sort of bizarre after a 10-1 Assist/TO game.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 12:43:05 PM
We absolutely need to see more, no question. But JD and DW played in the exact two games, and based on that small sample size, I feel better about JD for this fleeting moment. But you would be foolish to proclaim that JD is better suited for the position moving forward, period.
That's fine.
I'm not sure what else I can realistically ask Derrick to do. He's never going to be Novak.
But, if he can get 10 assists and 5 rebounds... I'm thrilled.
I'm not sure I saw everything "running smoother" with Dawson... but that's just me.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 15, 2013, 01:37:47 PM
That's fine.
I'm not sure what else I can realistically ask Derrick to do. He's never going to be Novak.
But, if he can get 10 assists and 5 rebounds... I'm thrilled.
I'm not sure I saw everything "running smoother" with Dawson... but that's just me.
You can ask your PG to be at the very least a nominal threat to score. DW is not at that threshold. The question becomes do his assists, ballhanding, and defense outweigh Dawson's ability to score along with his--CLICHE ALERT--ability to run the offense. Lots of factors to consider with a tiny sample size (for Dawson). I'll get back to everyone at the end of December.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 02:21:15 PM
You can ask your PG to be at the very least a nominal threat to score. DW is not at that threshold. The question becomes do his assists, ballhanding, and defense outweigh Dawson's ability to score along with his--CLICHE ALERT--ability to run the offense. Lots of factors to consider with a tiny sample size (for Dawson). I'll get back to everyone at the end of December.
I'm not sure what exactly Dawson did to "run the offense" any differently than Wilson did.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 08:32:19 AM
Ugh...*no one* is hating on the kid.
Some of us just don't want to crown him after playing two games of college basketball against SWAC opponents.
Your totally right. I certainly agree there
Is a maturation process and he should not be given the crown
Without earning it.
But how quick hype builds is crazy wouldnt u agree.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 02:21:15 PM
You can ask your PG to be at the very least a nominal threat to score. DW is not at that threshold. The question becomes do his assists, ballhanding, and defense outweigh Dawson's ability to score along with his--CLICHE ALERT--ability to run the offense. Lots of factors to consider with a tiny sample size (for Dawson). I'll get back to everyone at the end of December.
Well, I guess this is just where we fundamentally disagree.
I'll take a PG who scores 0, but gets 10 assists, 5 rebounds and plays good/great defense. I think you can win with that guy.
Now, I don't expect Derrick to do that every game (or ever again for that matter), but I have a tough time saying that another player has played "better" at PG, when Derrick has done EVERYTHING but score.
Dawson really be Magic Johnson and John Stockton combined... but at this point, to me, he hasn't been better than Derrick Wilson. AND I suspect Buzz feels the same way. Barring foul trouble, I think Derrick will get 25+ minutes tomorrow. Dawson will get under 10.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 15, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
Well, I guess this is just where we fundamentally disagree.
I'll take a PG who scores 0, but gets 10 assists, 5 rebounds and plays good/great defense. I think you can win with that guy.
Now, I don't expect Derrick to do that every game (or ever again for that matter), but I have a tough time saying that another player has played "better" at PG, when Derrick has done EVERYTHING but score.
Dawson really be Magic Johnson and John Stockton combined... but at this point, to me, he hasn't been better than Derrick Wilson. AND I suspect Buzz feels the same way. Barring foul trouble, I think Derrick will get 25+ minutes tomorrow. Dawson will get under 10.
Yes, if you're posting 10 assists a game, you don't have to score (however, point guards that can post such an average can score making it easier to post such assist totals since defenses have to take them seriously as viable scorers) but that 10 assists for DW is such an anomaly. When a team scores 114 points in 40 minutes, the opposition is not playing defense. I'd be intersted in seeing how many of those assists had an impact on the field goal (not just a pass and then the recipient does the work to score). To his credit, he did only play 20 minutes and put up that total, but still.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 02:24:52 PM
I'm not sure what exactly Dawson did to "run the offense" any differently than Wilson did.
If you can't see Dawson is a much more fluid and smooth player than Derrick, not sure what to tell you. Dawson had 3 assists that I recall were of the no look variety, that led to easy buckets. He also, made a great move going to the basket on the FG he scored....and not to mention the beautiful ultra quick spin move he made that cleared the first defender easily, but was met with resistance by a big man...who I think swatted the shot.
Of course you can point to the swatted shot and say big deal....but the spin move was a great, aggressive* move, and something I've yet to see from Derrick Wilson...which of course Derrick can do...but not at the speed and fluidity that Dawson showed. That speed/quickness leads to easier baskets for either John, or a teammate.
Quote from: windyplayer on November 15, 2013, 02:41:03 PM
Yes, if you're posting 10 assists a game, you don't have to score (however, point guards that can post such an average can score making it easier to post such assist totals since defenses have to take them seriously as viable scorers) but that 10 assists for DW is such an anomaly. When a team scores 114 points in 40 minutes, the opposition is not playing defense. I'd be intersted in seeing how many of those assists had an impact on the field goal (not just a pass and then the recipient does the work to score). To his credit, he did only play 20 minutes and put up that total, but still.
Totally fair... but to that point, given the competition, I don't know if Dawson's performance is as impressive as some might think, right?
Maybe Dawson's performance was an anomaly against a bad team?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 15, 2013, 02:47:15 PM
Totally fair... but to that point, given the competition, I don't know if Dawson's performance is as impressive as some might think, right?
Maybe Dawson's performance was an anomaly against a bad team?
That's where the "eye test," comes into play, and where some more progressive minds can extrapolate and see that it will prove not to be an anomaly. Derrick getting 10 assists though, that I believe will be an anomaly.
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 03:06:54 PM
That's where the "eye test," comes into play, and where some more progressive minds can extrapolate and see that it will prove not to be an anomaly. Derrick getting 10 assists though, that I believe will be an anomaly.
Are these are the same "progressive minds" that say things like "(DJ Newbill has) had a better college career than Vander has?"
Just wondering.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Are these are the same "progressive minds" that say things like "(DJ Newbill has) had a better college career than Vander has?"
Just wondering.
Ahh yes....Vander was a bust his first 2 years....had a good junior year. Newbill way outperformed Vander his first 2 years, and as "great" as you may want to call Vander's year last year...Newbill's was virtually the exact same. Sure you'll love the stats, as you are a stats guy and can't base anything on such cliche's as the "eye test."
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=devonte-newbill&devonte-newbill=2012-2013&p1=vander-blue
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 03:25:50 PM
Ahh yes....Vander was a bust his first 2 years....had a good junior year.
So "progressive minds" call Vander a "bust" the first 2 years?
Huh.
Derrick Wilson is a problem because you don't even have to guard him. And teams DON'T even guard him. If I coached against MU I'd just double Gardner and dare Derrick to put it the hoop without anyone even giving him token pressure until he is 5 feet from the hoop. He was consistently left completely left wide open in these first 2 games, and did nothing to show it was a bad strategy.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 03:28:26 PM
So "progressive minds" call Vander a "bust" the first 2 years?
Huh.
Funny you didn't address the stat sheet head to head comparison between Newbill and Vander's "breakout" year last year.
But yes, I'd call Vander's first 2 seasons at MU a bust...or at least measured against Newbill's:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=devonte-newbill&devonte-newbill=2010-2011&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2010-2011
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 03:48:29 PM
Funny you didn't address the stat sheet head to head comparison between Newbill and Vander's "breakout" year last year.
OK I will address that now...Vander was better.
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 03:48:29 PM
Funny you didn't address the stat sheet head to head comparison between Newbill and Vander's "breakout" year last year.
But yes, I'd call Vander's first 2 seasons at MU a bust...or at least measured against Newbill's:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=devonte-newbill&devonte-newbill=2010-2011&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2010-2011
So "progressive minds" think that numbers at Southern Miss are similar to numbers at Marquette?
Alright...I'm done with this. If you want to think that Newbill is better than Vander that is your opinion. I'll just leave it at that.
Newbill didn't have to pry the ball from the hands of Butler, Crowder, and DJO.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 15, 2013, 03:50:28 PM
So "progressive minds" think that numbers at Southern Miss are similar to numbers at Marquette?
Alright...I'm done with this. If you want to think that Newbill is better than Vander that is your opinion. I'll just leave it at that.
Agree to disagree...and think that stats show as much. To not call Vander's first 2 seasons at MU as a 5 star recruit a bust....well....not sure what else to say. He was AWFUL as a freshman, and not much better as a sophomore. I will say, however, that I never saw the huge jump coming that he made in his 3rd season at MU. Hopefully, the same can be said about Derrick Wilson...and then I'll be the one eating the big sh$tburger..
Quote from: MisterDMU on November 15, 2013, 12:53:14 PM
I think D.Will has been just fine. Kind of reminds me back when Cubillian and Acker were running the offense and some people on here had a collective aneurysm. We don't need points out of our PG, we just need someone that'll distribute the ball without turning it over.
I have an aneurysm now whenever Derrick rises up to shoot ... which was something Cooby and Acker could do.
A PG on a great team at least has to be a threat to score. I would like somebody to give me an example of a great -- I'm talking truly championship-caliber team -- that had a PG who shot 20-something % from the field and 40-something % from the FT line.
That's all I'm saying now and it's all I've ever said about Derrick Wilson. I'd love, love, love him to show us he's been sandbagging it all this time and that he can be depended upon to hit a FT with the game on the line or can hit a wide-open 16-footer when Gardner gets double-teamed.
That's not hatin' ... it's hopin'!!!
Coobie and Acker could hit 3s and free throws.
We are pretty much one-dimensional until he show that out perimeter guys can score consistently.
If I was Matta, I'd double DG and force him to pass out to inexperienced guards to shoot the ball.
And cross my fingers while doing so.
Quote from: Ners on November 15, 2013, 03:06:54 PM
That's where the "eye test," comes into play, and where some more progressive minds can extrapolate and see that it will prove not to be an anomaly. Derrick getting 10 assists though, that I believe will be an anomaly.
And that's fine, I guess I'm just not seeing what you see.
This conversation reminds a little of the MU tourney loss to Missouri after Dom James went down. The real MU did a solid job breaking the press, but Mo Acker just wasn't a threat to score and it made it a lot harder to MU to wear down the Tigers. More than once he just had to pull up and set up the offense instead of breaking down an advantage after beating the press.
Not looking for a PG like James or Diener who can score at will given the rest of the team, but it's starting to look like the PG position is zero threat to score.
Everyone said the same thing last two years with Cadougan. There's like a 12 page thread about it. Things will fall into place. Derrick earns his spot on the floor, obviously Buzz sees it that way.
Finally watched the game. Derrick looked great. Dawson looked great. Jake looked great. Steve Taylor looked great. Chris looked great. Juan looked great. Deonte looked great. JaJaun got off to a slow start but looked great. Dylan Flood looked great. BTW, he also scored more points than Derrick, maybe he should play more.
The point is, everyone looked great because Grambling SUCKS. You can't tell anything from that game.
Short of watching the entire game again, is there a resource that would tell you who ran the offense better from a statistial POV? They both played 20 minutes, is there any way to look at scoring, FG %, etc. while each was on the floor? Only way to answer the question and get past the infamous "eye test".
Oh, and the 30 foot post-entry bounce passes that everyone is so excited about only work against a team as lousy as Grambling, so that's fools gold. Also, Dawson didn't even have the prettiest assists in the game...Juan did (x2), maybe he should be the starting point guard.