Our starting guards!
65 minutes
1 for 6 shooting
2 assists
3 turnovers
3 points
How could it be any worse if we developed a freshman duo for at least 20 of these minutes. I just don't get it.
Buzz!
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 08, 2013, 10:12:07 AM
Our starting guards!
65 minutes
1 for 6 shooting
2 assists
3 turnovers
3 points
How could it be any worse if we developed a freshman duo for at least 20 of these minutes. I just don't get it.
The fallacy that playing players more will necessarily make them better.
Seeing all these posts about how Buzz is wrong in who he should play reminds me of this scene....
http://youtu.be/MH4Q8vkbV2U (http://youtu.be/MH4Q8vkbV2U)
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 10:35:12 AM
The fallacy that playing players more will necessarily make them better.
Sultan, it's time to concede. It's just time. You're digging yourself into a deeper hole with each response.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 10:35:12 AM
The fallacy that playing players more will necessarily make them better.
For skilled enough players there definitely is a correlation to playing time and improved play. If you want to say it would ruin their confidence that's fine. It can also be managed in a few minute stints on the floor and then a brief conversation with the assistant coaches. You can easily get 3 freshmen about 15 minutes in an upper level game with 3 or 4 minute stints on the floor. At this point Derrick does not deserve(based on performance) to just be handed 30+ minutes per game. Not saying he shouldn't start and play about 20-25 minutes but those who suggest he should and will just be given 30+ minutes per game is a bit mindboggling. His defense is pretty good. Not great. Nothing to say, Man Derrick is just all over that guy in his face and shutting him down. Or leading the defense helping others out. He is slightly above average on defense. Nothing more. He fell asleep several times yesterday forcing rotations that caused open back doors plays for bucky and at other times rotations that cause open looks for other players to get wide open shots. Not saying that the others are not doing this as well. Just that he is far from Dominic james or
Kraft at OSU. His defense is just so overblown on this site ...
What we do know is that Derrick and Jake have been around for a while now and have also now logged enough playing time for us to know what they are. Neither have done anything offensively or defensively to suggest that they are irreplaceable. That is just a fallacy. Freshmen definitely need to earn their playing time, no doubt. But it has to be relative to what the players above them can produce as well. Its not like they are sitting behind Junior or Senior Level Dominic James and Vander Blue. Or even Mo Acker for that matter.
As positive as I am trying to stay I had to choke down a little vomit every time Brian Anderson referred to "Marquette's 3 point shooter."
Quote from: windyplayer on December 08, 2013, 10:52:36 AM
Sultan, it's time to concede. It's just time. You're digging yourself into a deeper hole with each response.
Concede what? Buzz is playing the players he believes gives Marquette the best chance to win games. We had no better chance of winning with the freshmen playing more, and frankly it could have been a lot worse.
They did NOTHING yesterday.
Quote from: CoachesCorner on December 08, 2013, 10:52:46 AM
For skilled enough players there definitely is a correlation to playing time and improved play.
Prove it. (Let me help....you can't...because that is hardly a universal truth.)
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
Prove it. (Let me help....you can't...because that is hardly a universal truth.)
Prove that it isn't true. You cant.... Its not a universal truth. But MOST players get better rather than worse as their careers go on. IE get more playing time and experience. Therefore the correlation...
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 08, 2013, 10:44:21 AM
Seeing all these posts about how Buzz is wrong in who he should play reminds me of this scene....
http://youtu.be/MH4Q8vkbV2U (http://youtu.be/MH4Q8vkbV2U)
Well done and John Dawson is apparently Jimmy Chitwood.
(http://flamingbagofpoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jimmy-chitwood.jpg)
Quote from: CoachesCorner on December 08, 2013, 11:08:11 AM
Prove that it isn't true. You cant.... Its not a universal truth. But MOST players get better rather than worse as their careers go on. IE get more playing time and experience. Therefore the correlation...
Most players get better as time goes on no doubt. But that isn't necessarily because they play more in live games. It's also because they practice more, get more physically and emotionally mature, understand what is expected of them.
The idea that you should play JJJ, etc. more because it will automatically pay dividends down the line is fool's gold. It *might*...it might not...it may not make a difference at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 11:13:18 AM
Most players get better as time goes on no doubt. But that isn't necessarily because they play more in live games. It's also because they practice more, get more physically and emotionally mature, understand what is expected of them.
The idea that you should play JJJ, etc. more because it will automatically pay dividends down the line is fool's gold. It *might*...it might not...it may not make a difference at all.
You are correct. It MAY not. It also very well could.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 08, 2013, 10:12:07 AM
Our starting guards!
65 minutes
1 for 6 shooting
2 assists
3 turnovers
3 points
How could it be any worse if we developed a freshman duo for at least 20 of these minutes. I just don't get it.
How could it get worse? If Dawson and JJJ are terrible on defense and allow many more points than Derrick and Jake allowed. That's how.
Playing guys who are not ready to play can ruin them permanently. In fact, it's quite common.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 11:13:18 AM
Most players get better as time goes on no doubt. But that isn't necessarily because they play more in live games. It's also because they practice more, get more physically and emotionally mature, understand what is expected of them.
The idea that you should play JJJ, etc. more because it will automatically pay dividends down the line is fool's gold. It *might*...it might not...it may not make a difference at all.
I would say that the primary reason players get better with time is live game experience. Specifically being in the game, making mistakes and watching film of your mistakes to learn. Practice just isnt the same as you are always against the same players. Emotional maturity would be a distant second, and physical maturity - except in football - probably has the least to do with it. It isnt the same for everyone, but my opinion is based on my experience playing sports through college. So while I dont think the growth would be huge during the season necssarily, playing our freshman more now I think would pay much more down the line as theyd get that early learning sooner. If it isnt too much of a falloff from the current high minute players, I cant see a huge reason not to play them more. I LOVE Buzz and always will, probably my favorite coach of all time, but it does seem a bit like eccentric stubborness. He could at least tell Jake to shoot more. Id be much happpier with him taking and missing a few threes than not looking to shoot at all. I do think he is a good shooter, but he needs tp actually shoot more!
This thread is pretty much "I know you are!" followed by "No, you are!". All we need is a "neener neener" to make it complete.
I think the team needs to bet on winning the Big East tournament for an NCAA bid. Given that you need to focus on having the best team in March, which means starting JJJ and Burton now. You start Anderson and Thomas only, if you are focusing on winning the next game.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 08, 2013, 12:39:36 PM
Playing guys who are not ready to play can ruin them permanently. In fact, it's quite common.
You mean like O'Neill permanently ruined Key, McIlvaine and Logtermann because he had to play them big minutes their freshman season before they were ready?
Or like Tony Smith was permanaently ruined because Dukiet had to play him extensively before he was ready?
Or like Wesley Matthews, Dominic James and Jerel McNeal were permanetly ruined because they had to log big minutes as freshmen?
I'm struggling to come up with a single one that actually was ruined permanetly because they played as freshman.
Quote from: bilsu on December 08, 2013, 02:23:14 PM
I think the team needs to bet on winning the Big East tournament for an NCAA bid. Given that you need to focus on having the best team in March, which means starting JJJ and Burton now. You start Anderson and Thomas only, if you are focusing on winning the next game.
I heard you are going to take the Marquette coaching job and Buzz is going step down and take a team consultant.
If Marquette makes 3 more baskets we are saying how smart Buzz is and that the process is great. Because we missed those 3 baskets he somehow is stupid, back country, and lost his touch. Funny what happens when a round ball fails too fall through a hoop.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 08, 2013, 02:43:13 PM
You mean like O'Neill permanently ruined Key, McIlvaine and Logtermann because he had to play them big minutes their freshman season before they were ready?
Or like Tony Smith was permanaently ruined because Dukiet had to play him extensively before he was ready?
Or like Wesley Matthews, Dominic James and Jerel McNeal were permanetly ruined because they had to log big minutes as freshmen?
I'm struggling to come up with a single one that actually was ruined permanetly because they played as freshman.
Wow....I actually agree with Equalizer! Feel the exact same way. It's one thing to play the vets if they are giving you a serviceable performance - but what Derrick and Jake have produced thus far - I'd suspect you couldn't find another Top 100 team that has their starting backcourt and leaders in minutes played - producing less. Oh, but they are solid defensively, yet never create any steals. Hell, I'd love to just get good old "deflections!" They are disruptive on no way, shape or form.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
Concede what? Buzz is playing the players he believes gives Marquette the best chance to win games. We had no better chance of winning with the freshmen playing more, and frankly it could have been a lot worse.
They did NOTHING yesterday.
They need to learn to play D. That was tough watching Burton's lapses.
Who would win game of 1 on 1 between Jake Thomas and Brian Barone?
Quote from: Ners on December 08, 2013, 04:40:58 PM
Oh, but they are solid defensively, yet never create any steals. Hell, I'd love to just get good old "deflections!" They are disruptive on no way, shape or form.
This is underestimated. Will they miss their man and get burned sometimes? Sure. But Burton leads the team with 10 steals and is third in blocks - per minute the best on the team in both categories. JaJuan has one less steal than Jake in 105 less minutes - and has taken a couple back for slams. The "solid" defense involves as little true playmaking as the "caretaker" offense.
Quote from: chapman on December 08, 2013, 07:50:14 PM
This is underestimated. Will they miss their man and get burned sometimes? Sure. But Burton leads the team with 10 steals and is third in blocks - per minute the best on the team in both categories. JaJuan has one less steal than Jake in 105 less minutes - and has taken a couple back for slams. The "solid" defense involves as little true playmaking as the "caretaker" offense.
How dare you interject statistics into this argument that disprove the Derrick and Jake are the best options at this time for getting major minutes due to their "defensive prowess" that never results in any steals or transition baskets.
Can't say it better: The "solid" defense involves as little true playmaking as the "caretaker" offense.
So if they create 6-8 points of transition on the offensive end does that make up for allowing some blow-bys and missing assignments that give up 12-15 points on the defensive end?
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 08, 2013, 09:13:06 PM
So if they create 6-8 points of transition on the offensive end does that make up for allowing some blow-bys and missing assignments that give up 12-15 points on the defensive end?
I don't know that those are the right numbers (pretty sure they're not), but there is a good chance that those 6-7 extras points plus a few more might be made up on the offensive end when the oppostion defense suddenly has to guard EVERYBODY.
I'm not saying JJJ and Burton would be better that the current starting pair, because how would I know? I defer to the coach in such matters. The starting backcourt is not getting the job done, though.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 09, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
I don't know that those are the right numbers (pretty sure they're not), but there is a good chance that those 6-7 extras points plus a few more might be made up on the offensive end when the oppostion defense suddenly has to guard EVERYBODY.
I'm not saying JJJ and Burton would be better that the current starting pair, because how would I know? I defer to the coach in such matters. The starting backcourt is not getting the job done, though.
But it's a complete fallacy to assume that the players on the bench would get the job done. Just because you don't like the starter doesn't mean the backup is better. I remember Packers fans chanting for Blair Kiel back in the day. At no point did that make Blair Kiel the best QB on the roster. This is the exact same thing.
Quote from: tommyc6 on December 08, 2013, 06:09:09 PM
Who would win game of 1 on 1 between Jake Thomas and Brian Barone?
Tie game, 0-0
Barone would dribble recklessly all over the court with his head down until he stepped on the out of bounds line. And Jake wouldn't dribble the ball instead looking for someone to pass the ball to until he got a 5 second count.
Repeat until buzzer.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 09, 2013, 09:01:38 AM
But it's a complete fallacy to assume that the players on the bench would get the job done. Just because you don't like the starter doesn't mean the backup is better. I remember Packers fans chanting for Blair Kiel back in the day. At no point did that make Blair Kiel the best QB on the roster. This is the exact same thing.
What do you think Derrick Wilson's Quarterback Rating would be for the year? 40s? 50s? I'm going to say Derrick Wilson is Blair Kiel - who knows if you have a Brett Farve or even Don Majikowski sitting on the bench in Dawson. Hell Holmgren didn't put Farve ahead of Majikowski..and he got to see them every day in practice. Majikowski gets hurt, and Farve takes over, and the team begins to roll....Majikowski never sees the field again.
We know what Derrick is - maybe some debate as to how good he is - as he has a few defenders - but his body of work suggests he is at best a back up, game manager point guard.
Honestly, I'd love to see Derrick's highlight video of his play at MU thus far - don't think there'd be even 1 play where you think - wow, this guy is talented. His game is as flat, boring, and ineffective as a point guard's game can get.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
What do you think Derrick Wilson's Quarterback Rating would be for the year? 40s? 50s? I'm going to say Derrick Wilson is Blair Kiel - who knows if you have a Brett Farve or even Don Majikowski sitting on the bench in Dawson. Hell Holmgren didn't put Farve ahead of Majikowski..and he got to see them every day in practice. Majikowski gets hurt, and Farve takes over, and the team begins to roll....Majikowski never sees the field again.
One of the reasons he didn't start Favre from the beginning is because Favre had a very limited understanding of the offense. Favre ended up winning a lot of games that year due to his sheer physical abilities versus his understanding of the game.
What would have happened had Majkowski not gotten hurt? Would he have started Favre eventually anyway? Who knows.
Perhaps this is what Buzz has in mind. Maybe he will bring along Dawson eventually...maybe even starting this week.
But I think the fact that when Dawson did get into the game on Saturday, and I think he got in only due to Mayo's suspension, and he didn't even run the point, says something about his thoughts for Dawson. I don't think he has the point guard equivalent of Brett Fave on his bench.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 09, 2013, 10:47:25 AM
One of the reasons he didn't start Favre from the beginning is because Favre had a very limited understanding of the offense. Favre ended up winning a lot of games that year due to his sheer physical abilities versus his understanding of the game.
What would have happened had Majkowski not gotten hurt? Would he have started Favre eventually anyway? Who knows.
Perhaps this is what Buzz has in mind. Maybe he will bring along Dawson eventually...maybe even starting this week.
But I think the fact that when Dawson did get into the game on Saturday, and I think he got in only due to Mayo's suspension, and he didn't even run the point, says something about his thoughts for Dawson. I don't think he has the point guard equivalent of Brett Fave on his bench.
This is all fine and well, but he has the equivalent of Trent Dilfer (at best) as his starting point guard, yet I'd put Derrick more in the category of a a run of the mill second string quarterback. He's a good, solid back up caliber PG at this level, good for 10 minutes of PT - not 35.
Maybe Dawson wouldn't do any better, but it's hard to fathom he would do worse - obviously I watch Dawson ridiculously close when he's in the game, and I do not recall 1 defensive lapse. Perhaps there's been 1, but he hasn't shown bad at all on D (as you could say Burton has gotten burned a couple of times clearly)...
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 10:58:21 AM
This is all fine and well, but he has the equivalent of Trent Dilfer (at best) as his starting point guard, yet I'd put Derrick more in the category of a a run of the mill second string quarterback. He's a good, solid back up caliber PG at this level, good for 10 minutes of PT - not 35.
Maybe Dawson wouldn't do any better, but it's hard to fathom he would do worse - obviously I watch Dawson ridiculously close when he's in the game, and I do not recall 1 defensive lapse. Perhaps there's been 1, but he hasn't shown bad at all on D (as you could say Burton has gotten burned a couple of times clearly)...
And Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Replaced by Elvis Grbac the next year, and it all fell apart.
Look Buzz knows much more about basketball then either of us do. He sees these guys every day. I am sure there is a perfectly valid reason why he is doing what he is doing. He has given plenty of minutes before to freshmen who understand what he wants and perform on the court.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 10:58:21 AM
This is all fine and well, but he has the equivalent of Trent Dilfer (at best) as his starting point guard, yet I'd put Derrick more in the category of a a run of the mill second string quarterback. He's a good, solid back up caliber PG at this level, good for 10 minutes of PT - not 35.
Maybe Dawson wouldn't do any better, but it's hard to fathom he would do worse - obviously I watch Dawson ridiculously close when he's in the game, and I do not recall 1 defensive lapse. Perhaps there's been 1, but he hasn't shown bad at all on D (as you could say Burton has gotten burned a couple of times clearly)...
I don't think Buzz wants Derrick to play 35+ min.
Unfortunately, nobody is good enough (yet) to step up and take some minutes from Derrick.
That's the only logical explanation, right?
Occam's razor, right?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 09, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
I don't think Buzz wants Derrick to play 35+ min.
Unfortunately, nobody is good enough (yet) to step up and take some minutes from Derrick.
That's the only logical explanation, right?
Occam's razor, right?
Of all the scholarship players on MU's roster, Dawson has played the fewest minutes and he's a PG, which is the team's thinnest position, yet when he's in the game, he doesn't even run the point. I believe that backs up your hypothesis.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 09, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
And Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Replaced by Elvis Grbac the next year, and it all fell apart.
Look Buzz knows much more about basketball then either of us do. He sees these guys every day. I am sure there is a perfectly valid reason why he is doing what he is doing. He has given plenty of minutes before to freshmen who understand what he wants and perform on the court.
No, Trent Dilfer didn't win a Super Bowl - - he didn't lose one for the most dominant defense in the NFL for the last 25+ years!! And fortunately in football, there are 2 distinct sides of the ball where different players play, unlike basketball - so it is very easy to quantify the overall impact a player makes defensively, and isolate that from offensive contribution...unlike basketball as the desperate Derrick Wilson defenders are trying to hang their hat on saying he's so good defensively.
But yes, I do agree Buzz knows much more about basketball than either one of us - yet I'm just going to have to chalk this one up to his eccentricities and that there is some method to his madness on this one...
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 08, 2013, 11:13:18 AM
Most players get better as time goes on no doubt. But that isn't necessarily because they play more in live games. It's also because they practice more, get more physically and emotionally mature, understand what is expected of them.
The idea that you should play JJJ, etc. more because it will automatically pay dividends down the line is fool's gold. It *might*...it might not...it may not make a difference at all.
This is just a bunch of hedging. This whole bird in the hand thing is better than a two in the bush is nonsense. The bird in the hand is unsightly and ill.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 11:20:43 AM
But yes, I do agree Buzz knows much more about basketball than either one of us - yet I'm just going to have to chalk this one up to his eccentricities and that there is some method to his madness on this one...
Maybe just chalk it up to Dawson isn't that good (yet)?
Seems more likely, right?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 09, 2013, 11:24:34 AM
Maybe just chalk it up to Dawson isn't that good (yet)?
Seems more likely, right?
Nope...from the limited PT I've seen of Dawson, he's good, and has game. I fully believe this is Buzz trying to give his Vet, and a player he likes a lot from a character perspective, every chance in the world to take the position, and run with it. Being loyal to almost a fault at this point. I do suspect, however, that DW is on thin ice...he's played 1 good game out of 9 - ASU. We need him to be better than a 1 good game, every 9, if he is going to continue to get 35 minutes of PT..
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 11:37:31 AM
Nope...from the limited PT I've seen of Dawson, he's good, and has game. I fully believe this is Buzz trying to give his Vet, and a player he likes a lot from a character perspective, every chance in the world to take the position, and run with it. Being loyal to almost a fault at this point. I do suspect, however, that DW is on thin ice...he's played 1 good game out of 9 - ASU. We need him to be better than a 1 good game, every 9, if he is going to continue to get 35 minutes of PT..
Derrick wasn't good against Grambling? Can you then please explain why he out-performed your boy in every single statistical category? If Derrick wasn't good in that game, your guy really stunk the joint up.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 11:37:31 AM
Nope...from the limited PT I've seen of Dawson, he's good, and has game. I fully believe this is Buzz trying to give his Vet, and a player he likes a lot from a character perspective, every chance in the world to take the position, and run with it. Being loyal to almost a fault at this point. I do suspect, however, that DW is on thin ice...he's played 1 good game out of 9 - ASU. We need him to be better than a 1 good game, every 9, if he is going to continue to get 35 minutes of PT..
Then I hope Buzz Williams is fired this afternoon.
If his loyalty runs so deep that he can't see he has a better option on the bench, then he needs to coach someplace else.
I'm ok with quirkiness, I'm not ok with playing Derrick 39min per game out of loyalty.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 11:37:31 AM
Nope...from the limited PT I've seen of Dawson, he's good, and has game. I fully believe this is Buzz trying to give his Vet, and a player he likes a lot from a character perspective, every chance in the world to take the position, and run with it. Being loyal to almost a fault at this point. I do suspect, however, that DW is on thin ice...he's played 1 good game out of 9 - ASU. We need him to be better than a 1 good game, every 9, if he is going to continue to get 35 minutes of PT..
Ners, it cannot possibly just be loyalty. I said this earlier in the thread, but loyalty would be something like playing him 25 minutes a game over a better player's 10-15 mpg. When Buzz plays him 35+ mpg in tight games, he is in effect saying that he has no options he considers better than Derrick Wilson.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
What do you think Derrick Wilson's Quarterback Rating would be for the year? 40s? 50s? I'm going to say Derrick Wilson is Blair Kiel - who knows if you have a Brett Farve or even Don Majikowski sitting on the bench in Dawson.
I'll tell you who knows. Buzz knows. Just like Holmgren knew what he had sitting on the bench in Favre. So if Dawson's not getting in, you only have one person to blame, and only one person that knows what he has there.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 09, 2013, 11:40:00 AM
Derrick wasn't good against Grambling? Can you then please explain why he out-performed your boy in every single statistical category? If Derrick wasn't good in that game, your guy really stunk the joint up.
Okay...we can split hairs - Derrick had 0 points, 5 rebounds, 10 assists, 1 TO. Dawson had 2 point, 4 rebounds, 6 assists, 2 turnovers....
Not exactly a landslide for Derrick, the Junior in the program, compared to Dawson playing in his 6th through 26th minute of his college career.
But, if you want to call Derrick's line as a Junior in the program a good game - so be it - but Dawson's line was quite similar, and that's the only time we've gotten to see him run the point for extended PT.
So our top 75 in the country recruits are at a Blair Kiel quality level? The recruiting services must have really missed on all of them...
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 09, 2013, 09:01:38 AM
But it's a complete fallacy to assume that the players on the bench would get the job done. Just because you don't like the starter doesn't mean the backup is better. I remember Packers fans chanting for Blair Kiel back in the day. At no point did that make Blair Kiel the best QB on the roster. This is the exact same thing.
Quote from: Ners on December 09, 2013, 11:37:31 AM
Nope...from the limited PT I've seen of Dawson, he's good, and has game. I fully believe this is Buzz trying to give his Vet, and a player he likes a lot from a character perspective, every chance in the world to take the position, and run with it. Being loyal to almost a fault at this point. I do suspect, however, that DW is on thin ice...he's played 1 good game out of 9 - ASU. We need him to be better than a 1 good game, every 9, if he is going to continue to get 35 minutes of PT..
One game? See, that's your problem. You put blinders on when you watch the game. You decided preseason you didn't like Derrick, hell, maybe even last season, and you refuse to acknowledge what's right in front of you. You're calling a blue sky purple.
In the three games AFTER Arizona State, Derrick went 10/19 from the floor, 6/7 from the line, had 9 rebounds, 12 assists, and 6 turnovers. He was the best player on the floor for us in the first half against SDSU before he was injured. He posted higher offensive ratings against CSF and GW than he did against Grambling (which is STILL the game you reference when you glorify Dawson) and higher than Dawson has had in his entire short career. As good as Dawson was against Grambling, he was still a below average offensive player (92 rating). Oh, and Derrick went for a 126 that game. Why are you so willfully blind?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 09, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
Then I hope Buzz Williams is fired this afternoon.
Or at least hires Ners as his scouting service.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 09, 2013, 12:28:47 PM
One game? See, that's your problem. You put blinders on when you watch the game. You decided preseason you didn't like Derrick, hell, maybe even last season, and you refuse to acknowledge what's right in front of you. You're calling a blue sky purple.
In the three games AFTER Arizona State, Derrick went 10/19 from the floor, 6/7 from the line, had 9 rebounds, 12 assists, and 6 turnovers. He was the best player on the floor for us in the first half against SDSU before he was injured. He posted higher offensive ratings against CSF and GW than he did against Grambling (which is STILL the game you reference when you glorify Dawson) and higher than Dawson has had in his entire short career. As good as Dawson was against Grambling, he was still a below average offensive player (92 rating). Oh, and Derrick went for a 126 that game. Why are you so willfully blind?
Actually, I had high hopes for Derrick coming into this season. He's actually been the biggest disappointment for me on this team.
All I have to evaluate Dawson on is the Grambling game - his minutes have been sparse and limited since that game. I just liked what I saw of Dawson's vision, acceleration, and overall fluidity in his game, compared to Derrick. Derrick is very robotic - just a very limited upside. See Dawson having a much higher ceiling, and feel Dawson is more important to the future of the team/program, than is Derrick..
Certainly the opponent guarding Derrick sags to the lane every time he has the ball on the perimeter because he doesn't worry about the shot. It isn't that Derrick can't put up a respectable shot, he just doesn't shoot. It also immediately creates another defender in the lane for rebounding and causing even harder chance for assists to our more than capable bigs.
We just have to have more dynamic play outside. Derrick and Jake are decent players in their own right but offer too much of the same. We have a missing dimension.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 09, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Certainly the opponent guarding Derrick sags to the lane every time he has the ball on the perimeter because he doesn't worry about the shot. It isn't that Derrick can't put up a respectable shot, he just doesn't shoot. It also immediately creates another defender in the lane for rebounding and causing even harder chance for assists to our more than capable bigs.
We just have to have more dynamic play outside. Derrick and Jake are decent players in their own right but offer too much of the same. We have a missing dimension.
I think a big part is the starting offense which plays long stretches at the start of the game, and often start of the 2nd half is missing a couple of playmakers. Derrick, Jake, Anderson, O'Tule can not (or at least don't) create a shot on their own, leaving our only offense to Jamil Wilson. I haven't broken down tape, but it seems like that group is falling behind in the +/- quite a bit. Putting Gardner, Mayo, or even Burton into that lineup would at least give some scoring balance to that group.
The first five minutes of the game is just ugly offensively right now.