Ners and Nevada and others are vindicated. A legitimate offensive threat at the 1 forced the game open. Notice how certain experts are conspicuous by their absence?
Again, congrats to those who advocated change that was necessary. And Buzz has proven that his OCD tendencies can be overcome.
Thank you! Ners and I were trashed on hundreds of Posts
About this kid. I knew Dawson was legit from Day 1.
I just hope he doesnt let 1 game get to his head and stays
Focused.
The naysayers are awfully quiet tonite.
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 02:59:17 AM
Thank you! Ners and I were trashed on hundreds of Posts
About this kid. I knew Dawson was legit from Day 1.
I just hope he doesnt let 1 game get to his head and stays
Focused.
The naysayers are awfully quiet tonite.
I was on board all along! Dawson should be starting!
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 02:59:17 AM
The naysayers are awfully quiet tonite.
Good call. What will you fix next?
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 01:55:25 AM
Ners and Nevada and others are vindicated. A legitimate offensive threat at the 1 forced the game open. Notice how certain experts are conspicuous by their absence?
Again, congrats to those who advocated change that was necessary. And Buzz has proven that his OCD tendencies can be overcome.
As I mentioned in the Georgetown Thoughts thread. Dawson had a very nice game. I will add that before we anoint him as the savior, lets see the second game:
- In the first half, there were two five minute stretches with no points. I don't blame Dawson for that as it was mostly Mayo taking bad or contested shots. Regardless, the offense did not look good.
- This game is very reminiscent of the Arizona State game. MU does nothing in the first half and then make a great run in the second half. A point guard puts up a very good game.
- Unlike other games, Taylor played what looked like a healthy game and he turned in 14 points and 8 rebounds. Also notice that he took Otule's minutes which allowed Gardner to play more of a post game. I think a Taylor Gardner lineup should get 25+ minutes a game. Taylor could even do the tip
- Someone else mentioned that the zone was a very good match up for Dawson
- Dawson is definitely not afraid to put up a shot which is a very good thing
- As much as Marquette won this game, Georgetown lost it. This makes up for the Butler game.
- I am very concerned with the Villanova game. They just had a clunker and got blown out. I am hoping they don't have a rebound game
- If Dawson continues to have this type of game I will gladly admit I was wrong.
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 02:59:17 AM
The naysayers are awfully quiet tonite.
Please be a TEAM fan and take the chip off your shoulder. I have been one of the more vocal "naysayers" all season long, but I was very quick to compliment Dawson on an awesome game. He had some bad moments as I mentioned in the game thread...but he was incredibly clutch down the stretch...and I have acknowledged his huge contribution to this win. Lots of other "naysayers" have as well.
Go Marquette!
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 02:59:17 AM
The naysayers are awfully quiet tonite.
Yes, the lack of traffic at 2AM was very surprising.
Quote from: Archies Bat on January 21, 2014, 06:50:41 AM
Good call. What will you fix next?
The budget crisis.....
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2014, 08:05:19 AM
Yes, the lack of traffic at 2AM was very surprising.
Blah blah.... Yall have a good day. Go Marquette
Quote from: Dreadman24 on January 21, 2014, 06:31:08 AM
I was on board all along! Dawson should be starting!
Good team win. Big shot by Mayo and Quality minutes by taylor also provided a lift.
I am more than happy to be proven wrong about Dawson. Hopefully he can string a couple games together now.
What a difference two days makes. On Saturday, in the first half Derrick was either the best or second best MU player and Dawson was dreadful in his minutes. Monday, Derrick picks up a couple of early fouls and Dawson stepped up. It was great to see. He's come a long way and he looks ready.
Quote from: tower912 on January 21, 2014, 08:46:11 AMMonday, Derrick picks up a couple of early fouls and Dawson stepped up. It was great to see. He's come a long way and he looks ready.
Derrick did NOT pick up a couple of early fouls last night. When he went to the bench for his first extended time he had at most one foul (the game log only lists 2 fouls though he had 3 in the box). He did not pick up his third foul until 25 seconds were left in regulation. Buzz played Dawson simply because he preferred to have Dawson in the game. Now whether that is because Derrick was under the weather or because we were facing a zone, I don't know. But it had nothing to do with foul trouble.
Yep, Need was right. When has our offense looked by far the best in conference play? @Xavier and @GTown when Dawson got extended minutes. The team looks completely different when he's out there. Totally opens things up. I've seen enough that I'm comfortable with him getting 25+ a night. Derrick can still start like Otule, but I think he will benefit from the 10-15 minutes he's used to as well. Win for everyone.
Thanks Keefe.
Not surprised to see some resort to the "its only one game," "Dawson had some freshman moments," "His defense left a lot to be desired," "Steve Taylor finally showed up," "Dawson was awful in the 5 minutes against Butler," etc.
I didn't see anything fluke-ish about the shots Dawson took, and made. Didn't see a freshman, rattled on the road. Didn't see anything to suggest "things could/would be a lot worse with Dawson running the point." Didn't see anything that made me think "Dawson must not be earning minutes in practice due to playing poorly, or Derrick outplaying him."
What I did see: A basketball team that was finally fun to watch. A basketball team that shared the ball well, and was able to execute. Both Steve Taylor and Gardner being able to be effective from the high post area due to G'Town being forced to guard Dawson on the perimeter and not clog the lane. A freshman play well on the road in a critical game, and a coach who finally was willing to ride the kid for 30 minutes and see what he could do.
I'm not going to expect 12 and 4 from Dawson every night going forward, but I will predict if Dawson gets 25+ minutes a game going forward, the team will have a legit chance at the NCAA and will be capable of winning - and Dawson will contribute solidly - 8ppg, 4 assists, limited turnovers - and the teams overall offensive efficiency will go up 10+%.
For all the guys who want to judge a player when he gets 2 minute stretches of run at a time, think this game by Dawson just shows you what a difference consistent playing time does for anyone that has talent and ability. It's damn near impossible to show anything in basketball when you get in a game for 2 minutes, and also know that if you make 1 mistake, you likely are getting yanked even faster than 2 minutes.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 21, 2014, 09:03:11 AM
Yep, Need was right. When has our offense looked by far the best in conference play? @Xavier and @GTown when Dawson got extended minutes. The team looks completely different when he's out there. Totally opens things up. I've seen enough that I'm comfortable with him getting 25+ a night. Derrick can still start like Otule, but I think he will benefit from the 10-15 minutes he's used to as well. Win for everyone.
This quote is quite bold. If you want to break down the game into 4 minute segments, sure then there were times that our offense looked good, but not "by far" the best in conference play. But Unless you watched every other Big East game, including the first 10 minutes of the Creighton/Nova game, that statement is just ridiculous.
Having said that, Dawson looked good. He did have some plays, especially on the defensive end that showed his inexperience, but hopefully with getting more time that will help.
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 09:05:30 AM
Not surprised to see some resort to the "its only one game," "Dawson had some freshman moments," "His defense left a lot to be desired," "Steve Taylor finally showed up," "Dawson was awful in the 5 minutes against Butler," etc.
Which of those statements is untrue?
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 09:05:30 AM
I'm not going to expect 12 and 4 from Dawson every night going forward, but I will predict if Dawson gets 25+ minutes a game going forward, the team will have a legit chance at the NCAA and will be capable of winning - and Dawson will contribute solidly - 8ppg, 4 assists, limited turnovers - and the teams overall offensive efficiency will go up 10+%.
So you expect a freshman who has played limited minutes to become Junior Cadougan as a senior? Dawson had a really nice game and should see his PT increase, but let's not get carried away.
Quote from: Abode4life on January 21, 2014, 09:09:19 AM
This quote is quite bold. If you want to break down the game into 4 minute segments, sure then there were times that our offense looked good, but not "by far" the best in conference play. But Unless you watched every other Big East game, including the first 10 minutes of the Creighton/Nova game, that statement is just ridiculous.
Having said that, Dawson looked good. He did have some plays, especially on the defensive end that showed his inexperience, but hopefully with getting more time that will help.
I'm talking about our own offense, not anyone else's. Creighton is an offensive juggernaut, I'm not that stupid man.
Dawson earned those minutes last night.
I hope he continues to do so.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 09:10:56 AM
Which of those statements is untrue?
Uh....Freshman moments, defense left a lot to be desired. No worries though Merritt, we'll see how it plays out the rest of the season. Our two best games of conference play have coincided with Dawson getting more minutes - Xavier and Georgetown. I also highly doubt Steve Taylor would have looked like the totally different player he looked like last night, if Derrick were running the point, and the high post area simply wasn't available. And as for Butler - anybody with a clue about playing the game of basketball knows you cannot make judgements on a player getting 2 minutes of run and then the bench.
But, I'll gladly take freshman moments whereby a freshman scores 7 in OT, doesn't miss a shot in OT, and makes a critical stop/steal/block on a key possession in overtime. I'll also gladly take a freshman who tied our previous PG's career makes through 20 games as a junior, with 2, 3pt FG's in one game.
Don't make me hate on Derrick by throwing out all of the relevant sample size data that shows he's and the team have pretty much been really bad under his direction at 30 minutes + per game.
Most noticeable thing when Derrick is not on the floor is ball movement is much, much better. Has been true all season, though time without him on the floor is not regular. He spends a lot of time just killing time around the 3 point line. In my experience, ball movement is contagious.
Now, Georgetown zoned us last night, and I don't think that is a particularly smart thing to do, because we were able to work the high-low post effectively, more than we ever do against man to man. How much of that was the zone, how much of that was freedom of movement because all the players were being guarded, I don't know. Whatever the reason, hopefully Dawson has earned more minutes and he makes good use of them.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 21, 2014, 09:15:44 AM
I'm talking about our own offense, not anyone else's. Creighton is an offensive juggernaut, I'm not that stupid man.
Creighton
can be an offensive juggernaut, but it's not a given. They just shot 4-19 on 3s in a loss to Providence and earlier this season they scored 53 points against GW. Creighton will be interesting come the NCAA Tournament. They're the type of team that could shoot their way into the Final Four or shoot there way out of the 1st Round.
Totally agree that the need to at least spot cover JD made a huge difference getting the ball to flow much better through Steve in the high post. Do you guys think it was somewhat because of the zone? In other words, what's our sense as to how JD will develop while facing a man defense? Also, do you guys recall that spectacular 9 pass possession in the first half? One of the keys to that was both John's and Jake's decisiveness with the ball reversal. MUCH quicker.
Another thought. GTown has two absolute stud guards. Sure they hit their shots, some absolute miracles, but I personally thought Dawson's on ball defense was pretty solid. Certainly good enough given the fact that he adds a desperately needed offensive dimension.
I'm torn between continuing to start DWil while decreasing his minutes versus promoting John to the starting lineup. I think it comes down more to a psychology question rather than anything and not personally knowing either kid I'm not in a position to judge. I do believe that DWil is mature enough to keep his head in the game even if he comes off the bench. Perhaps another solid performance by John on Saturday might result in a switch in a subsequent game.
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 09:18:29 AM
Uh....Freshman moments, defense left a lot to be desired. No worries though Merritt, we'll see how it plays out the rest of the season. Our two best games of conference play have coincided with Dawson getting more minutes - Xavier and Georgetown. I also highly doubt Steve Taylor would have looked like the totally different player he looked like last night, if Derrick were running the point, and the high post area simply wasn't available. And as for Butler - anybody with a clue about playing the game of basketball knows you cannot make judgements on a player getting 2 minutes of run and then the bench.
But, I'll gladly take freshman moments whereby a freshman scores 7 in OT, doesn't miss a shot in OT, and makes a critical stop/steal/block on a key possession in overtime. I'll also gladly take a freshman who tied our previous PG's career makes through 20 games as a junior, with 2, 3pt FG's in one game.
Don't make me hate on Derrick by throwing out all of the relevant sample size data that shows he's and the team have pretty much been really bad under his direction at 30 minutes + per game.
Against Butler, Dawson came into the game, turned the ball over and committed a silly foul within a minute. He came into the game again and turned the ball over within 4 seconds. Maybe a basketball savant like you saw something else in that limited time, but I saw a player who looked lost and hesitant and was hurting the team. Apparently my fellow basketball stupid cohort, Buzz Williams, agreed because Dawson quickly found himself back on the bench for the remainder of the game.
I don't want to argue about Dawson's limitations, especially after he played so well. I'm just saying that you need to temper your expectations a little bit because John Dawson did not transform into John Stockton by having a nice game and making a couple 3s. His game still needs work but he's showing potential.
Quote from: jsglow on January 21, 2014, 09:29:04 AM
I'm torn between continuing to start DWil while decreasing his minutes versus promoting John to the starting lineup. I think it comes down more to a psychology question rather than anything and not personally knowing either kid I'm not in a position to judge. I do believe that DWil is mature enough to keep his head in the game even if he comes off the bench. Perhaps another solid performance by John on Saturday might result in a switch in a subsequent game.
I don't think you can start him. Fouls a my biggest concern with Dawson. I think you bring him off the bench to protect him from himself a little bit, as well as to be a little bit of a change of pace. Then again, I don't like Derrik and Jake playing together, so its tough to say.
Derrick and Jake playing together has gotten MU out in front in the last two games.
Regardless, I have decided to just let it play out and see what happens. Nothing can be said in this debate that hasn't been said 100 times.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 21, 2014, 09:35:55 AM
Derrick and Jake playing together has gotten MU out in front in the last two games.
Regardless, I have decided to just let it play out and see what happens. Nothing can be said in this debate that hasn't been said 100 times.
I don't know. Has anyone mentioned Derrick's Net Efficiency or not being able to negatively judge Dawson based on a small sample size?
First, major kudos to John and to the rest of the team. Awesome, Davidsonesque comeback. I suspect some will call us lucky - not me. The thing that stood out the most to me was a calm/poise in overtime I haven't seen from this team all year. Regarding John D in particular:
He was our most outstanding Warrior in the OT. The baseline jumper, the 3 from the corner in front of the bench, the 2 big free throws and the outstanding stuff/steal of Starks - 5 tremendous minutes of ball that I hope is the launching pad to a great career.
But let's not forget that in 27 minutes of play in regulation, he was serviceable but hardly spectacular - 27 minutes, 5 points, 2-5 shooting, 0 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 4 fouls. Basically, he was Derrick Wilson but for a 3 and zero boards. He was on the floor for most of our furious comeback but was pretty much a bystander while Davante, Jamil and finally Todd brought us back and took the game to OT. If we lose the game in regulation the consensus is that John D looked solid, seemed comfortable and should get regular minutes going forward.
Whether a star was born last night (I hope, I hope) or we found a co-point guard, Ners and others who saw something in John that wasn't apparent to most of us deserve a tip of the cap. For their constant and often mean spirited attacks on Derrick, though, (rooting for him to fail? really?) they deserve something else.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 21, 2014, 06:59:43 AM
I am very concerned with the Villanova game. They just had a clunker and got blown out. I am hoping they don't have a rebound game
Eh, people said the same thing about Georgetown after their loss to Seton Hall. And Creighton his
21 friggin' 3-pointers. It's not like Nova crapped the bed--Creighton just had one of their nights. I didn't watch it, but I'm assuming Creighton hit contested 3s and Nova didn't just pack it in the paint.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 09:43:57 AM
First, major kudos to John and to the rest of the team. Awesome, Davidsonesque comeback. I suspect some will call us lucky - not me. The thing that stood out the most to me was a calm/poise in overtime I haven't seen from this team all year. Regarding John D in particular:
He was our most outstanding Warrior in the OT. The baseline jumper, the 3 from the corner in front of the bench, the 2 big free throws and the outstanding stuff/steal of Starks - 5 tremendous minutes of ball that I hope is the launching pad to a great career.
But let's not forget that in 27 minutes of play in regulation, he was serviceable but hardly spectacular - 27 minutes, 5 points, 2-5 shooting, 0 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 4 fouls. Basically, he was Derrick Wilson but for a 3 and zero boards. He was on the floor for most of our furious comeback but was pretty much a bystander while Davante, Jamil and finally Todd brought us back and took the game to OT. If we lose the game in regulation the consensus is that John D looked solid, seemed comfortable and should get regular minutes going forward.
Whether a star was born last night (I hope, I hope) or we found a co-point guard, Ners and others who saw something in John that wasn't apparent to most of us deserve a tip of the cap. For their constant and often mean spirited attacks on Derrick, though, (rooting for him to fail? really?) they deserve something else.
Very well stated.
Go Marquette! (And that includes Derrick and John.)
Gratifying to see Buzz utilizing more of his assets better. It's clear that Derrick and John bring a different skill set to the PG position and let's hope we can benefit from both. Had to wonder, though - where the hell has STJr been? I watched him very carefully and couldn't tell that he was favoring one leg so I'm not sure his absence has been all health-related. It sure was good to see him come in clicking on all cylinders - he made a huge difference.
In addition to all the other mentions in this thread, Davante hitting shots from the high post is huge.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 09:43:57 AM
First, major kudos to John and to the rest of the team. Awesome, Davidsonesque comeback. I suspect some will call us lucky - not me. The thing that stood out the most to me was a calm/poise in overtime I haven't seen from this team all year. Regarding John D in particular:
He was our most outstanding Warrior in the OT. The baseline jumper, the 3 from the corner in front of the bench, the 2 big free throws and the outstanding stuff/steal of Starks - 5 tremendous minutes of ball that I hope is the launching pad to a great career.
But let's not forget that in 27 minutes of play in regulation, he was serviceable but hardly spectacular - 27 minutes, 5 points, 2-5 shooting, 0 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 4 fouls. Basically, he was Derrick Wilson but for a 3 and zero boards. He was on the floor for most of our furious comeback but was pretty much a bystander while Davante, Jamil and finally Todd brought us back and took the game to OT. If we lose the game in regulation the consensus is that John D looked solid, seemed comfortable and should get regular minutes going forward.
Whether a star was born last night (I hope, I hope) or we found a co-point guard, Ners and others who saw something in John that wasn't apparent to most of us deserve a tip of the cap. For their constant and often mean spirited attacks on Derrick, though, (rooting for him to fail? really?) they deserve something else.
Um, Dawson was not basically a Derrick Wilson or "pretty much a bystander" during the comeback in regulation. He passed the ball very well, made Georgetown guard him - which helped open up the front court action of Taylor and Gardner - and played pretty good D. There was actually a spurt in the game when Buzz put Wilson in for Dawson and the offense immediately sputtered and MU went from up 4 or 5 to down 4 or 5 in a span of about 4 minutes. If he was just like D Wilson, then why put him in and not just stay with Wilson?
Quote from: mu-rara on January 21, 2014, 10:07:10 AM
In addition to all the other mentions in this thread, Davante hitting shots from the high post is huge.
DG's passing was really nice last night too.
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on January 21, 2014, 10:06:05 AM
Gratifying to see Buzz utilizing more of his assets better. It's clear that Derrick and John bring a different skill set to the PG position and let's hope we can benefit from both. Had to wonder, though - where the hell has STJr been? I watched him very carefully and couldn't tell that he was favoring one leg so I'm not sure his absence has been all health-related. It sure was good to see him come in clicking on all cylinders - he made a huge difference.
Taylor looked far better last night than he did early in the year when he was starting. He WASN'T favoring the leg anymore. That was the difference. Having STjr and Gardner doing their high/low game against a 2-3 zone is a huge weapon.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 21, 2014, 09:19:07 AM
Most noticeable thing when Derrick is not on the floor is ball movement is much, much better. Has been true all season, though time without him on the floor is not regular. He spends a lot of time just killing time around the 3 point line. In my experience, ball movement is contagious.
Now, Georgetown zoned us last night, and I don't think that is a particularly smart thing to do, because we were able to work the high-low post effectively, more than we ever do against man to man. How much of that was the zone, how much of that was freedom of movement because all the players were being guarded, I don't know. Whatever the reason, hopefully Dawson has earned more minutes and he makes good use of them.
There were a few times our ball movement was absolutely phenomenal. First time I had seen something like that all year.
Quote from: Norm on January 21, 2014, 10:08:06 AM
Um, Dawson was not basically a Derrick Wilson or "pretty much a bystander" during the comeback in regulation. He passed the ball very well, made Georgetown guard him - which helped open up the front court action of Taylor and Gardner - and played pretty good D. There was actually a spurt in the game when Buzz put Wilson in for Dawson and the offense immediately sputtered and MU went from up 4 or 5 to down 4 or 5 in a span of about 4 minutes. If he was just like D Wilson, then why put him in and not just stay with Wilson?
+1 - This is the point the folks who have a problem with Derrick are trying to make. Making the defense play honest helps everybody. The only caveat I have about last night was that, in addition to Dawson playing, we faced a zone defense. How much of our improved ball movement was because all 5 guys on the floor had to be guarded and how much was due to the fact that we are better at finding openings against that type of zone? Only time will tell, but I want to see more of Dawson.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 09:31:00 AM
Against Butler, Dawson came into the game, turned the ball over and committed a silly foul within a minute. He came into the game again and turned the ball over within 4 seconds. Maybe a basketball savant like you saw something else in that limited time, but I saw a player who looked lost and hesitant and was hurting the team. Apparently my fellow basketball stupid cohort, Buzz Williams, agreed because Dawson quickly found himself back on the bench for the remainder of the game.
I don't want to argue about Dawson's limitations, especially after he played so well. I'm just saying that you need to temper your expectations a little bit because John Dawson did not transform into John Stockton by having a nice game and making a couple 3s. His game still needs work but he's showing potential.
Look Merritt - I don't want to dog Derrick to make my points about John's merits, but if you want to nitpick, there was a possession in the 2nd half when Derrick came back in the game and on his first trip up the court...he bobbled the ball and turned it over. It can happen to anybody. My freaking point all along is that we had 20 games of Derrick getting max minutes, most on the team, and neither Derrick nor the team were showing much, if any signs of improving. My contention all along is that giving Dawson 25+ likely wouldn't result in a WORSE outcome than what we've seen, and that it might actually spark the team and provide a lift - but at least we get a benchmark as to what Dawson can do for this season or next year. I thought Dawson showed good flashes of potential in his limited time running the point, and nothing about his performance against X or G'town has made me any less bullish on Dawson - he's a good prospect.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 21, 2014, 09:16:50 AM
Dawson earned those minutes last night.
I hope he continues to do so.
No, Dawson earned major minutes for the NEXT GAME!! Maybe even a starting position..?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 21, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
I don't think you can start him. Fouls a my biggest concern with Dawson. I think you bring him off the bench to protect him from himself a little bit, as well as to be a little bit of a change of pace. Then again, I don't like Derrik and Jake playing together, so its tough to say.
.
Same can be said for Jamil. Protect him from himself.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on January 21, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
No, Dawson earned major minutes for the NEXT GAME!! Maybe even a starting position..?
He will continue to get the minutes he earns in practice and by his performance in games.
That's how it has worked all year. That's how it will continue to work.
The team looked like a different team last night. Confident, resilient, poised, assertive.
I can't say for certain what caused the difference. I know the Dawson backers will give him 100% of the credit. And some of the credit should certainly go his way. He played a very good game and hopefully there are many more to come.
In my opinion, there were a number of things that went very right last night and contributed to the win:
- Steve Taylor Jr. - Wow, where has this guy been? We don't win the game without him last night.
- John Dawson - Mentioned above, but after a slow start in the first half, he looked great the rest of the way. Very confident and under control. That's two games against good teams where he has played really well. He is critical moving forward and I could easily see an even split of PT between him and Derrick if he plays like he did vs GT.
- Buzz - Great decision to give Dawson a shot when it was clear that Derrick was not the answer against the GT zone.
- Shooters hitting shots - Great job by Jake, JD and Mayo to confidently step into some shots and let fly. Mayo's shot to send into OT was PURE.
- Leadership - Did we finally see the emergence of Jamil, DG (and maybe Todd) to step up and take control? Jamil played a pretty darn good game on both ends last night only to be overshadowed a bit by others. 10-6-5-3. Big rebounds, blocks and that huge dunk at the end to get us within 2 (off a great defensive board in amongst the trees and quick outlet pass from Derrick). DG was hitting shots and getting to the line like the DG of old. Great passing by both. Todd was pretty much Bad Todd until :06 left in the game but at least he was aggressive attacking the basket throughout the game.
Don't know what it was that did it, but something (or combination of things) "clicked" with this team last night and it was fun to watch.
Great win by the team. Let's keep 'em coming.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 10:41:33 AM
The team looked like a different team last night. Confident, resilient, poised, assertive.
I can't say for certain what caused the difference. I know the Dawson backers will give him 100% of the credit. And some of the credit should certainly go his way. He played a very good game and hopefully there are many more to come.
In my opinion, there were a number of things that went very right last night and contributed to the win:
- Steve Taylor Jr. - Wow, where has this guy been? We don't win the game without him last night.
- John Dawson - Mentioned above, but after a slow start in the first half, he looked great the rest of the way. Very confident and under control. That's two games against good teams where he has played really well. He is critical moving forward and I could easily see an even split of PT between him and Derrick if he plays like he did vs GT.
- Buzz - Great decision to give Dawson a shot when it was clear that Derrick was not the answer against the GT zone.
- Shooters hitting shots - Great job by Jake, JD and Mayo to confidently step into some shots and let fly. Mayo's shot to send into OT was PURE.
- Leadership - Did we finally see the emergence of Jamil, DG (and maybe Todd) to step up and take control? Jamil played a pretty darn good game on both ends last night only to be overshadowed a bit by others. 10-6-5-3. Big rebounds, blocks and that huge dunk at the end to get us within 2 (off a great defensive board in amongst the trees and quick outlet pass from Derrick). DG was hitting shots and getting to the line like the DG of old. Great passing by both. Todd was pretty much Bad Todd until :06 left in the game but at least he was aggressive attacking the basket throughout the game.
Don't know what it was that did it, but something (or combination of things) "clicked" with this team last night and it was fun to watch.
Great win by the team. Let's keep 'em coming.
No way should Dawson get all of the credit.....
It was a solid performance by all.... Including De Wilson who played good defense and was supportive of the team winning when Dawson was on the floor..
I know his supporters including myself have been really wanting him to play...
but he is not bigger than the team... He needs to continue to develop and play better.....
this is a on going thing.... hes not a One and Done.... But will be alotta fun to watch!
Go Warriors!!!
A reference on jsonline about team officials being really impressed with Dawson's work ethic. To me, it indicates that he has improved recently. He certainly looked better last night than he did early in the year.
Quote from: tower912 on January 21, 2014, 11:10:03 AM
A reference on jsonline about team officials being really impressed with Dawson's work ethic. To me, it indicates that he has improved recently. He certainly looked better last night than he did early in the year.
I'm sure John has improved in his 6 months in the program - yet it is next to impossible to truly gauge what I guy's game talent/potential are, until you give him consistent run for 10 minute stretches in a game. You cannot evaluate anything by giving a player 2 minute stints.
In my view it was quite evident early on - Grambling game - that Dawson had a lot of skill/potential - as we got to see him running the point for 20 minutes (not playing off the ball as Buzz did the next few games when he'd play Dawson.)
Dawson has a great feel for the game, and he delivers passes quickly, and in great position for guys to score - watch his placement on post entry passes, and even passes to perimeter guys - they are on time, and in the perfect place. He's a cerebral player, and I look forward to watching him develop at MU - gonna be a good one.
Quote from: tower912 on January 21, 2014, 11:10:03 AM
A reference on jsonline about team officials being really impressed with Dawson's work ethic. To me, it indicates that he has improved recently. He certainly looked better last night than he did early in the year.
It's certainly reasonable to think that Frosh would improve during the year. What's a bit unfortunate is that some of our upperclassmen seem to have reached the upper limit of their ability and those limitations have negatively impacted our results to date while we wait for development (and health in the case of Steve) from our young guys.
Quote from: tower912 on January 21, 2014, 08:46:11 AM
What a difference two days makes. On Saturday, in the first half Derrick was either the best or second best MU player and Dawson was dreadful in his minutes. Monday, Derrick picks up a couple of early fouls and Dawson stepped up. It was great to see. He's come a long way and he looks ready.
This is where I disagreed with you earlier. 100 percent!! If anyone is one of the best players on the floor, I think maybe the coach on the other team would say "Hey, let's guard that guy".
It should be a given that you are not one of the best players when the other team uses you to help themselves win (using your man to double-team elsewhere on basically every possession).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 09:43:57 AM
First, major kudos to John and to the rest of the team. Awesome, Davidsonesque comeback. I suspect some will call us lucky - not me. The thing that stood out the most to me was a calm/poise in overtime I haven't seen from this team all year. Regarding John D in particular:
He was our most outstanding Warrior in the OT. The baseline jumper, the 3 from the corner in front of the bench, the 2 big free throws and the outstanding stuff/steal of Starks - 5 tremendous minutes of ball that I hope is the launching pad to a great career.
But let's not forget that in 27 minutes of play in regulation, he was serviceable but hardly spectacular - 27 minutes, 5 points, 2-5 shooting, 0 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 4 fouls. Basically, he was Derrick Wilson but for a 3 and zero boards. He was on the floor for most of our furious comeback but was pretty much a bystander while Davante, Jamil and finally Todd brought us back and took the game to OT. If we lose the game in regulation the consensus is that John D looked solid, seemed comfortable and should get regular minutes going forward.
Whether a star was born last night (I hope, I hope) or we found a co-point guard, Ners and others who saw something in John that wasn't apparent to most of us deserve a tip of the cap. For their constant and often mean spirited attacks on Derrick, though, (rooting for him to fail? really?) they deserve something else.
To call Dawson a bystander during that run is to completely discount his value on the court even if he isn't shooting. His man guards him. The others are no longer double teamed instantly and the lane is no longer clogged. His presence on the court alone opened things up for everyone else on offense.
And I don't hate Derrick! I like having a guy like him on the team. But he's well suited to a change of pace/give the main PG a breather type of role. I think he's really good at that, and not only doesn't hurt the team but helps it in that role. He's currently being asked to do too much and is not put in a position to thrive (due to circumstance). Reduced minutes will benefit Derrick & the team. Hopefully Dawson is ready to step into a larger role full time. In my opinion, it is the only chance we have at the tournament.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 21, 2014, 11:33:03 AM
To call Dawson a bystander during that run is to completely discount his value on the court even if he isn't shooting. His man guards him. The others are no longer double teamed instantly and the lane is no longer clogged. His presence on the court alone opened things up for everyone else on offense.
And I don't hate Derrick! I like having a guy like him on the team. But he's well suited to a change of pace/give the main PG a breather type of role. I think he's really good at that, and not only doesn't hurt the team but helps it in that role. He's currently being asked to do too much and is not put in a position to thrive (due to circumstance). Reduced minutes will benefit Derrick & the team. Hopefully Dawson is ready to step into a larger role full time. In my opinion, it is the only chance we have at the tournament.
+1
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 09:19:21 AM
Creighton can be an offensive juggernaut, but it's not a given. They just shot 4-19 on 3s in a loss to Providence and earlier this season they scored 53 points against GW. Creighton will be interesting come the NCAA Tournament. They're the type of team that could shoot their way into the Final Four or shoot there way out of the 1st Round.
Wow, I would not argue otherwise. Someone accused me of saying our offense with Dawson looked better than Creighton's. I didn't say that, as Creighton's offense when on can look like the best in the country and ours obviously has not looked that good with Dawson or Wilson. I was simply stating that our own offense, in conference season, has looked the best with Dawson getting extended minutes @Xavier and @GTown. That's it. This is not an argument I started or disagree with either of you on.
Why does it have to be Team Derrick or Team John around here? And if you're for one, than why do you have to be against the other? That is what this board has become around here.
I am a Marquette fan.
I root for everyone on the team so I am Team Marquette.
I realize that both players have their strengths and weaknesses.
I realize that NO ONE on this board is a collegiate coach.
I realize that NO ONE on this board sees these kids play and practice more than Buzz and the coaching staff.
I realize that everything is not absolute and in a vacuum so to make statements like that is ridiculous.
I like the potential that I see out of Dawson.
Dawson had some good moments yesterday and some bad moments.
One game does not a season make. Just ask Ryan Amoroso.
The one thing I will take away from last night's game is that Dawson has moxie. He will take a clutch shot.
What Dawson was as a player 30 days ago, is not what he is now and is not what he will be 30 days from now.
To claim that his game yesterday vindicates the "Team John backers" that he should have been playing major minutes all year is stupid.
There is an adjustment period for all newcomers into this program.
I think the game is slowing down for him and consequently he is starting to make an impact.
I expect Dawson to have more game time but I doubt he plays substantial minutes from here on out but you never know.
Hopefully he builds on last night and helps this team win a lot.
I like what I see out of Derrick.
He has some real nice attributes that Dawson does not possess at this point in time.
Derrick can't shoot and probably shouldn't play more than 15 minutes a game this year.
Unfortunately he has had to play major minutes because he has been the best overall option.
I have seen improvement out of Derrick from last year to this year and from the beginning of the year until now.
I am going to trust a collegiate coach who has had a lot of success over the last few years and say that he will play the players he feels will win him games as ultimately his job is based off of wins/losses.
We see 40 minutes of game action but Buzz and staff not only coach 40 minutes of that action but they dissect the game tape of that action in addition to countless hours of practice.
Buzz is also the one who knows what he wants from his players when they are on the court. We as fans can only make educated guess as to what he wants from them. So if he wants a specific opponent to be played a specific way and they spend a large amount of time discussing that game plan....I am going to guess he is going play players who follow that game plan designed to win the game. None of us know what that game plan is but it is safe to say that following the game plan is extremely important because Buzz has mentioned it countless times.
It hasn't been a fun year for fans, for Buzz or the players.
This year's team is a difficult jigsaw puzzle to solve. Lots of talent but just not meshing.
To say that the offense runs much smoother with Dawson in the game, might be true but that is only a part of the game. Defense is another part and executing the game plan is yet another part of the puzzle.
So its great that Dawson put up points last night, made some clutch shots in OT and made the offense look better. Any average fan can see that but how many bad shots did he put up yesterday? Did he play to the game plan? Did he give up more points than he made or that his teammates made. And that list can go on and on. Yesterday, he had a good game and received extended minutes and I am extremely happy that we won but that doesn't vindicate anyone about anything. He could just as easily SUCK IT the next game and end up getting minimal minutes. I hope he continues to progress rapidly and earns those extra minutes because he has the potential to bring a lot of success to the team but at the end of the day, I am not Team Derrick or Team John but Team Marquette.
Great Post Mufanatic
Yes, great post mufanatic.
Quote from: mufanatic on January 21, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Why does it have to be Team Derrick or Team John around here? And if you're for one, than why do you have to be against the other? That is what this board has become around here.
I am a Marquette fan.
I root for everyone on the team so I am Team Marquette.
I realize that both players have their strengths and weaknesses.
I realize that NO ONE on this board is a collegiate coach.
I realize that NO ONE on this board sees these kids play and practice more than Buzz and the coaching staff.
I realize that everything is not absolute and in a vacuum so to make statements like that is ridiculous.
I like the potential that I see out of Dawson.
Dawson had some good moments yesterday and some bad moments.
One game does not a season make. Just ask Ryan Amoroso.
The one thing I will take away from last night's game is that Dawson has moxie. He will take a clutch shot.
What Dawson was as a player 30 days ago, is not what he is now and is not what he will be 30 days from now.
To claim that his game yesterday vindicates the "Team John backers" that he should have been playing major minutes all year is stupid.
There is an adjustment period for all newcomers into this program.
I think the game is slowing down for him and consequently he is starting to make an impact.
I expect Dawson to have more game time but I doubt he plays substantial minutes from here on out but you never know.
Hopefully he builds on last night and helps this team win a lot.
I like what I see out of Derrick.
He has some real nice attributes that Dawson does not possess at this point in time.
Derrick can't shoot and probably shouldn't play more than 15 minutes a game this year.
Unfortunately he has had to play major minutes because he has been the best overall option.
I have seen improvement out of Derrick from last year to this year and from the beginning of the year until now.
I am going to trust a collegiate coach who has had a lot of success over the last few years and say that he will play the players he feels will win him games as ultimately his job is based off of wins/losses.
We see 40 minutes of game action but Buzz and staff not only coach 40 minutes of that action but they dissect the game tape of that action in addition to countless hours of practice.
Buzz is also the one who knows what he wants from his players when they are on the court. We as fans can only make educated guess as to what he wants from them. So if he wants a specific opponent to be played a specific way and they spend a large amount of time discussing that game plan....I am going to guess he is going play players who follow that game plan designed to win the game. None of us know what that game plan is but it is safe to say that following the game plan is extremely important because Buzz has mentioned it countless times.
It hasn't been a fun year for fans, for Buzz or the players.
This year's team is a difficult jigsaw puzzle to solve. Lots of talent but just not meshing.
To say that the offense runs much smoother with Dawson in the game, might be true but that is only a part of the game. Defense is another part and executing the game plan is yet another part of the puzzle.
So its great that Dawson put up points last night, made some clutch shots in OT and made the offense look better. Any average fan can see that but how many bad shots did he put up yesterday? Did he play to the game plan? Did he give up more points than he made or that his teammates made. And that list can go on and on. Yesterday, he had a good game and received extended minutes and I am extremely happy that we won but that doesn't vindicate anyone about anything. He could just as easily SUCK IT the next game and end up getting minimal minutes. I hope he continues to progress rapidly and earns those extra minutes because he has the potential to bring a lot of success to the team but at the end of the day, I am not Team Derrick or Team John but Team Marquette.
Excellent, level-headed post
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 21, 2014, 11:33:03 AM
To call Dawson a bystander during that run is to completely discount his value on the court even if he isn't shooting. His man guards him. The others are no longer double teamed instantly and the lane is no longer clogged. His presence on the court alone opened things up for everyone else on offense.
And I don't hate Derrick! I like having a guy like him on the team. But he's well suited to a change of pace/give the main PG a breather type of role. I think he's really good at that, and not only doesn't hurt the team but helps it in that role. He's currently being asked to do too much and is not put in a position to thrive (due to circumstance). Reduced minutes will benefit Derrick & the team. Hopefully Dawson is ready to step into a larger role full time. In my opinion, it is the only chance we have at the tournament.
Bystander may not be the best choice of words - my point was that the comeback that gave John the opportunity to be a hero in OT (and he was) was fueled by Ox, Jamil and Davante, not him.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 21, 2014, 11:50:25 AM
Excellent, level-headed post
Agreed. Primarily because it re-states what several of the so-called "Team Derrick" posters have been saying for a while now.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 21, 2014, 09:35:55 AM
Derrick and Jake playing together has gotten MU out in front in the last two games.
Regardless, I have decided to just let it play out and see what happens. Nothing can be said in this debate that hasn't been said 100 times.
This is more a result of our leading scorer, starting like most teams do.
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 11:30:13 AM
This is where I disagreed with you earlier. 100 percent!! If anyone is one of the best players on the floor, I think maybe the coach on the other team would say "Hey, let's guard that guy".
It should be a given that you are not one of the best players when the other team uses you to help themselves win (using your man to double-team elsewhere on basically every possession).
Well said, x. Dawson on the floor made the defense play honest. It wasn't just in our ability to work the ball down low but in the crispness of ball movement. It was amazingly similar to Buzz' offenses in previous seasons.
Buzz deserves credit, too. It was Goose who originally cited BW's obsessive-compulsive personality as being a major contributor in his continuing to employ empirically evident failed formula. People who say last night's rotation was because of Wilson's foul trouble insult both Buzz and Dawson. Buzz didn't play Dawson because Wilson was in foul trouble; Dawson played because the Wilson Experiment is over.
Quote from: mufanatic on January 21, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Why does it have to be Team Derrick or Team John around here? And if you're for one, than why do you have to be against the other? That is what this board has become around here.
I am a Marquette fan.
I root for everyone on the team so I am Team Marquette.
I realize that both players have their strengths and weaknesses.
I realize that NO ONE on this board is a collegiate coach.
I realize that NO ONE on this board sees these kids play and practice more than Buzz and the coaching staff.
I realize that everything is not absolute and in a vacuum so to make statements like that is ridiculous.
I like the potential that I see out of Dawson.
Dawson had some good moments yesterday and some bad moments.
One game does not a season make. Just ask Ryan Amoroso.
The one thing I will take away from last night's game is that Dawson has moxie. He will take a clutch shot.
What Dawson was as a player 30 days ago, is not what he is now and is not what he will be 30 days from now.
To claim that his game yesterday vindicates the "Team John backers" that he should have been playing major minutes all year is stupid.
There is an adjustment period for all newcomers into this program.
I think the game is slowing down for him and consequently he is starting to make an impact.
I expect Dawson to have more game time but I doubt he plays substantial minutes from here on out but you never know.
Hopefully he builds on last night and helps this team win a lot.
I like what I see out of Derrick.
He has some real nice attributes that Dawson does not possess at this point in time.
Derrick can't shoot and probably shouldn't play more than 15 minutes a game this year.
Unfortunately he has had to play major minutes because he has been the best overall option.
I have seen improvement out of Derrick from last year to this year and from the beginning of the year until now.
I am going to trust a collegiate coach who has had a lot of success over the last few years and say that he will play the players he feels will win him games as ultimately his job is based off of wins/losses.
We see 40 minutes of game action but Buzz and staff not only coach 40 minutes of that action but they dissect the game tape of that action in addition to countless hours of practice.
Buzz is also the one who knows what he wants from his players when they are on the court. We as fans can only make educated guess as to what he wants from them. So if he wants a specific opponent to be played a specific way and they spend a large amount of time discussing that game plan....I am going to guess he is going play players who follow that game plan designed to win the game. None of us know what that game plan is but it is safe to say that following the game plan is extremely important because Buzz has mentioned it countless times.
It hasn't been a fun year for fans, for Buzz or the players.
This year's team is a difficult jigsaw puzzle to solve. Lots of talent but just not meshing.
To say that the offense runs much smoother with Dawson in the game, might be true but that is only a part of the game. Defense is another part and executing the game plan is yet another part of the puzzle.
So its great that Dawson put up points last night, made some clutch shots in OT and made the offense look better. Any average fan can see that but how many bad shots did he put up yesterday? Did he play to the game plan? Did he give up more points than he made or that his teammates made. And that list can go on and on. Yesterday, he had a good game and received extended minutes and I am extremely happy that we won but that doesn't vindicate anyone about anything. He could just as easily SUCK IT the next game and end up getting minimal minutes. I hope he continues to progress rapidly and earns those extra minutes because he has the potential to bring a lot of success to the team but at the end of the day, I am not Team Derrick or Team John but Team Marquette.
Unfortunately, in the process of trying to make the case for John, the consequence was pointing out the limitations and challenges the team was facing with Derrick getting max minutes. When every commentator comments how the opposition doesn't guard your PG, and your own head coach says we are playing 4 on 5 offensively - it's hard to just let comments slide suggesting that the team "lacks leadership," "Mayo is a cancer," "Jamil isn't tough," "Gardner has turned into a punk and regressed."
Playing 4 on 5 makes every other guy on the court's job that much harder to execute and be successful. Nothing was going to change in our season/results - if a radical change wasn't made. Highly doubt last nights performance was a fluke for Dawson, or the team - and if he gets 25+ minutes moving forward you'll see him continue to produce, and the team continue to look much better.
Jamil, Jake, Davante's jobs all just got a lot easier last night.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 11:56:40 AM
Well said, x. Dawson on the floor made the defense play honest. It wasn't just in our ability to work the ball down low but in the crispness of ball movement. It was amazingly similar to Buzz' offenses in previous seasons.
Buzz deserves credit, too. It was Goose who originally cited BW's obsessive-compulsive personality as being a major contributor in his continuing to employ empirically evident failed formula. People who say last night's rotation was because of Wilson's foul trouble insult both Buzz and Dawson. Buzz didn't play Dawson because Wilson was in foul trouble; Dawson played because the Wilson Experiment is over.
Really? You don't think it had anything to do with Gtown playing a zone? Do you expect Dawson to start and see 30+ minutes on Saturday?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 11:54:15 AM
Agreed. Primarily because it re-states what several of the so-called "Team Derrick" posters have been saying for a while now.
Yet it failed to state as many of the Team Derrick posters have stated - "That things could get much worse, with Dawson running the Point." Seen that posted probably 50+ times here by you and the handful of other Pro Derrick posters.
Sure hasn't looked worse against Xavier and Georgetown - but you guys can keep grasping for straws citing the 4 minute stints Dawson was given against Seton Hall and Butler - and let's face it - we lost to Butler, and damn near lost to Seton Hall at home - so the team certainly wasn't performing well.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and completely ignore that the team looked so much better and crisp offensively than they have all year last night - that's fine.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
Really? You don't think it had anything to do with Gtown playing a zone? Do you expect Dawson to start and see 30+ minutes on Saturday?
Not sure if Dawson will start - probably won't - but he should get 25-30 minutes a game. As for Dawson getting the time he got against GTown - highly doubt it was because we were playing against a zone for part of the game - Buzz saw the difference, knows the difference, and has finally conceded that he cannot continue to reward Derrick's effort and character with blind loyalty.
Quote from: mufanatic on January 21, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Why does it have to be Team Derrick or Team John around here? And if you're for one, than why do you have to be against the other?
Absolutely correct. Have been trying to make this point a few times recently...isnt necessarily going to be one or the other. Going to have to be both.
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 12:04:26 PM
Not sure if Dawson will start - probably won't - but he should get 25-30 minutes a game. As for Dawson getting the time he got against GTown - highly doubt it was because we were playing against a zone for part of the game - Buzz saw the difference, knows the difference, and has finally conceded that he cannot continue to reward Derrick's effort and character with blind loyalty.
What are you willing to wager than Dawson will average fewer than 27.5 minutes per game (avg of 25-30) the rest of the way?
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 01:55:25 AM
Ners and Nevada and others are vindicated. A legitimate offensive threat at the 1 forced the game open. Notice how certain experts are conspicuous by their absence?
Again, congrats to those who advocated change that was necessary. And Buzz has proven that his OCD tendencies can be overcome.
I know that you are fond of WWII analogies, so here's one for you. By your same logic, the success of the June 6th D-Day landings proved that Eisenhower was a fool for calling off the original date of June 5th due to bad weather. Few would agree with that assessment. I'm not sure that I agree with this one regarding Dawson, as well.
Dawson had a nice game and was a key to beating Georgetown. I just don't jump to the conclusion that the John Dawson that we saw yesterday must have been the John Dawson that would have showed up for the very first game. Maybe Buzz has OCD, then again maybe he knows when a player is ready for what the team needs him to do. Still kudos to Ners and Nevada for being the first (on MUScoop, since obviously Buzz must have seen those qualities first to have offered a player unranked by many recruiting services-Equalizer would say none) to see the qualities Dawson possessed.
/Maybe Buzz is due some credit for
developing John's game to the point that he could have the impact that he had yesterday.
/Maybe Ners was still over optimistic in his early assessments even given what we saw yesterday.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
Really? You don't think it had anything to do with Gtown playing a zone? Do you expect Dawson to start and see 30+ minutes on Saturday?
Going forward I believe we will see Dawson playing the majority of minutes at the 1 with Wilson reverting to his more natural role of providing quality minutes in relief. Doesn't matter who starts under Brent Williams. He is about situational rotations. Gardner, Jamil, and Crowder know that.
Yes, Georgetown played a zone and Wilson proved ineffective against it. He has also proven ineffective against every other defense thrown against MU this season by legitimate competition.
Please tell me when Wilson has broken down a defense against legitimate competition this season?
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 12:02:38 PM
Yet it failed to state as many of the Team Derrick posters have stated - "That things could get much worse, with Dawson running the Point." Seen that posted probably 50+ times here by you and the handful of other Pro Derrick posters.
Sure hasn't looked worse against Xavier and Georgetown - but you guys can keep grasping for straws citing the 4 minute stints Dawson was given against Seton Hall and Butler - and let's face it - we lost to Butler, and damn near lost to Seton Hall at home - so the team certainly wasn't performing well.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and completely ignore that the team looked so much better and crisp offensively than they have all year last night - that's fine.
It's the old chicken-or-egg argument: Does Dawson play better when he gets more minutes or does he get more minutes when he plays well? You will close-mindedly only accept the former while completing discounting that the latter could even be a possibility.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:11:01 PM
Going forward I believe we will see Dawson playing the majority of minutes at the 1 with Wilson reverting to his more natural role of providing quality minutes in relief. Doesn't matter who starts under Brent Williams. He is about situational rotations. Gardner, Jamil, and Crowder know that.
Yes, Georgetown played a zone and Wilson proved ineffective against it. He has also proven ineffective against every other defense thrown against MU this season by legitimate competition.
Please tell me when Wilson has broken down a defense against legitimate competition this season?
Arizona State: 14 points (5-9 shooting), 7 assists, 0 TO
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 21, 2014, 12:07:43 PM
I know that you are fond of WWII analogies, so here's one for you. By your same logic, the success of the June 6th D-Day landings proved that Eisenhower was a fool for calling off the original date of June 5th due to bad weather. Few would agree with that assessment. I'm not sure that I agree with this one regarding Dawson, as well.
Dawson had a nice game and was a key to beating Georgetown. I just don't jump to the conclusion that the John Dawson that we saw yesterday must have been the John Dawson that would have showed up for the very first game. Maybe Buzz has OCD, then again maybe he knows when a player is ready for what the team needs him to do. Still kudos to Ners and Nevada for being the first (on MUScoop, since obviously Buzz must have seen those qualities first to have offered a player unranked by many recruiting services-Equalizer would say none) to see the qualities Dawson possessed.
/Maybe Buzz is due some credit for developing John's game to the point that he could have the impact that he had yesterday.
The problem with your analogy is that Overlord
was designed for 3 day windows beginning in May 1944 when the US-UK-Canada had the requisite correlation of forces to attempt the cross-Channel invasion of Fortress Europa. So going on June 5-7 was the plan.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 12:15:55 PM
Arizona State: 14 points (5-9 shooting), 7 assists, 0 TO
I didn't ask you for his individual game statistics.
We lost to ASU. Why?
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:21:41 PM
I didn't ask you for his individual game statistics.
We lost to ASU. Why?
Because of Derrick Wilson obviously! If Dawson had played, MU wins by 30!
I have changed my tune to Dawson and Derrick should get equal time. They should be utilized just like Ox and Otule were in previous seasons. When you need offense, it's Dawson. When you need defense, it's Ox.
Here is why. Looking at the two, I still think Derrick is the better overall PG RIGHT NOW. However, he has a fatal flaw that just simply can't be overcome. His lack of three point shooting makes everyone else on the team worse.
I wasn't ready before because it wasn't like Dawson had established him as a scoring threat either. But a 2-4 3P 12 point performance will get coaches' attention.
Let's not ring in Daw-sanity yet. It was just one game. Dawson could come out on Saturday and get shut down. But the kid should be getting somewhere between 15-25 minutes a game
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:21:41 PM
I didn't ask you for his individual game statistics.
We lost to ASU. Why?
Because Jahii Carson is an NBA caliber point guard right now and they have a Canadian Tree named Jordan Bachynski. We (and that includes Derrick) played well that night but they played better
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 12:23:55 PM
Because of Derrick Wilson obviously! If Dawson had played, MU wins by 30!
Take out the cupcakes and Marquette is 3-8 before last night against genuine competition.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:32:39 PM
Take out the cupcakes and Marquette is 3-8 before last night against genuine competition.
Yeah, I think you've mentioned that a time or twenty on here. What's your point and what does that have to do with why MU lost to Arizona State?
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:32:39 PM
Take out the cupcakes and Marquette is 3-8 before last night against genuine competition.
MU is 1-0 against genuine competition with STJ playing significant minutes. STJ was the difference.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:21:41 PM
I didn't ask you for his individual game statistics.
We lost to ASU. Why?
Oh dear God.
Maybe because our best guard, one Todd Mayo, was out of the game with an injury?
Maybe because their NBA level PG went off on us?
Maybe because their center was 5x better than both of ours put together, at least in that one game?
It wasn't because of Derrick Wilson.
Quote from: Norm on January 21, 2014, 10:08:06 AM
Um, Dawson was not basically a Derrick Wilson or "pretty much a bystander" during the comeback in regulation. He passed the ball very well, made Georgetown guard him - which helped open up the front court action of Taylor and Gardner - and played pretty good D. There was actually a spurt in the game when Buzz put Wilson in for Dawson and the offense immediately sputtered and MU went from up 4 or 5 to down 4 or 5 in a span of about 4 minutes. If he was just like D Wilson, then why put him in and not just stay with Wilson?
GTown played zone, so no one was "forced" to guard Dawson
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 11:36:14 AM
WTFO?
A wolf in sheep's clothing?
Trojan?
Sorry typo. My short lunchbreak... Smh.
Im the biggest Dawson Fan on this board besides Dreadman and Ners...
No Wolf here. Typo my bad...
Carry on
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 12:43:38 PM
Oh dear God.
Maybe because our best guard, one Todd Mayo, was out of the game with an injury?
Maybe because their NBA level PG went off on us?
Maybe because their center was 5x better than both of ours put together, at least in that one game?
It wasn't because of Derrick Wilson.
Carson will be on the Magic or Bucks next year. Hes legit.
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 12:46:28 PM
Sorry typo. My short lunchbreak... Smh.
Im the biggest Dawson Fan on this board besides Dreadman and Ners...
No Wolf here. Typo my bad...
Carry on
I'm not discounting anyone supporting Dawson.
But I am calling him out for stating that Jajuan already told Buzz he is transferring.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 21, 2014, 12:50:50 PM
I'm not discounting anyone supporting Dawson.
But I am calling him out for stating that Jajuan already told Buzz he is transferring.
Not to mention that he admitted that he wanted Marquette to lose out this season so Buzz would get fired.
Dreadman is not company you want to be in
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 12:20:08 PM
The problem with your analogy is that Overlord was designed for 3 day windows beginning in May 1944 when the US-UK-Canada had the requisite correlation of forces to attempt the cross-Channel invasion of Fortress Europa. So going on June 5-7 was the plan.
In order to have the amount of moonlight which was thought to be needed for success, the three day windows were identified. However, going on June 5th was the plan, and the go ahead orders were issued and troops were loaded on the ships. Eisenhower delayed for a day to the 6th due to weather considerations which was considered possible because the 6th was still within the 3 day window. You almost make it sound like the armies were told they could head out anytime they wanted to as long as it was during June 5th-7th.
Quote from: mu03eng on January 21, 2014, 12:45:27 PM
GTown played zone, so no one was "forced" to guard Dawson
Definitely true, but the high post pass was not available with Derrick in the game since they sagged right into it. They extended to pay attention to Dawson, which allowed Davante & Steve to do their high/low work in the soft spot of the zone. That generated a ton of points and was a big reason we won the game.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 21, 2014, 12:52:42 PM
Not to mention that he admitted that he wanted Marquette to lose out this season so Buzz would get fired.
Dreadman is not company you want to be in
This is spot on Nevada. Keefe didn't put Dreadman in the boat with you guys originally, probably to save you guys that association.
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 21, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Carson will be on the Magic or Bucks next year. Hes legit.
I hope you aren't suggesting he will be one of the top couple picks.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 12:43:38 PM
Oh dear God.
Maybe because our best guard, one Todd Mayo, was out of the game with an injury?
Maybe because their NBA level PG went off on us?
Maybe because their center was 5x better than both of ours put together, at least in that one game?
It wasn't because of Derrick Wilson.
If DW is playing because of his defense......
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 01:11:24 PM
If DW is playing because of his defense......
... then if Dawson would have played, Carson would have been even more dominant.
seriously? jeebus. let it go. people are supportive of both players. people want everyone to succeed.
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 01:11:24 PM
If DW is playing because of his defense......
Grow up.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 01:20:44 PM
Grow up.
I'm not sure that I agree with brandx, but he certainly seemed to be making a valid counterargument about Derrick having some responsibility for the Arizona State loss when you state that Jahii Carson 'went off on us."
Maybe you think that no one can stop Jahii Carson. You could just say that then.
/Keep them Georgia players coming.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 21, 2014, 01:08:57 PM
This is spot on Nevada. Keefe didn't put Dreadman in the boat with you guys originally, probably to save you guys that association.
Yikes he said those things. Wow
Yea bad company for sure lol.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 21, 2014, 01:00:19 PM
In order to have the amount of moonlight which was thought to be needed for success, the three day windows were identified. However, going on June 5th was the plan, and the go ahead orders were issued and troops were loaded on the ships. Eisenhower delayed for a day to the 6th due to weather considerations which was considered possible because the 6th was still within the 3 day window. You almost make it sound like the armies were told they could head out anytime they wanted to as long as it was during June 5th-7th.
Well, without getting down into the weeds of JOPES let's agree that the Allies planned Overlord for rolling 3 day windows that were based on the lunar cycle for tidal conditions. And yes, the window for June opened on the 5th with the issuance of the Warning Order (WARNO) which in turn required both an OpORD and a series of FRAGOs for go-no go execution. At no time was Gen Bradley at his leisure and sole discretion able to head out at any time during that three day window.
Military operational planning and execution is done in a very specified manner for obvious reasons of coordination, integration, and synchronization. The initial 3 day window for Overlord was actually in May. SHAEF issued a WARNO which required Bradley to undertake a series of actions and activities. Bradley was on hold until SHAEF issued an OpORD which meant aircraft launched, ships weighed anchor, and men began talking to their Maker for courage, hope, and protection. But weather conditions never improved during that 3 day window so SHAEF issued a FRAG which directed Bradley to stand down.
In June SHAEF once again issued a WARNO under which Bradley readied his force in preparation for the OpORD. Nothing happened until late on the 5th Zulu Time when SHAEF issued Bradley the OpORD and then a series of FRAGOs. Nothing happens until higher command issues an OpORD.
That is a mini-version of the Air Command and Staff College syllabus on Joint Operational Planning and Execution.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 21, 2014, 01:31:54 PM
I'm not sure that I agree with brandx, but he certainly seemed to be making a valid counterargument about Derrick having some responsibility for the Arizona State loss when you state that Jahii Carson 'went off on us."
Maybe you think that no one can stop Jahii Carson. You could just say that then.
/Keep them Georgia players coming.
If Carson (or any other top player) gets in the zone, no one man can stop him. Of course, it was not all Derrick's fault. Carson was able to get into the lane at will, so the help defense needs to be there.
I probably should have gone into more detail in my post, but it was mainly just in response to all the posts I have seen today and last night that we were losing (and will continue to) so much defense with Dawson in the game. While I think we all can agree that DW is a better defender, Dawson was not a huge drop off.
Actually, the only "bad" defense by John that I saw was that he was a little slow reacting when the ball was swung to his man on the weak side. But part of that is Buzz - as he wants the man on the weak side to be shading toward the paint. John just wasn't quick enough to react a few times when the ball was swung back that way. But as we have seen this year and in years past, he isn't the only one with that problem.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 01:38:35 PM
Thank you.
Just an observation but you do have a temper. This is just a game which provides respite from the things that have genuine meaning. When I react it's not because someone challenges my authority on basketball for I have no expertise in that but because people who were educated by Jesuits can behave in an truly mind-numbing ways.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 21, 2014, 01:31:54 PM
I'm not sure that I agree with brandx, but he certainly seemed to be making a valid counterargument about Derrick having some responsibility for the Arizona State loss when you state that Jahii Carson 'went off on us."
Maybe you think that no one can stop Jahii Carson. You could just say that then.
/Keep them Georgia players coming.
You of course are correct.
I think in that particular game, nobody was going to stop Jahii Carson. If anyone was going to, I'd take my chances with the guy who had proven he could at least limit a great offensive player over an unheralded freshman suiting up for his 3rd or 4th collegiate game. I would think anybody would.
Nevertheless, the fact that their entire team shot close to 55% leads me to believe the loss was a group effort. Was Derrick guarding all of them too? Was he guarding their center who went 6-8?
Or, we could single out one guy (for the millionth time) and blame him. That just seems unfair to me.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 01:46:35 PM
Just an observation but you do have a temper. This is just a game which provides respite from the things that have genuine meaning. When I react it's not because someone challenges my authority on basketball for I have no expertise in that but because people who were educated by Jesuits can behave in an truly mind-numbing ways.
The funny thing is I don't really have a temper. Never have. Hopefully never will.
I guess it just bothers me when people think they can single out a single player as the reason why the team has underperformed. It is a team. It is not one individual that is the sole reason for us losing.
I agree with your last sentence 100%.
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 01:42:41 PM
If Carson (or any other top player) gets in the zone, no one man can stop him. Of course, it was not all Derrick's fault. Carson was able to get into the lane at will, so the help defense needs to be there.
I probably should have gone into more detail in my post, but it was mainly just in response to all the posts I have seen today and last night that we were losing (and will continue to) so much defense with Dawson in the game. While I think we all can agree that DW is a better defender, Dawson was not a huge drop off.
Actually, the only "bad" defense by John that I saw was that he was a little slow reacting when the ball was swung to his man on the weak side. But part of that is Buzz - as he wants the man on the weak side to be shading toward the paint. John just wasn't quick enough to react a few times when the ball was swung back that way. But as we have seen this year and in years past, he isn't the only one with that problem.
Now this I can agree with. Honestly, I am just fed up with the bashing that's come along with a disappointing season to date and incorrectly interpreted your post as more of the same. I thought Dawson's defense was solid yesterday.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 01:48:17 PM
You of course are correct.
I think in that particular game, nobody was going to stop Jahii Carson. If anyone was going to, I'd take my chances with the guy who had proven he could at least limit a great offensive player over an unheralded freshman suiting up for his 3rd or 4th collegiate game. I would think anybody would.
Nevertheless, the fact that their entire team shot close to 55% leads me to believe the loss was a group effort. Was Derrick guarding all of them too? Was he guarding their center who went 6-8?
Or, we could single out one guy (for the millionth time) and blame him. That just seems unfair to me.
I don't think anyone has ever been unfairly critical of Wilson. I think he is the starter because of circumstance. H was likely going to play 15 with Duane playing the other 25 (Buzz said so directly when talking about Duane's injury.) From what I have seen from 2,000 miles away Derrick seems like a great guy and represents our university superbly. But he is a liability as a starting 1 in the Big East and our record reflects that.
And people cite his lock down defense and yet his primary's offense has often been a major factor in our defeats. There is no such thing as a lock down defender for the first 30 minutes. Jimmy Butler plays lock down defense for 48 (or 60) minutes. If he played lock down defense for 36 minutes he likely would not have a reputation for being a lock down defender.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 01:56:35 PM
Now this I can agree with. Honestly, I am just fed up with the bashing that's come along with a disappointing season to date and incorrectly interpreted your post as more of the same. I thought Dawson's defense was solid yesterday.
I don't have any problem with you calling me out or disagreeing with me. That's what the board is for.
You probably didn't see a post of mine yesterday as to my reasons for the bad season so far. I put the blame in 3 different places - lack of leadership/bad play by the senior frontcourt; a shooting guard who has only been a so-so shooter for the most part and can't create his own shot; the PG weakness.
I believe PG has been out biggest weakness this year, but by no means the only one.
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 11:30:13 AM
This is where I disagreed with you earlier. 100 percent!! If anyone is one of the best players on the floor, I think maybe the coach on the other team would say "Hey, let's guard that guy".
It should be a given that you are not one of the best players when the other team uses you to help themselves win (using your man to double-team elsewhere on basically every possession).
For once, he took advantage of the gaps, got to the rack and finished. Double digit points in the first half means for that half of basketball, he was the best (or second best. Gardner had a good first half, too) on the floor for MU. He pushed the ball and played really good defense on the Butler gunner, Dunham. Frankly, it was as good a half of basketball on both ends of the floor as anyone on the team has played this year. If the whole team hadn't gone in the tank for the last 20 minutes, it would have been THE topic of conversation. The end result does not detract from Derrick's first half against Butler. Just like if Mayo's shot rims out last night, it would not have taken away from STjr's outstanding effort.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 01:57:46 PM
And people cite his lock down defense and yet his primary's offense has often been a major factor in our defeats. There is no such thing as a lock down defender for the first 30 minutes. Jimmy Butler plays lock down defense for 48 (or 60) minutes. If he played lock down defense for 36 minutes he likely would not have a reputation for being a lock down defender.
Yeah, D Wilson is a good defender, but no way would I ever characterize him as a "lock down" defender. A lot of the guys he has guarded this year have had really good offensive games against MU.
Quote from: brandx on January 21, 2014, 02:00:59 PM
I don't have any problem with you calling me out or disagreeing with me. That's what the board is for.
You probably didn't see a post of mine yesterday as to my reasons for the bad season so far. I put the blame in 3 different places - lack of leadership/bad play by the senior frontcourt; a shooting guard who has only been a so-so shooter for the most part and can't create his own shot; the PG weakness.
I believe PG has been out biggest weakness this year, but by no means the only one.
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
Pretty good assessment
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
Really well said.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
What are you willing to wager than Dawson will average fewer than 27.5 minutes per game (avg of 25-30) the rest of the way?
Said Dawson should* get 25-30 per game here on out. Still not confident Buzz will all of a sudden give him that as he's been so damn stubborn in giving Dawson minutes this far. I will wager this - from this point forward Dawson will average more points and assists per 40 minutes than Derrick. 3 month hiatus for loser?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
The only point I'd disagree with is Derrick not improving. He's much more of an offensive threat than he was last season. This season he's increased his career point total by 160% and (believe it or not) has increased his FG% by nearly 9 points. Don't get me wrong, he's still a very limited offensive player but he's better than he was in his first two seasons. If you want to say that Derrick hasn't improved enough to be a BE-caliber starting PG, I'd give you that, but he has definitely improved.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 21, 2014, 12:37:43 PM
MU is 1-0 against genuine competition with STJ playing significant minutes. STJ was the difference.
I agree, though I would also say Georgetown (certainly their fans) think this is a down year for them. Good win for our boys, needed it badly, but I'm not about to annoint G'Town as an upper echelon team. They struggle just like we do.
As my son and I watched the last few minutes of regulation he made a good point I thought. He said G'Town is chewing up clock, playing not to lose. They were fortunate on the one play where we played great defense until the last 2 seconds in which we gave them a dunk. Didn't work out so well of them in some of the other possessions.
Our next game will be more than interesting. Nova has been a bit of hit or miss in terms of quality of play, though the wins keep coming until yesterday. Which Nova and MU teams show up?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
Lenny
You forgot several other factors that have shaped this season:
- The Axis of Evil: Scott Pilarz-Larry Williams and the SLU End Game Theory
- Kool Aid: Refreshing Palate Cleanser or Bitter Hemlock?
- Chico's Exile: 40 Days and 40 Nights of Darkness
- Mike Hunt: Lazy Has Been or Avant-Garde Sartorial Genius?
- Christopher Columbo: Homage to Exploration or The Return of Hoopaloop?
- Internet Bullying: Sublimation or Genuine Outrage?
- Internet Braggadocio: Legitimate Insight or Old Soldier on the Porch Syndrome?
- FFP: Enlightened Progressivism or Shameless, Cynical Fund Raising?
- The Non-Alum: Bona Fide Fan or Unworthy Carpet Bagger?
- Operation Overlord: When did it really begin?
- Lock Down Defender: Game Winning Necessity or Red Herring?
- Mr. Gardner: Where does fit end and fat begin?
- Mr. Otule: The difference between perception and depth perception
- Mr. McKay: What did he know about this season and when did he know it?
- Vander Blue: Is the Grass Greener?
- Val Ackerman: Furniture or Web Site?
- Israeli Army Chicks: Suitable for the Work Place?
Nice list soldier!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
The McKay and Steve Taylor, Jr. surprises had a synergy to them that made them tougher to deal with together than they would have been to handle on their own.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2014, 03:10:16 PM
I agree, though I would also say Georgetown (certainly their fans) think this is a down year for them. Good win for our boys, needed it badly, but I'm not about to annoint G'Town as an upper echelon team. They struggle just like we do.
As my son and I watched the last few minutes of regulation he made a good point I thought. He said G'Town is chewing up clock, playing not to lose. They were fortunate on the one play where we played great defense until the last 2 seconds in which we gave them a dunk. Didn't work out so well of them in some of the other possessions.
Our next game will be more than interesting. Nova has been a bit of hit or miss in terms of quality of play, though the wins keep coming until yesterday. Which Nova and MU teams show up?
Interesting comment in view of Georgetown's reputation for blowing leads late in games.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 01:57:46 PM
I don't think anyone has ever been unfairly critical of Wilson. I think he is the starter because of circumstance. H was likely going to play 15 with Duane playing the other 25 (Buzz said so directly when talking about Duane's injury.) From what I have seen from 2,000 miles away Derrick seems like a great guy and represents our university superbly. But he is a liability as a starting 1 in the Big East and our record reflects that.
And people cite his lock down defense and yet his primary's offense has often been a major factor in our defeats. There is no such thing as a lock down defender for the first 30 minutes. Jimmy Butler plays lock down defense for 48 (or 60) minutes. If he played lock down defense for 36 minutes he likely would not have a reputation for being a lock down defender.
I think we will have to agree to disagree with the unfair criticism aspect.
It is absolutely unfair to single out a single player as THE reason the team lost a game (or 8 games) because it is a team sport. If everybody else shot 100%, had zero turnovers and didn't let the guy they were guarding score any, then maybe you'd have an argument. That's not the way it goes...too many variables. Is he A reason for our struggles so far this year...sure. The biggest reason...ok. Just not the only reason.
That's all from me on the subject. I am sick of reading about it and sick of perpetuating it.
Looking forward to seeing if the team truly turned a corner or merely beat a wounded opponent.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 03:13:18 PM
Lenny
You forgot several other factors that have shaped this season:
- The Axis of Evil: Scott Pilarz-Larry Williams and the SLU End Game Theory
- Kool Aid: Refreshing Palate Cleanser or Bitter Hemlock?
- Chico's Exile: 40 Days and 40 Nights of Darkness
- Mike Hunt: Lazy Has Been or Avant-Garde Sartorial Genius?
- Christopher Columbo: Homage to Exploration or The Return of Hoopaloop?
- Internet Bullying: Sublimation or Genuine Outrage?
- Internet Braggadocio: Legitimate Insight or Old Soldier on the Porch Syndrome?
- FFP: Enlightened Progressivism or Shameless, Cynical Fund Raising?
- The Non-Alum: Bona Fide Fan or Unworthy Carpet Bagger?
- Operation Overlord: When did it really begin?
- Lock Down Defender: Game Winning Necessity or Red Herring?
- Mr. Gardner: Where does fit end and fat begin?
- Mr. Otule: The difference between perception and depth perception
- Mr. McKay: What did he know about this season and when did he know it?
- Vander Blue: Is the Grass Greener?
- Val Ackerman: Furniture or Web Site?
- Israeli Army Chicks: Suitable for the Work Place?
Dude, you crack me up. Thanks for the midday laugh
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 01:56:35 PM
Now this I can agree with. Honestly, I am just fed up with the bashing that's come along with a disappointing season to date and incorrectly interpreted your post as more of the same. I thought Dawson's defense was solid yesterday.
His fourth foul.. Mayo Overplayed his man.. which led to him getting a clear shot at the basket....
the foul at the half was a bad call... for the player he didnt do anything... to rivera...
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 21, 2014, 03:39:48 PM
I think we will have to agree to disagree with the unfair criticism aspect.
It is absolutely unfair to single out a single player as THE reason the team lost a game (or 8 games) because it is a team sport. If everybody else shot 100%, had zero turnovers and didn't let the guy they were guarding score any, then maybe you'd have an argument. That's not the way it goes...too many variables. Is he A reason for our struggles so far this year...sure. The biggest reason...ok. Just not the only reason.
That's all from me on the subject. I am sick of reading about it and sick of perpetuating it.
Looking forward to seeing if the team truly turned a corner or merely beat a wounded opponent.
Ok, I agree that there have been some unfair comments about Wilson this season. And there have been ridiculous things said about many players every season. I guess I meant to say I have not singled him out and I know others have cited him as one of many issues with this year's team. But, yes, some here have said he is THE reason this team has struggled and that is unfair.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
The only point I'd disagree with is Derrick not improving. He's much more of an offensive threat than he was last season. This season he's increased his career point total by 160% and (believe it or not) has increased his FG% by nearly 9 points. Don't get me wrong, he's still a very limited offensive player but he's better than he was in his first two seasons. If you want to say that Derrick hasn't improved enough to be a BE-caliber starting PG, I'd give you that, but he has definitely improved.
Agree. Derrick's upside is limited, but his offense is quite a bit better than it was last year, mostly in the last few games (more driving, more frequently taking the open shot). A better description would be "Slow/limited improvement by Derrick."
I would also add Vander leaving as a surprise to the downside. Didn't happen right before orduring the season like the McKay, STJr or Duane issues, but it happened late enough that it was hard to fully recover from. In fact, our "recovery" was giving the scholarship to Jake. And while I agree that Jake overall has been a positive development, he certainly doesn't make up for the loss of Vander.
When you look at all the downsides compared to the upsides, it should be no wonder we're struggling.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 21, 2014, 05:10:42 PM
Agree. Derrick's upside is limited, but his offense is quite a bit better than it was last year, mostly in the last few games (more driving, more frequently taking the open shot). A better description would be "Slow/limited improvement by Derrick."
I would also add Vander leaving as a surprise to the downside. Didn't happen right before orduring the season like the McKay, STJr or Duane issues, but it happened late enough that it was hard to fully recover from. In fact, our "recovery" was giving the scholarship to Jake. And while I agree that Jake overall has been a positive development, he certainly doesn't make up for the loss of Vander.
When you look at all the downsides compared to the upsides, it should be no wonder we're struggling.
Yeah Vander leaving without much time to replace him is the only thing I'd add to Lenny's list. Other than that, spot-on cogent analysis of our situation.
Quote from: keefe on January 21, 2014, 03:13:18 PM
Lenny
You forgot several other factors that have shaped this season:
- The Axis of Evil: Scott Pilarz-Larry Williams and the SLU End Game Theory
- Kool Aid: Refreshing Palate Cleanser or Bitter Hemlock?
- Chico's Exile: 40 Days and 40 Nights of Darkness
- Mike Hunt: Lazy Has Been or Avant-Garde Sartorial Genius?
- Christopher Columbo: Homage to Exploration or The Return of Hoopaloop?
- Internet Bullying: Sublimation or Genuine Outrage?
- Internet Braggadocio: Legitimate Insight or Old Soldier on the Porch Syndrome?
- FFP: Enlightened Progressivism or Shameless, Cynical Fund Raising?
- The Non-Alum: Bona Fide Fan or Unworthy Carpet Bagger?
- Operation Overlord: When did it really begin?
- Lock Down Defender: Game Winning Necessity or Red Herring?
- Mr. Gardner: Where does fit end and fat begin?
- Mr. Otule: The difference between perception and depth perception
- Mr. McKay: What did he know about this season and when did he know it?
- Vander Blue: Is the Grass Greener?
- Val Ackerman: Furniture or Web Site?
- Israeli Army Chicks: Suitable for the Work Place?
Crash-
Funniest post of the year. Read it three times and I'm still laughing as I post this. My wife is eying me with what I hope is bemusement but may well be genuine concern. I can't show her what I think is so hilarious because it would likely confirm her worst fears about me and my tenuous grip on reality/my own sanity. Keep it coming.
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2014, 02:47:42 PM
Said Dawson should* get 25-30 per game here on out. Still not confident Buzz will all of a sudden give him that as he's been so damn stubborn in giving Dawson minutes this far. I will wager this - from this point forward Dawson will average more points and assists per 40 minutes than Derrick. 3 month hiatus for loser?
I'd be willing to add TOs per 40 to the mix as well. That said, extrapolating out would be tough since Dawson's minutes could be limited (i.e. if he plays just 10 minutes/game but averages 3 points, that would be 12 pts per 40 - admittedly, the same goes for TOs).
If you're good with that, I'm good. If Dawson averages more points/40, asts/40 and fewer TO/40 than Derrick, I'll take a 3-month break. If he doesn't do all 3, you take the break (barring either player missing 2+ games with an injury).
Two stat lines: Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists. Needs to be benched.
Player 2: 31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists. Needs to be canonized.
Quote from: tower912 on January 22, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
Two stat lines: Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists. Needs to be benched.
Player 2: 31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists. Needs to be canonized.
You forgot to include the stats for each of the other players so we can gauge play making efficacy. Also, somewhat important is game result: The Thrill of Victory or The Agony of Defeat?
(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/322/b/8/the_thrill_of_victory_____by_nerraw0001-d333l76.jpg)
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/blog/gallery/dumb-on-skis/agony-of-defeat.jpg)
Quote from: tower912 on January 22, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
Two stat lines: Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists. Needs to be benched.
Player 2: 31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists. Needs to be canonized.
While you are at it, could you please list all of Player 1's 30+ minute per game stat lines, and then Player 2's 30+ minute per game stat lines? Oh, and let's not forget about the team's record with Player 1 playing max minutes, and that he's 3 years into the program.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2014, 08:40:28 AM
I'd be willing to add TOs per 40 to the mix as well. That said, extrapolating out would be tough since Dawson's minutes could be limited (i.e. if he plays just 10 minutes/game but averages 3 points, that would be 12 pts per 40 - admittedly, the same goes for TOs).
If you're good with that, I'm good. If Dawson averages more points/40, asts/40 and fewer TO/40 than Derrick, I'll take a 3-month break. If he doesn't do all 3, you take the break (barring either player missing 2+ games with an injury).
LOL - Funny, so Dawson needs to be better in all 3 categories than Derrick for me to win bet, yet if Derrick is better in just 1 category, I lose? I think the turnover stat is grasping for straws on your part. So, I'll agree to a push the bet, if neither player "wins" in all 3 categories, but I'm not going to make an idiotic 3 criteria "parlay" bet of sorts, against your win 1 of 3 scenarios to win a bet!
Come on though Merritt - You are supremely confident Derrick is a better option than Dawson. So, let's just assign 2 points for every assist, combine that with Points Per 40, and then assign 2 points per 1 turnover differential - and get an aggregate score and compare. I'll bet Dawson's aggregate score is better than Derrick's. I mean your horse is a Junior, mine is a rookie, freshman!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.
Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.
Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.
Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.
Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.
Lenny, I get a loud laugh at those comments we periodically see on this board about Gardner, "He has regressed" or "no improvement". Just hilarious. Gardner:
PPG: 11.5 to 14.2
Rebounds PG: 4.82 to 5.84
Assists: 31 last year to 29 currently
TO's : 57 last year to 22.
Yes his FT% is down and so is his shooting %, but they are still both very good for a big man, and he is seeing more sagging defenses. He also is shooting more from outside.
And all of this regression while being double teamed more than ever; playing the high post which he hardly ever did before this year and playing about 28 mpg, which most people said he was unable to do.
I sure as hell wish the rest of the players would "regress" like he has.
Just laughable BS. OK, I forgot, this is an opinion board and everyone has one. Still ridiculously laughable--"regressed".
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 10:02:12 AM
LOL - Funny, so Dawson needs to be better in all 3 categories than Derrick for me to win bet, yet if Derrick is better in just 1 category, I lose? I think the turnover stat is grasping for straws on your part. So, I'll agree to a push the bet, if neither player "wins" in all 3 categories, but I'm not going to make an idiotic 3 criteria "parlay" bet of sorts, against your win 1 of 3 scenarios to win a bet!
Come on though Merritt - You are supremely confident Derrick is a better option than Dawson. So, let's just assign 2 points for every assist, combine that with Points Per 40, and then assign 2 points per 1 turnover differential - and get an aggregate score and compare. I'll bet Dawson's aggregate score is better than Derrick's. I mean your horse is a Junior, mine is a rookie, freshman!
The extrapolation is the hang up because Dawson's minutes will likely be limited. If Dawson plays 5 minutes and makes a 3, then Derrick would need to score 21 points in the other 35 minutes for that to even out (at least for that one game). In the same respect, if Dawson plays 5 minutes and turns the ball over twice, Derrick would need 14 TOs over 35 min for that to even out. Do either of those seem fair to you?
Using "per 40" stats with small sample sizes just doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, Dylan Flood is averaging 11.4 points and 6 rebounds per 40, which would mean that he's more valuable than Jake Thomas.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
The extrapolation is the hang up because Dawson's minutes will likely be limited. If Dawson plays 5 minutes and makes a 3, then Derrick would need to score 21 points in the other 35 minutes for that to even out (at least for that one game). In the same respect, if Dawson plays 5 minutes and turns the ball over twice, Derrick would need 14 TOs over 35 min for that to even out. Do either of those seem fair to you?
Using "per 40" stats with small sample sizes just doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, Dylan Flood is averaging 11.4 points and 6 rebounds per 40, which would mean that he's more valuable than Jake Thomas.
But come on, you, Tower, and numerous others here have been able to use a small sample size to determine Dawson wasn't the answer at the PG position, or wouldn't help the team improve. I mean he played poorly in his 2, 2 minute stints against Seton Hall and Butler, right? Things could get a lot worse with him running the point, right??
Okay - I'll stop with that...as I agree small sample sizes aren't relevant to judge a player by - I'll be SHOCKED if Dawson's minutes will be limited to less than 15 per game from here on out. So, let's go with this - so long as Dawson averages more than 15 minutes per game from here on out - we go with the above criteria. If Dawson is limited to less than 15, that will be an absolute tragedy and disservice to Jamil and Davante in their senior year.
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 10:38:32 AM
But come on, you, Tower, and numerous others here have been able to use a small sample size to determine Dawson wasn't the answer at the PG position, or wouldn't help the team improve. I mean he played poorly in his 2, 2 minute stints against Seton Hall and Butler, right? Things could get a lot worse with him running the point, right??
Okay - I'll stop with that...as I agree small sample sizes aren't relevant to judge a player by - I'll be SHOCKED if Dawson's minutes will be limited to less than 15 per game from here on out. So, let's go with this - so long as Dawson averages more than 15 minutes per game from here on out - we go with the above criteria. If Dawson is limited to less than 15, that will be an absolute tragedy and disservice to Jamil and Davante in their senior year.
We weren't using his stats in those small sample sizes. We were simply watching him play. That's the difference. If we were saying that against Butler, Dawson averaged 16 TOs per 40 or against New Hampshire, he was 0-15 from 3 per 40, then that would be ridiculous. Saying that he looked lost and overwhelmed against Butler which is why he found himself on the bench seems pretty reasonable.
How about we just do if Dawson averages less than 18 minutes per game, I win. If he averages more, you win. I mean, if he's clearly outplaying Derrick, he'll get the minutes, right?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2014, 10:53:26 AM
We weren't using his stats in those small sample sizes. We were simply watching him play. That's the difference. If we were saying that against Butler, Dawson averaged 16 TOs per 40 or against New Hampshire, he was 0-15 from 3 per 40, then that would be ridiculous. Saying that he looked lost and overwhelmed against Butler which is why he found himself on the bench seems pretty reasonable.
How about we just do if Dawson averages less than 18 minutes per game, I win. If he averages more, you win. I mean, if he's clearly outplaying Derrick, he'll get the minutes, right?
So, Dawson went from being composed and performing well on the road against a better Xavier team, to "lost and overwhelmed" against a lesser opponent in Butler, to once again not looking "lost and overwhelmed" against Georgetown? Uh..sure...okay. My point is you don't judge a player by stats or by what they show in 2 minute stints of run and 4 minutes per game.
I'd like to take the minute bet, yet, Buzz freaks me out a little because he has been so ridiculously loyal to Derrick when all signs pointed Derrick to the bench as early as Thanksgiving. I still can't believe it's taken this long for Buzz to give Dawson legitimate PT. So, I'll take the production based bet, but it becomes null if Dawson doesn't average 18 minutes per game here on out..
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 10:58:33 AM
So, Dawson went from being composed and performing well on the road against a better Xavier team, to "lost and overwhelmed" against a lesser opponent in Butler, to once again not looking "lost and overwhelmed" against Georgetown? Uh..sure...okay. My point is you don't judge a player by stats or by what they show in 2 minute stints of run and 4 minutes per game.
I'd like to take the minute bet, yet, Buzz freaks me out a little because he has been so ridiculously loyal to Derrick when all signs pointed Derrick to the bench as early as Thanksgiving. I still can't believe it's taken this long for Buzz to give Dawson legitimate PT. So, I'll take the production based bet, but it becomes null if Dawson doesn't average 18 minutes per game here on out..
If you think that's ridiculous then you must be unfamiliar with freshmen basketball players.
If Dawson plays 18 min/per, that would likely mean Derrick plays at most 22 min/per. If you're confident that Dawson will outperform Derrick, let's just go points + assists - TOs from here on out. Higher number wins. Loser takes a 3-month break from posting.
Side bet: If Dawson plays less than 18 min/per, you take a 1-month break.
Feel free to propose a comparable side bet for me.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 22, 2014, 10:14:07 AM
Lenny, I get a loud laugh at those comments we periodically see on this board about Gardner, "He has regressed" or "no improvement". Just hilarious. Gardner:
PPG: 11.5 to 14.2
Rebounds PG: 4.82 to 5.84
Assists: 31 last year to 29 currently
TO's : 57 last year to 22.
Yes his FT% is down and so is his shooting %, but they are still both very good for a big man, and he is seeing more sagging defenses. He also is shooting more from outside.
And all of this regression while being double teamed more than ever; playing the high post which he hardly ever did before this year and playing about 28 mpg, which most people said he was unable to do.
I sure as hell wish the rest of the players would "regress" like he has.
Just laughable BS. OK, I forgot, this is an opinion board and everyone has one. Still ridiculously laughable--"regressed".
You know what I get a kick out of, Willie? People who don't know how to interpret statistics. I'll leave it to others much more advanced in their understanding than me to compare Davante's efficiency numbers from this year to last, but the numbers you cite to prove Davante's "progress" this year are BS, and that's fact, not opinion. His scoring is up 19% this year. And his rebounding is up 20%. Raw numbers don't say much though - if they did we'd all be cheering Derrick for increasing his scoring by 400% and his assists by 125%. Davante is playing 25% more minutes to get those extra 19% points and 20%'rebounds - so that's not "progress". And he's shooting 10% worse from the field and 11% worse from the free throw line. And please stop with the idea that he's hurt by sometimes playing the high post. His best game ever was against Syracuse last year playing mostly the high post.
I like Gardner. He's a good player and looks to be coming on recently. Hope it continues, but to this point he has not improved over last year and the facts bear that out.
Quote from: tower912 on January 22, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
Two stat lines: Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists. Needs to be benched.
Player 2: 31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists. Needs to be canonized.
Must be a guy that thinks stats are there to be manipulated.
How about this.
Player 1: use a stat line from his best game of his 3-years in the program (Player 1 is also unguarded on the floor)
Player 2: A freshman playing extended minutes for only the 2nd time in his career.
There is no comparison. the stats from player 2 knock player 1 out of the water.
Extrapolating Dawson's short stints are worthless. He looked shaky early against GTown but settled in when Buzz didn't pull him and looked very good the rest of the way. That's part of the reason why Ners was right. He needs extended playing time to show his worth. The two times that has happened in conference play - @X and @GTown - both he and the team have performed well during his time on the court.
If Dawson was the starter I guarantee we wouldve won at least 3 more games.
Quote from: Dreadman24 on January 22, 2014, 12:38:38 PM
If Dawson was the starter I guarantee we wouldve won at least 3 more games.
I can't guarantee it, but it is a possibility.
We also would have had lots of postings demanding that Derrick be the starter whenever John didn't play well.
Quote from: brandx on January 22, 2014, 12:49:27 PM
I can't guarantee it, but it is a possibility.
We also would have had lots of postings demanding that Derrick be the starter whenever John didn't play well.
Could we have done better? Sure. Absolutely would we? Absolutely no way to make that claim. The one caveat I will make is that there's no doubt that even those little stints plus all the accrued practice time make Dawson much better today than he was 1 month ago.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 22, 2014, 01:43:07 PM
Could we have done better? Sure. Absolutely would we? Absolutely no way to make that claim. The one caveat I will make is that there's no doubt that even those little stints plus all the accrued practice time make Dawson much better today than he was 1 month ago.
+1. Even as much as we struggled at PG, I think Dawson would have gotten eaten up playing extended minutes at the beginning of the season.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 22, 2014, 11:23:36 AM
You know what I get a kick out of, Willie? People who don't know how to interpret statistics. I'll leave it to others much more advanced in their understanding than me to compare Davante's efficiency numbers from this year to last, but the numbers you cite to prove Davante's "progress" this year are BS, and that's fact, not opinion. His scoring is up 19% this year. And his rebounding is up 20%. Raw numbers don't say much though - if they did we'd all be cheering Derrick for increasing his scoring by 400% and his assists by 125%. Davante is playing 25% more minutes to get those extra 19% points and 20%'rebounds - so that's not "progress". And he's shooting 10% worse from the field and 11% worse from the free throw line. And please stop with the idea that he's hurt by sometimes playing the high post. His best game ever was against Syracuse last year playing mostly the high post.
I like Gardner. He's a good player and looks to be coming on recently. Hope it continues, but to this point he has not improved over last year and the facts bear that out.
Guess what Lenny: Your statement that Gardner has not improved is BS. I can play your rationale also--he has increased his scoring average by 23%; his rebound average by 21% and his assists per game by 70%. That is improvement--it is not "no improvement". And yeah the Syracuse game was just about the only game he played at the High Post. And the facts bear it all out. But Lenny is the expert of all and only his eyeball test matters. If Ox has not improved, why the hell is the savior Buzz playing him so much. Go ahead with your getting a kick, Lenny, and I will continue to LOL. He should be benched by your analysis. Don't bother to respond--save the gas!
Quote from: brandx on January 22, 2014, 12:21:04 PM
Must be a guy that thinks stats are there to be manipulated.
How about this.
Player 1: use a stat line from his best game of his 3-years in the program (Player 1 is also unguarded on the floor)
Player 2: A freshman playing extended minutes for only the 2nd time in his career.
There is no comparison. the stats from player 2 knock player 1 out of the water.
Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.
However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?
But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"
But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.
Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 10:33:08 PM
Crash-
Funniest post of the year. Read it three times and I'm still laughing as I post this. My wife is eying me with what I hope is bemusement but may well be genuine concern. I can't show her what I think is so hilarious because it would likely confirm her worst fears about me and my tenuous grip on reality/my own sanity. Keep it coming.
Here to serve my friend, here to serve.
If a woman struggles with a man's sense of humor she is a keeper.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 03:33:24 PM
Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.
However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?
But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"
But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.
Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.
Man oh man, you are just asking for it. I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 03:33:24 PM
Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.
However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?
But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"
But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.
Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.
Good post - That's why there have been so many threads about DW. My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on January 22, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Man oh man, you are just asking for it. I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!
ramblling, overwrought, anti-Buzz/pro-Crean dissertation ensues
Quote from: ElDonBDon on January 22, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Man oh man, you are just asking for it. I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!
*Grabs riot shield, several weapons, and earplugs*
READY!
Quote from: brandx on January 22, 2014, 05:05:55 PM
Good post - That's why there have been so many threads about DW. My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.
And that is an argument that I don't think anyone can argue against
Quote from: brandx on January 22, 2014, 05:05:55 PM
My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.
Agreed. And that's why I want Dawson to play more minutes than DeW.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 03:33:24 PM
Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.
However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?
But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"
But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.
Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.
The right answer is Dawson because the TEAM plays better, and the team comes first.
Quote from: brandx on January 22, 2014, 01:48:02 PM
+1. Even as much as we struggled at PG, I think Dawson would have gotten eaten up playing extended minutes at the beginning of the season.
I agree..... throwing him out there to the wolves.... woulda got him shredded... Marquette has the chance to turn the ship around... and if he and STjr can play serviceably now.. it will help more than hurt marquette...
My point has never been that Derrick is an all world PG. My point has always been that, until now, he was a better option than Dawson, because IMO Dawson wasn't ready for prime-time minutes. Dawson had a good game against G-town, but not significantly better than the game Derrick had against Butler. I would be thrilled if this means that Dawson is ready for big minutes every night. I'm still not sold that he is, but if I am wrong, it will only help the team. I truly hope that the G-town game was a harbinger and not an outlier. I just refuse to bust on a kid who is doing the best job he can, is working his butt off, who is a good kid and a good teammate, who was the best option for a significant part of the season until now.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 06:56:01 AM
My point has never been that Derrick is an all world PG. My point has always been that, until now, he was a better option than Dawson, because IMO Dawson wasn't ready for prime-time minutes. Dawson had a good game against G-town, but not significantly better than the game Derrick had against Butler. I would be thrilled if this means that Dawson is ready for big minutes every night. I'm still not sold that he is, but if I am wrong, it will only help the team. I truly hope that the G-town game was a harbinger and not an outlier. I just refuse to bust on a kid who is doing the best job he can, is working his butt off, who is a good kid and a good teammate, who was the best option for a significant part of the season until now.
+1
One thing I will say that is clearly an advantage to Dawson is that he is at least willing to take an outside shot and, now that he has shown he can make them at a decent rate (one game, I know), other teams have to respect that and guard him on the perimeter which does work to open up the inside game.
At the very least, if he can play 15-20 minutes a night and be productive that gives us a couple of different looks on offense which certainly can't hurt and gives Derrick a chance to get some rest. No PG should be playing 40 minutes a night every game.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 06:56:01 AM
My point has never been that Derrick is an all world PG. My point has always been that, until now, he was a better option than Dawson, because IMO Dawson wasn't ready for prime-time minutes. Dawson had a good game against G-town, but not significantly better than the game Derrick had against Butler. I would be thrilled if this means that Dawson is ready for big minutes every night. I'm still not sold that he is, but if I am wrong, it will only help the team. I truly hope that the G-town game was a harbinger and not an outlier. I just refuse to bust on a kid who is doing the best job he can, is working his butt off, who is a good kid and a good teammate, who was the best option for a significant part of the season until now.
Concise and spot-on. Well said, tower.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 06:56:01 AM
My point has never been that Derrick is an all world PG. My point has always been that, until now, he was a better option than Dawson, because IMO Dawson wasn't ready for prime-time minutes. Dawson had a good game against G-town, but not significantly better than the game Derrick had against Butler. I would be thrilled if this means that Dawson is ready for big minutes every night. I'm still not sold that he is, but if I am wrong, it will only help the team. I truly hope that the G-town game was a harbinger and not an outlier. I just refuse to bust on a kid who is doing the best job he can, is working his butt off, who is a good kid and a good teammate, who was the best option for a significant part of the season until now.
Agree with all except the statement about Butler. If two guys have similar stats and one was unguarded while the other had to contend with the defense, I would posit that they are not similar.
The point isn't just how many points Dawson scored, but how many the team scored.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:47:31 AM
Agree with all except the statement about Butler. If two guys have similar stats and one was unguarded while the other had to contend with the defense, I would posit that they are not similar.
The point isn't just how many points Dawson scored, but how many the team scored.
Exactly plus Dawson has to stay grounded... you dont want him walking around thinking he's what Jeremy Lin was to the Knicks during his run..... His defense must continue to develop... But playing this and next year with or behind Derrick Wilson who is a model guy and good defender will only do Dawson wonders...
Imagine their practices they must go to war... which is great for us... moving forward
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:47:31 AM
Agree with all except the statement about Butler. If two guys have similar stats and one was unguarded while the other had to contend with the defense, I would posit that they are not similar.
The point isn't just how many points Dawson scored, but how many the team scored.
I think saying that one was left unguarded while the other was heavily guarded is misleading. When Dawson hit his OT three vs. Georgetown there was no one within 20 feet of him. It was shown on two straight plays by Cracked Sidewalks. Dawson was not "heavily" guarded. What Dawson has shown is that he is not unwilling to shoot when he is unguarded while Wilson might not looked for someone else to shoot.
If you even look at the "play" with with Gardner's baseline jumper neither Gardner nor Dawson were not heavily guarded. Usually when a team is playing zone a player is not heavily guarded.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:47:31 AM
Agree with all except the statement about Butler. If two guys have similar stats and one was unguarded while the other had to contend with the defense, I would posit that they are not similar.
The point isn't just how many points Dawson scored, but how many the team scored.
To say that Derrick is "unguarded" is simply wrong (others have said this several times - not calling out just you, brandx). There's no doubt that defenses sag off of him on the perimeter, but it's not like he's being completely ignored and has free rein to drive whenever and where ever he wants. Defenses still account for him while understanding that he's not a threat from the outside.
In the same respect, one could also argue that it's a matter of many the opposition scored.
Derrick and Dawson both have their strengths and their limitations. They bring different things to the floor. Instead of ripping on Derrick for his short-comings, why can't people be excited that MU appears to have 2 PGs who can compliment each other?
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:47:31 AM
Agree with all except the statement about Butler. If two guys have similar stats and one was unguarded while the other had to contend with the defense, I would posit that they are not similar.
The point isn't just how many points Dawson scored, but how many the team scored.
I would posit they're even more not similar d/t Gtown playing zone D on Dawson while Butler playing man on Derrick. It's not as though Dawson hit that OT 3 with a hand in his face...
They're both good. They both have pros/cons. They both have their role on the team. Just accept that. It doesn't have to be cutthroat. At the end of the day, I just want MU to have more points on the board than the opponents, regardless of how it's done. Sometimes it'll be on the D end, sometimes it'll be on the O end. Sometimes it'll be PG dependent, sometimes it'll be C dependent.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 11:28:53 AM
To say that Derrick is "unguarded" is simply wrong (others have said this several times - not calling out just you, brandx). There's no doubt that defenses sag off of him on the perimeter, but it's not like he's being completely ignored and has free rein to drive whenever and where ever he wants. Defenses still account for him while understanding that he's not a threat from the outside.
In the same respect, one could also argue that it's a matter of many the opposition scored.
Derrick and Dawson both have their strengths and their limitations. They bring different things to the floor. Instead of ripping on Derrick for his short-comings, why can't people be excited that MU appears to have 2 PGs who can compliment each other?
You mean defenses aren't letting Derrick drive completely unguarded to the basket for an uncontested layup?? Of course they don't. They don't guard Derrick on the perimeter. Derrick could never do what Dawson did in overtime on the 2 point FG Dawson made - the defender flew at Dawson trying to close out fearing a 3 was going to get launched, and Dawson put the ball on the floor - two dribbles into a nice, clean, pull up 12 footer. Derrick wouldn't get that kind of look.
I'd love to hear what you feel are Dawson's "limitations," particularly in that he's only 6 months into the program, and just took over and essentially won the team a game on the road against Georgetown in OT. Would also like to know how you reconcile our points per possession being the worst they've ever been under a Buzz coached team - yet this is the most experienced Buzz team we've had...more returning players than at any other time in Buzz's tenure.
As far as ripping Derrick - that only happens when some fans make idiotic claims that things could be a lot worse if the PG spot were handed over to Dawson....and want to judge Dawson based on 2 minute stints of run, while they give Derrick a pass on repeated 30+ minute stints of action...and largely the same ineffective results.
Quote from: Ners on January 23, 2014, 11:47:10 AM
You mean defenses aren't letting Derrick drive completely unguarded to the basket for an uncontested layup?? Of course they don't. They don't guard Derrick on the perimeter. Derrick could never do what Dawson did in overtime on the 2 point FG Dawson made - the defender flew at Dawson trying to close out fearing a 3 was going to get launched, and Dawson put the ball on the floor - two dribbles into a nice, clean, pull up 12 footer. Derrick wouldn't get that kind of look.
I'd love to hear what you feel are Dawson's "limitations," particularly in that he's only 6 months into the program, and just took over and essentially won the team a game on the road against Georgetown in OT. Would also like to know how you reconcile our points per possession being the worst they've ever been under a Buzz coached team - yet this is the most experienced Buzz team we've had...more returning players than at any other time in Buzz's tenure.
As far as ripping Derrick - that only happens when some fans make idiotic claims that things could be a lot worse if the PG spot were handed over to Dawson....and want to judge Dawson based on 2 minute stints of run, while they give Derrick a pass on repeated 30+ minute stints of action...and largely the same ineffective results.
1. I loved that move. Next level stuff right there. Derrick never would have done that.
2. Why does time in the program matter? He can still have limitations, regardless of how long he's been here. The time is irrelevant to his current limitations.
3. Bad PPP? Possibly d/t the fact that shooting averages are down across the board. Is some of that d/t PG play? Sure, perhaps. But, just remembering from Butler as an example, we've missed a lot of open, in-rhythm shots.
4. Things COULD HAVE been worse. They weren't against Gtown. But they could be worse in the next game. Or they could be better. "could" statements just mean we're comparing a known to an unknown. It's not an insult. We knew what we had in Derrick (average to below average). We (including you, as you point out judging from short stints shouldn't be done) didn't know what we had in Dawson. So, yes, things COULD HAVE and still COULD BE worse. But I guarantee no one on this board wants Dawson's results to be worse than Derrick.
Quote from: Ners on January 23, 2014, 11:47:10 AM
You mean defenses aren't letting Derrick drive completely unguarded to the basket for an uncontested layup?? Of course they don't. They don't guard Derrick on the perimeter. Derrick could never do what Dawson did in overtime on the 2 point FG Dawson made - the defender flew at Dawson trying to close out fearing a 3 was going to get launched, and Dawson put the ball on the floor - two dribbles into a nice, clean, pull up 12 footer. Derrick wouldn't get that kind of look.
I'd love to hear what you feel are Dawson's "limitations," particularly in that he's only 6 months into the program, and just took over and essentially won the team a game on the road against Georgetown in OT. Would also like to know how you reconcile our points per possession being the worst they've ever been under a Buzz coached team - yet this is the most experienced Buzz team we've had...more returning players than at any other time in Buzz's tenure.
As far as ripping Derrick - that only happens when some fans make idiotic claims that things could be a lot worse if the PG spot were handed over to Dawson....and want to judge Dawson based on 2 minute stints of run, while they give Derrick a pass on repeated 30+ minute stints of action...and largely the same ineffective results.
You're right. Dawson has no limitations which is why he's considered by everyone to be the top player in all of college basketball and every time a MU player misses a shot it's because Derrick Wilson is so terrible! Why can't Buzz see that?!
Seriously, Ners, you're far too close-minded and oblivious to continue debating with. It's pointless to try to rationalize with someone as irrational (and obnoxious) as you are on this topic.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 11:59:26 AM
You're right. Dawson has no limitations which is why he's considered by everyone to be the top player in all of college basketball and every time a MU player misses a shot it's because Derrick Wilson is so terrible! Why can't Buzz see that?!
Seriously, Ners, you're far too close-minded and oblivious to continue debating with. It's pointless to try to rationalize with someone as irrational (and obnoxious) as you are on this topic.
So the best way to argue with Ners is to make a preposterous statement in your 1st paragraph and then proceed to call HIM out in the next?
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson had no limitations.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson was the top player in college basketball.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said every missed shot was dW's fault.
You have made some good points in some of your posts, but if you want to argue with Ners, do it on the basis of what he said. Don't make up a storyline and argue against your own silly statements.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 12:06:17 PM
So the best way to argue with Ners is to make a preposterous statement in your 1st paragraph and then proceed to call HIM out in the next?
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson had no limitations.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson was the top player in college basketball.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said every missed shot was dW's fault.
You have made some good points in some of your posts, but if you want to argue with Ners, do it on the basis of what he said. Don't make up a storyline and argue against your own silly statements.
Clearly you're unfamiliar with the concept of hyperbole and haven't been paying attention to Ners dismissing any negatives against Dawson because of small sample size but then using those same small sample sizes to defend his argument.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 12:15:32 PM
Clearly you're unfamiliar with the concept of hyperbole and haven't been paying attention to Ners dismissing any negatives against Dawson because of small sample size but then using those same small sample sizes to defend his argument.
Like Ners, I think Dawson should be playing more. But yes, Ners goes to far the other way.
I think a more realistic view that we all can share is that Derrick is challenged offensively and it affects the way the team plays at that end of the floor.
Derrick is a solid defensive player and works very hard when he's on the floor. He just does not have Division 1 offensive skills.
and that is shows that Dawson can actually make the shot unguarded. So not only does he take it (unlike Wilson), he makes it (unlike Wilson).
I think Derrick Wilson is an awesome MU teammate and person, but for those who can not see the difference between what Dawson offers and what Wilson offers, you are just being plain stubborn (and I know, cause you played basketball once and I did not).
Do you not listen when the TV commentators say over and over "wilson is no offensive threat," "they are playing 4 on 5," "they are sagging off Wilson which is hurting Gardner"
Quote from: BallBoy on January 23, 2014, 11:27:37 AM
I think saying that one was left unguarded while the other was heavily guarded is misleading. When Dawson hit his OT three vs. Georgetown there was no one within 20 feet of him. It was shown on two straight plays by Cracked Sidewalks. Dawson was not "heavily" guarded. What Dawson has shown is that he is not unwilling to shoot when he is unguarded while Wilson might not looked for someone else to shoot.
If you even look at the "play" with with Gardner's baseline jumper neither Gardner nor Dawson were not heavily guarded. Usually when a team is playing zone a player is not heavily guarded.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 12:29:45 PM
Like Ners, I think Dawson should be playing more. But yes, Ners goes to far the other way.
I think a more realistic view that we all can share is that Derrick is challenged offensively and it affects the way the team plays at that end of the floor.
Derrick is a solid defensive player and works very hard when he's on the floor. He just does not have Division 1 offensive skills.
Well put. I agree with what you said, although I do feel that some on here place too much blame on Derrick for the team's offensive struggles. My argument all along has been that Dawson has talent but isn't ready and that Derrick is the best PG on the roster, limitations and all. Dawson had a really nice game against Georgetown and I hope he keeps it up. I'd be absolutely thrilled if Dawson could play 20+ productive minutes a game and MU could start winning more often, but the notion that Buzz should throw him out there for 30 minutes because "it can't get worse" is foolish. Above all (and most obviously), I trust Buzz and the coaching staff's opinion of players more than I trust the opinions of anyone on here. When Buzz thinks Dawson is ready, he'll start getting significant PT.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 23, 2014, 12:30:03 PM
and that is shows that Dawson can actually make the shot unguarded. So not only does he take it (unlike Wilson), he makes it (unlike Wilson).
I think Derrick Wilson is an awesome MU teammate and person, but for those who can not see the difference between what Dawson offers and what Wilson offers, you are just being plain stubborn (and I know, cause you played basketball once and I did not).
Do you not listen when the TV commentators say over and over "wilson is no offensive threat," "they are playing 4 on 5," "they are sagging off Wilson which is hurting Gardner"
Madtown. Please. What do those color analysts know about basketball? They only coached Marquette or other high Div I schools. Hell, some even had to lower themselves and coach in the NBA. Others, sadly, were nothing more than college scholarship athletes with subsequent NBA careers.
Compare that with the platinum basketball resume of the Scooper. Some of Derrick's staunchest supporters played CYO and high school hoops. One even coaches 10 year old girls rec basketball.
Kevin O'Neill says Derrick Wilson is "no offensive threat" or "Marquette is playing 4 on 5" means he is misinformed. Kevon O'Neill keeps repeating those statements means he has some sort of twisted, malicious agenda.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 12:06:17 PM
You have made some good points in some of your posts, but if you want to argue with Ners, do it on the basis of what he said. Don't make up a storyline and argue against your own silly statements.
I tried.
Quote from: keefe on January 23, 2014, 12:53:08 PM
Madtown. Please. What do those color analysts know about basketball? They only coached Marquette or other high Div I schools. Hell, some even had to lower themselves and coach in the NBA. Others, sadly, were nothing more than college scholarship athletes with subsequent NBA careers.
Compare that with the platinum basketball resume of the Scooper. Some of Derrick's staunchest supporters played CYO and high school hoops. One even coaches 10 year old girls rec basketball.
Kevin O'Neill says Derrick Wilson is "no offensive threat" or "Marquette is playing 4 on 5" means he is misinformed. Kevon O'Neill keeps repeating those statements means he has some sort of twisted, malicious agenda.
I'm pretty sure the guy who has been making the decision to play Derrick 30 mpg is a high Division I coach too....
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 06:56:01 AM
My point has always been that, until now, he was a better option than Dawson, because IMO Dawson wasn't ready for prime-time minutes.
This is silly. Dawson took a skill pill? Or changed into his lucky underwear? John Dawson demonstrated he has been ready. He will have off days in the future, just as Ichiro sometimes goes 0-4, but he didn't blossom overnight like a cactus flower. He was given an opportunity and he proved he is capable of meeting the challenge against high major competition. His contributions were essential to the win. He made a difference for his teammates which made victory possible.
Quote from: keefe on January 23, 2014, 12:53:08 PM
Madtown. Please. What do those color analysts know about basketball? They only coached Marquette or other high Div I schools. Hell, some even had to lower themselves and coach in the NBA. Others, sadly, were nothing more than college scholarship athletes with subsequent NBA careers.
Compare that with the platinum basketball resume of the Scooper. Some of Derrick's staunchest supporters played CYO and high school hoops. One even coaches 10 year old girls rec basketball.
Kevin O'Neill says Derrick Wilson is "no offensive threat" or "Marquette is playing 4 on 5" means he is misinformed. Kevon O'Neill keeps repeating those statements means he has some sort of twisted, malicious agenda.
My resume also includes video game enthusiast, expert gameday guacamole chef, pre-game kegs and eggs party host, loud drunk Bradley Center screamer, and halftime beer consumer.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 23, 2014, 12:58:28 PM
I'm pretty sure the guy who has been making the decision to play Derrick 30 mpg is a high Division I coach too....
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpanNaYJuVw2y_D9h70EG5nhSl3WUis7HSCrfQbwvpYYRjuDn6)
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
halftime beer consumer.
The acid test: Old Style or Pale Ale?
One of Buzz's replies on his radio show was about Dawson's work ethic, how he shows up every day, how he wants to be coached, how he is told to do something and he does it. I watched him in the cupcake games and did not like what I saw from him running the point. Against Georgetown, he looked ready. So, yes, I believe he has improved this season. I think he is better than he was 4-6 weeks ago. I do not think he was ready to face Aaron Craft in November. I think he is better now, though still not ready to face Craft. I also am not ready to just pencil him in for performances like he had against Georgetown. I remember Amo in the Alaskan shootout. I remember Mason against Louisville. I remember Reggie Smith starting over Junior. I think he is better than he was, that he has improved. I hope it continues. I think Derrick should have been the starter all along and should continue to be. These are not incompatible thoughts.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 11:59:26 AM
You're right. Dawson has no limitations which is why he's considered by everyone to be the top player in all of college basketball and every time a MU player misses a shot it's because Derrick Wilson is so terrible! Why can't Buzz see that?!
Seriously, Ners, you're far too close-minded and oblivious to continue debating with. It's pointless to try to rationalize with someone as irrational (and obnoxious) as you are on this topic.
See below. Thanks BrandX. Sadly, you are just too close minded and small ego'd that you can't acknowledge the position you've held regarding Derrick versus Dawson simply was wrong. All I've said is Derrick is not a high major starting PG, and is best cut out to be a backup, 10-15 minute per game, guy who gives breather to starter, and in the process doesn't screw the game up. And, that is a valuable role for a guy to play on a team, and the role Derrick is best suited for.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 12:06:17 PM
So the best way to argue with Ners is to make a preposterous statement in your 1st paragraph and then proceed to call HIM out in the next?
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson had no limitations.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said Dawson was the top player in college basketball.
Ners (nor anyone else) NEVER said every missed shot was dW's fault.
You have made some good points in some of your posts, but if you want to argue with Ners, do it on the basis of what he said. Don't make up a storyline and argue against your own silly statements.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 01:07:03 PM
One of Buzz's replies on his radio show was about Dawson's work ethic, how he shows up every day, how he wants to be coached, how he is told to do something and he does it. I watched him in the cupcake games and did not like what I saw from him running the point. Against Georgetown, he looked ready. So, yes, I believe he has improved this season. I think he is better than he was 4-6 weeks ago. I do not think he was ready to face Aaron Craft in November. I think he is better now, though still not ready to face Craft. I also am not ready to just pencil him in for performances like he had against Georgetown. I remember Amo in the Alaskan shootout. I remember Mason against Louisville. I remember Reggie Smith starting over Junior. I think he is better than he was, that he has improved. I hope it continues. I think Derrick should have been the starter all along and should continue to be. These are not incompatible thoughts.
See....I liked what I saw of Dawson running the point in the cupcake games - albeit Grambling was about the only game he got to run exclusively point. Didn't like him playing off the ball for 2-3 minute stints in other games. It was because of what I did see against Grambling and Ball State (if I recall correctly), that led me to believe he was gonna be a good prospect/PG. He certainly hasn't failed me in either the Xavier game or now G'Town.
I agree with you, that Dawson may not have consistent games like the one he had against GTown. Yet I also know Derrick has been far more prone to a game of 4ppg on 35% shooting, in 30+ minutes of play, than putting up 12-14 points and 5 assists. Also know the team beat nobody of consequence with Derrick getting 30+ minutes. Also know points per possession have never been worse in the Buzz era than they have been this year. Also know every announcer and our head coach recognizes we were playing 4 on 5 with Derrick at point.
As for Ammo, Mason, etc., - I'd love to just see Derrick have a breakout game where he single handidly leads us to victory such as Ammo, Mason did - Derrick's had 3 years now to do so, and has yet to do it.
And I think this is where we started this fundamental disagreement. I watched him against Grambling and thought he was barely ready to run the point against that team. A perception thing. Two eyewitnesses saw different things. I have said that he has come far. And again, you are being unfair to Derrick. See Wisconsin with Junior suspended. See Pittsburg when Junior sprained his ankle. Derrick stepped in and, though he didn't fill the stat sheet, led those teams to wins against tough teams on the road. By doing what he is doing this year. Taking care of the ball and playing good defense. The difference is that those teams had other guys willing to consistently initiate offense (see: Blue, Vander; Crowder, Jae) This team hasn't had that consistently.
Quote from: Ners on January 23, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
See below. Thanks BrandX. Sadly, you are just too close minded and small ego'd that you can't acknowledge the position you've held regarding Derrick versus Dawson simply was wrong. All I've said is Derrick is not a high major starting PG, and is best cut out to be a backup, 10-15 minute per game, guy who gives breather to starter, and in the process doesn't screw the game up. And, that is a valuable role for a guy to play on a team, and the role Derrick is best suited for.
SIGH...No one is arguing that Derrick's best role is as the starting PG. The argument is that, despite being best suited to be a back-up, Derrick is starting and seeing so many minutes because he's the best option. When Scott Tolzien was forced to start for the Packers, were the fans criticizing him for being a back-up quality player? No, because, despite being a back-up, he was the best option at that point. In the same respect, Derrick Wilson has been the best option as the starting PG for this team. Period. Yes, Dawson had a good game against Georgetown and hopefully he continues to play well for the remainder of the season. I'd have no problem with John Dawson becoming a very productive player for MU as a freshman. If he helps MU win games, I'm all for it! I'm just not ready to anoint him as the starting PG because he had one strong performance.
Quote from: Ners on January 23, 2014, 01:15:28 PM
See....I liked what I saw of Dawson running the point in the cupcake games - albeit Grambling was about the only game he got to run exclusively point. Didn't like him playing off the ball for 2-3 minute stints in other games. It was because of what I did see against Grambling and Ball State (if I recall correctly), that led me to believe he was gonna be a good prospect/PG. He certainly hasn't failed me in either the Xavier game or now G'Town.
I agree with you, that Dawson may not have consistent games like the one he had against GTown. Yet I also know Derrick has been far more prone to a game of 4ppg on 35% shooting, in 30+ minutes of play, than putting up 12-14 points and 5 assists. Also know the team beat nobody of consequence with Derrick getting 30+ minutes. Also know points per possession have never been worse in the Buzz era than they have been this year. Also know every announcer and our head coach recognizes we were playing 4 on 5 with Derrick at point.
As for Ammo, Mason, etc., - I'd love to just see Derrick have a breakout game where he single handidly leads us to victory such as Ammo, Mason did - Derrick's had 3 years now to do so, and has yet to do it.
I don't understand this mentality. All he was doing by bringing up Ammo, Mason, etc. was to say that he hopes Dawson IS NOT like those guys. That the Gtown performance was not a flash-in-the-pan. It had nothing to do with Derrick.
Again, we all want MU to succeed and win regardless of who is playing.
Quote from: keefe on January 23, 2014, 12:58:55 PM
This is silly. Dawson took a skill pill? Or changed into his lucky underwear? John Dawson demonstrated he has been ready. He will have off days in the future, just as Ichiro sometimes goes 0-4, but he didn't blossom overnight like a cactus flower. He was given an opportunity and he proved he is capable of meeting the challenge against high major competition. His contributions were essential to the win. He made a difference for his teammates which made victory possible.
If Dawson has been ready then why was Buzz playing Derrick so much, playing Dawson off the ball and experimenting with Jamil running the point?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
SIGH...No one is arguing that Derrick's best role is as the starting PG. The argument is that, despite being best suited to be a back-up, Derrick is starting and seeing so many minutes because he's the best option. When Scott Tolzien was forced to start for the Packers, were the fans criticizing him for being a back-up quality player? No, because, despite being a back-up, he was the best option at that point. In the same respect, Derrick Wilson has been the best option as the starting PG for this team. Period. Yes, Dawson had a good game against Georgetown and hopefully he continues to play well for the remainder of the season. I'd have no problem with John Dawson becoming a very productive player for MU as a freshman. If he helps MU win games, I'm all for it! I'm just not ready to anoint him as the starting PG because he had one strong performance.
Fair enough...my argument all along basically has been that we were starting a back up caliber PG - and it would have been nice to see a little more of what our backup (Dawson) was capable of.
I genuinely believe Derrick got the minutes he did because: 1) He's a hard working, high character, veteran who is a good defender. 2) Because Buzz didn't want to sell Derrick out immediately, and wanted to give Derrick every chance in the world to show he could be the 30 minute + per game PG. 3) Buzz to a lesser extent felt Dawson wasn't ready to run the point comparably...but I'd put this as the 3rd reason for why Dawson didn't get more run earlier in the year.
Quote from: keefe on January 23, 2014, 01:05:02 PM
The acid test: Old Style or Pale Ale?
Intellectually, I know that a Pale Ale is better.
However, a cold Old Style triggers my memory the way an old lover's perfume stirs the heartstrings.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
Intellectually, I know that a Pale Ale is better.
However, a cold Old Style triggers my memory the way an old lover's perfume stirs the heartstrings.
A man after my own heart. Dog Style is sheet but we did consume it like Ambrosia. Marquette Liquor sold a case of cans for undert $5.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 01:22:11 PM
And I think this is where we started this fundamental disagreement.
Two weeks and about a half dozen threads later, I believe this is the most accurate statement on the topic.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2014, 01:28:10 PM
If Dawson has been ready then why was Buzz playing Derrick so much, playing Dawson off the ball and experimenting with Jamil running the point?
You're right. Injun Joe from Hannibal Mo.
Quote from: Ners on January 23, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
See below. Thanks BrandX. Sadly, you are just too close minded and small ego'd that you can't acknowledge the position you've held regarding Derrick versus Dawson simply was wrong. All I've said is Derrick is not a high major starting PG, and is best cut out to be a backup, 10-15 minute per game, guy who gives breather to starter, and in the process doesn't screw the game up. And, that is a valuable role for a guy to play on a team, and the role Derrick is best suited for.
All you said is Derrick is not a high major starting PG, best cut out to be a back up, 10-15 minute per game guy? In maybe 100 posts and 10,000 words that's all you said? Really? Cause if that's all you said you would have gotten very little in the way of argument from me or many others here. All of us are aware of Derrick's shortcomings, we just aren't/weren't as convinced as you that John Dawson had proven he was the solution to the very obvious problem. But you said plenty more than that. You went after Derrick hard, and personally. Among other things you announced you were rooting against him, hoping for him to fail. You didn't even want him as a back up - you wanted him out of the rotation altogether. There's always room for disagreement on the relative value of our players. Maybe I put too much emphasis on defense, maybe you put too much emphasis on offense. Maybe I defer to Buzz too much, but just maybe he knows as much or even more than you do about running the team he sees every day. Those are the kind of things for civil discussions and even arguments. You're a knowledgeable and passionate Marquette fan. I've agreed with you more often than not. But when being "right" becomes so important that you're rooting against our own guys I just don't get it.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 23, 2014, 12:30:03 PM
and that is shows that Dawson can actually make the shot unguarded. So not only does he take it (unlike Wilson), he makes it (unlike Wilson).
I think Derrick Wilson is an awesome MU teammate and person, but for those who can not see the difference between what Dawson offers and what Wilson offers, you are just being plain stubborn (and I know, cause you played basketball once and I did not).
Do you not listen when the TV commentators say over and over "wilson is no offensive threat," "they are playing 4 on 5," "they are sagging off Wilson which is hurting Gardner"
That is actually Ners. I don't believe you need extensive pickup basketball to see. Many very good coaches never played the game. Buzz for example.
Where do you think the commentators get that? From Buzz. They do pregame interviews to get an understanding of the game.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 23, 2014, 02:50:11 PM
Where do you think the commentators get that? From Buzz. They do pregame interviews to get an understanding of the game.
They don't need to talk to Buzz to see that Derrick is not being guarded and that it is hurting Gardner. They just can watch the game for a few minutes to see what is happening. It is very obvious.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 23, 2014, 02:50:11 PM
That is actually Ners. I don't believe you need extensive pickup basketball to see. Many very good coaches never played the game. Buzz for example.
Where do you think the commentators get that? From Buzz. They do pregame interviews to get an understanding of the game.
I think you mean to say they never played at a high level - where they were skilled enough to actually be on a college roster.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=12621019
According to Dodds, at today's presser, Jamil told the story that buzz told Derrick to go back in the game, but Derrick told him no, because Dawson was on a roll. Rohrshach interpretations to commence..........now.
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 07:09:58 PM
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=12621019
According to Dodds, at today's presser, Jamil told the story that buzz told Derrick to go back in the game, but Derrick told him no, because Dawson was on a roll. Rohrshach interpretations to commence..........now.
If true, says a lot about the young man's character and team first attitude.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 23, 2014, 07:13:47 PM
If true, says a lot about the young man's character and team first attitude.
if things continue around here as normal... this good quality/decision will somehow be a detriment to the team and reason for Dawson to take over his role.
Great on Derrick to do that - that did not stop Dodd's, however, from the continual MU apologist and De Wilson apologist soap box...
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 23, 2014, 07:13:47 PM
If true, says a lot about the young man's character and team first attitude.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 23, 2014, 07:44:51 PM
Great on Derrick to do that - that did not stop Dodd's, however, from the continual MU apologist and De Wilson apologist soap box...
John Dodds' hard-hitting journalism. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!
Is Dodds...still calling...Aaron Rodgers...Randy?
i think so, but it's more like a butterfly flaps his wings in South Africa, what is the impact to Packer's mock draft in 2017...
Quote from: The Lens on January 23, 2014, 08:35:14 PM
Is Dodds...still calling...Aaron Rodgers...Randy?
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 07:09:58 PM
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=12621019
According to Dodds, at today's presser, Jamil told the story that buzz told Derrick to go back in the game, but Derrick told him no, because Dawson was on a roll. Rohrshach interpretations to commence..........now.
It's great when a player is as selfless as what Derrick demonstrated....even though you'd think a coach as accomplished as Buzz could see the same thing, and have the same feel for the game as his player. I recall this happening last year at some point with another player - perhaps Juan not going in a game because someone else was running good?
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 07:09:58 PM
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=12621019
According to Dodds, at today's presser, Jamil told the story that buzz told Derrick to go back in the game, but Derrick told him no, because Dawson was on a roll. Rohrshach interpretations to commence..........now.
wow, hate to toot my own horn (jk I love it), but sounds eerily similar to what I said the other day about Derrick, bolded below:
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 21, 2014, 12:07:41 AM
This is what I think Derrick is perfect for. 8-12 minutes a night holding serve and harassing/tiring out the opponent's PG. No obligation/pressure to score or initiate offense. Just do what you're good at all out for short stints then back to the bench. I think he's more comfortable in that role as well. And he's such a smart & unselfish guy that I wouldn't be shocked in the least if he proposed this to Buzz himself.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on January 24, 2014, 10:28:53 AM
wow, hate to toot my own horn (jk I love it), but sounds eerily similar to what I said the other day about Derrick, bolded below:
Well done Jajuannaman! Crazy. You'd think Buzz could see the same thing as far as game flow..lineups that are working...and roll with them - that it wouldn't take a player declining minutes to see good results. I recall being totally shocked in the San Diego State game when Burton went for about 8-10 points straight in the 2nd half, rallied us back into the game, and then Buzz benched him the rest of the game...got ride the hot hand, and don't care if it is a freshman. That's the part where the whole - they'll get the minutes they earn - causes me to be skeptical - because there have been times a guy is rolling well, and Buzz yanks him anyway..
Quote from: tower912 on January 23, 2014, 07:09:58 PM
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=12621019
According to Dodds, at today's presser, Jamil told the story that buzz told Derrick to go back in the game, but Derrick told him no, because Dawson was on a roll. Rohrshach interpretations to commence..........now.
At first when I read this I thought wow, that's really admirable and I still do. However, I also feel like Derrick has lost a lot of confidence...it shows on the court when he won't shoot and by telling the coach to keep Dawson in, it has me questioning wether a lot of his issues are more confidence related. Maybe not, I just like a confident kid and if he feels like Dawson was the better option than good for him to recognize that. It's a shame that Buzz couldn't see to leave Dawson in on his own...Really feel this is Buzz's worst coaching job this yr since he's been at Marquette.
Quote from: mubuzz on January 24, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
At first when I read this I thought wow, that's really admirable and I still do. However, I also feel like Derrick has lost a lot of confidence...it shows on the court when he won't shoot and by telling the coach to keep Dawson in, it has me questioning wether a lot of his issues are more confidence related. Maybe not, I just like a confident kid and if he feels like Dawson was the better option than good for him to recognize that. It's a shame that Buzz couldn't see to leave Dawson in on his own...Really feel this is Buzz's worst coaching job this yr since he's been at Marquette.
+1
Quote from: The Lens on January 23, 2014, 08:35:14 PM
Is Dodds...still calling...Aaron Rodgers...Randy?
lol talkin about dodds will get you banned... from muscoops and your cable television cut off...