tough loss really shows the value of a multi dimensional point guard he killed us!!!
The real shame is the fact we have zero dimensional PG.
6 pts, 7 assists 5 rebounds. Although he is not great, our PG did not cost us this game. In fact he played very well.
Not the same game I saw
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 03:57:11 PM
6 pts, 7 assists 5 rebounds. Although he is not great, our PG did not cost us this game. In fact he played very well.
You definitely did not watch the game.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 25, 2014, 03:58:38 PM
You definitely did not watch the game.
Yeah he didnt watch the game.... at all
Quote from: elephantraker on January 25, 2014, 03:57:52 PM
Not the same game I saw
Then I recommend you go back and watch the game. Pay attention to all aspects. Also, as I quoted the box score if you saw a game where he didn't have 6 pts 7 assists and 5 rebounds, you would have been watching the wrong game.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 03:57:11 PM
6 pts, 7 assists 5 rebounds. Although he is not great, our PG did not cost us this game. In fact he played very well.
He was pathetic.
The Bucks game has been delayed because Derrick is still dribbling around the perimeter, stalling the offense.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 04:02:36 PM
Then I recommend you go back and watch the game. Pay attention to all aspects. Also, as I quoted the box score if you saw a game where he didn't have 6 pts 7 assists and 5 rebounds, you would have been watching the wrong game.
That's the issue. All you are seeing is the box score.
If you honestly watched this game and can say that he was even average you are either drunk or just flat out stupid.
Stats tell the story? Really?? I was never a Warren Sapp quote, but one of the best sports quotes ever came from him; "stats are for losers"
I've never seen a D1 PG pick up his dribble 22 feet from the basket so often.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 25, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
That's the issue. All you are seeing is the box score.
If you honestly watched this game and can say that he was even average you are either drunk or just flat out stupid.
I enjoy a nice, classy post.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 25, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
That's the issue. All you are seeing is the box score.
If you honestly watched this game and can say that he was even average you are either drunk or just flat out stupid.
Or both... Buzz should start/play the players who can win...
Derrick and Jake together wont win 4 more games this year.....
Quote from: chapman on January 25, 2014, 04:03:03 PM
He was pathetic.
The Bucks game has been delayed because Derrick is still dribbling around the perimeter, stalling the offense.
The team would be better if Dawson got the majority of the minutes. I wouldnt have thought that a few weeks ago but the offense runs much better with him on the floor IMO. Also, think Thomas was way overmatched today on both ends of the floor. Not sure why buzz wouldn't make any changes.
I thought you were going to lead in with MU having "Ennis envy."
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 25, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
That's the issue. All you are seeing is the box score.
If you honestly watched this game and can say that he was even average you are either drunk or just flat out stupid.
No the issue is, I watch all aspects of the game, offense, defense, hustle...if they maintain the proper floor spacing, if they deliver the ball to the right place and the right time, whether they play under control.
Today D. Wilson was not a problem. He played fine. He was significantly better than Dawson today (who played ok, but struggled on D).
You watch the game to complain about Jake and D. Wilson...that is apparently what you enjoy to do regardless of reality.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 03:57:11 PM
6 pts, 7 assists 5 rebounds. Although he is not great, our PG did not cost us this game. In fact he played very well.
What does that matter? in overtime, our defensive specialist is so bad on defense that he can't be trusted to guard the other teams PG. THAT is the only stat that matters.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 04:09:03 PM
No the issue is, I watch all aspects of the game, offense, defense, hustle...if they maintain the proper floor spacing, if they deliver the ball to the right place and the right time, whether they play under control.
Today D. Wilson was not a problem. He played fine. He was significantly better than Dawson today (who played ok, but struggled on D).
You watch the game to complain about Jake and D. Wilson...that is apparently what you enjoy to do regardless of reality.
I'd rather have an offensive player who can't play 'D' on the floor than a defensive specialist who can't play 'D' on the floor
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 04:02:36 PM
Then I recommend you go back and watch the game. Pay attention to all aspects. Also, as I quoted the box score if you saw a game where he didn't have 6 pts 7 assists and 5 rebounds, you would have been watching the wrong game.
How many missed free throws, balls lost in the lane, precious late game seconds dribbling around the perimeter and lack of intensity bringing the ball up. If you saw the game you witnessed what a point guard really does to help his team win..
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 04:09:03 PM
Today D. Wilson was not a problem. He played fine. He was significantly better than Dawson today (who played ok, but struggled on D).
He played fine for him. He is rarely if ever a positive factor, however. But I agree that there are lots of reasons for this loss, and Derrick was probably not the biggest reason. If you really watch the games, the floor spacing and ball movement is much better when he is sitting. He spends an inordinate amount of time dribbling the ball with no purpose.
Quote from: brandx on January 25, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
What does that matter? in overtime, our defensive specialist is so bad on defense that he can't be trusted to guard the other teams PG. THAT is the only stat that matters.
This is very telling, I think. If Buzz really thinks that Derrick is the best defensive guard he's coached or whatever he said about him, then he would have been guarding Archie D in OT. And if you don't think that Derrick Wilson is your best defensive guard, then there is little reason to play him so much, because I think we all agree he is our weakest offensive guard.
Quote from: MARQ_13 on January 25, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
The team would be better if Dawson got the majority of the minutes. I wouldnt have thought that a few weeks ago but the offense runs much better with him on the floor IMO.
Yep, biggest difference is that Dawson gets the ball out of his hands quickly. Get rid of the ball, make the defense react, make a play when you get it back after a couple passes. Don't stall everything out by dribbling around looking for a play, which just allows the defense to settle into matchups.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 04:09:03 PM
No the issue is, I watch all aspects of the game, offense, defense, hustle...if they maintain the proper floor spacing, if they deliver the ball to the right place and the right time, whether they play under control.
Today D. Wilson was not a problem. He played fine. He was significantly better than Dawson today (who played ok, but struggled on D).
You watch the game to complain about Jake and D. Wilson...that is apparently what you enjoy to do regardless of reality.
You just watched a PG control the overtime (Actually you saw one against G'Town as well) and you say our PG WASN'T a problem today?
Wilson 36 minutes
Dawson 8 minutes
That is ridiculous!!!!
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 25, 2014, 04:13:25 PM
He played fine for him. He is rarely if ever a positive factor, however. But I agree that there are lots of reasons for this loss, and Derrick was probably not the biggest reason. If you really watch the games, the floor spacing and ball movement is much better when he is sitting. He spends an inordinate amount of time dribbling the ball with no purpose.
Today the floor spacing and ball movement were not significantly different either way. Also, also the defense was bad the whole game, it was much better with Wilson in the game. In fact we made several runs because of the defensive pressure/traps that they were able to run with him on the floor.
During those runs, if players made wide wide open layups we would have been able to take the lead and would have won the game in regulation.
You are right though, I was not happy with his dribbling late in the game, but fact of the matter was it didn't affect the outcome/play. He eventually got the ball to Mayo as designed (was initially covered) and Mayo scored letting us get to overtime.
Just back from the game sitting courtside....I'm even more disgusted in person watching Derrick "run" the point.
Buzz having the quick hook on Dawson today was also disgusting. John missed a couple good runners in the lane, but he puts so much more pressure on a defense than Derrick.
Gardner goes for 28. Mayo's line next to Jakes?? C'mon man. Mayo didn't even get the start in OT - just freaking stupid. Cannot believe Buzz this year.
Quote from: NickelDimer on January 25, 2014, 04:04:37 PM
Stats tell the story? Really?? I was never a Warren Sapp quote, but one of the best sports quotes ever came from him; "stats are for losers"
Kudos. Never heard that one before. Can hardly wait for baseball to use it on my Moneyball friends.
Quote from: Ners on January 25, 2014, 04:23:09 PM
Just back from the game sitting courtside....I'm even more disgusted in person watching Derrick "run" the point.
Buzz having the quick hook on Dawson today was also disgusting. John missed a couple good runners in the lane, but he puts so much more pressure on a defense than Derrick.
Gardner goes for 28. Mayo's line next to Jakes?? C'mon man. Mayo didn't even get the start in OT - just freaking stupid. Cannot believe Buzz this year.
Was also frustrating to see buzz send mayo to the scorers table only to bring him back over and over. Did this for about 2 minutes in the second half from about the 7min mark to the 5min mark before he finally put him in.
I'll also note that if we had Villanova's PG on this team, everyone here would be calling for his head and saying that you can't win basketball games with a PG that barely shoots 40% from the floor and can't even shoot 30% from 3. Further they would be saying that for a PG that limited offensively they better be able to get more than 3.1 assists per game from them.
Did he have a great game against us today, yes. Did Derrick have a great game against ASU, yes. Did Dawson have a great game against Georgetown, yes.
PG's are always overly criticized and rarely get the credit they deserve. Lets look at our PGs in detail.
Derrick Wilson:
Big, strong PG. Plays tough and is a fierce rebounder, averaging 4 rebounds per game. Plays the scouting report to a T and does exactly what the coach asks for. Reliable, although severely limited offensively.
Overly patient. Has a tendency to dribble too much when the first offensive option is taken away, instead of driving or moving the ball with the dribble. One of his biggest limitations is his tendency to always being looking to the right leading to missed offensive opportunites when plays open to his left.
Offensively a poor shooter despite good form. When left undefended (often) he knows how to attack the hoop and can draw fouls and 3-pt plays because of his toughness.
Defensively, strong at keeping his man in front of him. Rarely lets his man beat him off the dribble, allowing you to play off the ball players more aggressively as you do not require as much help defense. Doesn't take chances leading to above average shooting percentage for jump shots as he isn't a threat to block the shot.
Net grade: C his offensive weaknesses are offset by his defensive intensity, hustle and rebounding. With the right players around him his lack of an offensive threat can be mitigated.
John Dawson:
Typical freshman with a lot of raw talent. Has the potential to be great, but still makes a lot of simple mistakes.
Offensively. Patient, strong ball handler. Has a complete offensive game. Great court vision and knows how and when to deliver the ball. Can create for himself by both attacking and with step-backs. Smooth shot with range to 25 feet. At times is soft with his passes leading to stupid turnovers early in the game. Tends to improve as the game proceeds.
Defensively. Still learning. Has a hard time staying in front of his man, leading to easy scoring opportunities and fouls. At times misses rotation assignments that lead to easy scores. Quick hands that can allow him to get a steal. Although he has troubles staying in front of his man, he has a knack for recovering and can sometimes make a play on the ball with his athleticism.
Grade: Mixed bag. When he is on his game B+. When he is struggling, C-. Best option is to play him in bursts and when hot let it ride.
My contention is that people see Dawson at the B+ level and think that means he always plays that way and forget the C- action. D. Wilson is consistently a C...This team needs consistency sometimes.
Defense, offensive rebounds and inability to get loose balls cost MU the game today. Their D was awful.
Quote from: thehammock on January 25, 2014, 05:16:57 PM
Defense, offensive rebounds and inability to get loose balls cost MU the game today. Their D was awful.
No. Derrick Wilson cost MU the game today...duh!i
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 05:12:28 PM
I'll also note that if we had Villanova's PG on this team, everyone here would be calling for his head and saying that you can't win basketball games with a PG that barely shoots 40% from the floor and can't even shoot 30% from 3. Further they would be saying that for a PG that limited offensively they better be able to get more than 3.1 assists per game from them.
Did he have a great game against us today, yes. Did Derrick have a great game against ASU, yes. Did Dawson have a great game against Georgetown, yes.
PG's are always overly criticized and rarely get the credit they deserve. Lets look at our PGs in detail.
Derrick Wilson:
Big, strong PG. Plays tough and is a fierce rebounder, averaging 4 rebounds per game. Plays the scouting report to a T and does exactly what the coach asks for. Reliable, although severely limited offensively.
Overly patient. Has a tendency to dribble too much when the first offensive option is taken away, instead of driving or moving the ball with the dribble. One of his biggest limitations is his tendency to always being looking to the right leading to missed offensive opportunites when plays open to his left.
Offensively a poor shooter despite good form. When left undefended (often) he knows how to attack the hoop and can draw fouls and 3-pt plays because of his toughness.
Defensively, strong at keeping his man in front of him. Rarely lets his man beat him off the dribble, allowing you to play off the ball players more aggressively as you do not require as much help defense. Doesn't take chances leading to above average shooting percentage for jump shots as he isn't a threat to block the shot.
Net grade: C his offensive weaknesses are offset by his defensive intensity, hustle and rebounding. With the right players around him his lack of an offensive threat can be mitigated.
John Dawson:
Typical freshman with a lot of raw talent. Has the potential to be great, but still makes a lot of simple mistakes.
Offensively. Patient, strong ball handler. Has a complete offensive game. Great court vision and knows how and when to deliver the ball. Can create for himself by both attacking and with step-backs. Smooth shot with range to 25 feet. At times is soft with his passes leading to stupid turnovers early in the game. Tends to improve as the game proceeds.
Defensively. Still learning. Has a hard time staying in front of his man, leading to easy scoring opportunities and fouls. At times misses rotation assignments that lead to easy scores. Quick hands that can allow him to get a steal. Although he has troubles staying in front of his man, he has a knack for recovering and can sometimes make a play on the ball with his athleticism.
Grade: Mixed bag. When he is on his game B+. When he is struggling, C-. Best option is to play him in bursts and when hot let it ride.
My contention is that people see Dawson at the B+ level and think that means he always plays that way and forget the C- action. D. Wilson is consistently a C...This team needs consistency sometimes.
Arcidiacono is a stud PG. Anyone calling for his head would have to be a head case. As for our PGs, you can't compare a Freshman getting very limited minutes with Derrick who leads the team in minutes. He's an east-west player while Dawson thinks north-south. Buzz has a philosophy that Freshmen have.t earned their playing time. Mistakes call for bench time. Upperclassmen have money in the bank. Excuses are tolerated. Like it or not, that's Buzz. It will be interesting to watch and see if Buzz love will promote Anderson to starter next year in his senior season.
Quote from: DaCoach on January 25, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
Arcidiacono is a stud PG. Anyone calling for his head would have to be a head case. As for our PGs, you can't compare a Freshman getting very limited minutes with Derrick who leads the team in minutes. He's an east-west player while Dawson thinks north-south. Buzz has a philosophy that Freshmen have.t earned their playing time. Mistakes call for bench time. Upperclassmen have money in the bank. Excuses are tolerated. Like it or not, that's Buzz. It will be interesting to watch and see if Buzz love will promote Anderson to starter next year in his senior season.
I agree with the bolded. The point is that we do have a lot of head cases around here and they would be calling for Archidiacono's head. If you don't think so you haven't been watching how MU fans around here treat there PG's over the past decade.
I think it's funny that after watching our guards, especially our PG, get badly outplayed all game, we defend him by saying he was fine.
As I always say, it isn't Derrick's fault that he's only as good as he is. But let's not pretend that he's actually good, OK. As usual, if we had just been able to trade PGs with the opponent, we would have won.
We start every single game knowing that we will have to overcome significant deficits in 3-point shooting and backcourt scoring. In today's college hoops, it is almost impossible to win a game against a quality opponent when losing both of those stats by 21, 30, 36 points.
Villanova has one good frontcourt player. It is ranked No. 4 in the nation because of its guards. That's how you win in college basketball.
Quote from: MU82 on January 25, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
I think it's funny that after watching our guards, especially our PG, get badly outplayed all game, we defend him by saying he was fine.
As I always say, it isn't Derrick's fault that he's only as good as he is. But let's not pretend that he's actually good, OK. As usual, if we had just been able to trade PGs with the opponent, we would have won.
We start every single game knowing that we will have to overcome significant deficits in 3-point shooting and backcourt scoring. In today's college hoops, it is almost impossible to win a game against a quality opponent when losing both of those stats by 21, 30, 36 points.
Villanova has one good frontcourt player. It is ranked No. 4 in the nation because of its guards. That's how you win in college basketball.
Yet because of our excellent frontcourt we were able to keep with them and take the game into overtime. It is easy to say that by switching PGs with them we would have won. Yes, trade an average PG for a great PG and that will win a close game.
But if we had managed to win this game, they could say it is because they lack a front court. Trade one of their bigs for Devante and they win the game.
Its as if everyone around here thinks that all 5 positions should be absolute studs. Sometimes it does not work out that way, injuries, transfers etc make college basketball tough.
this - what's better - De Wilson's FT % or his layup %....
i love how people say that if the players were better around De Wilson, he would not be a liability.
Umm, is it not the job of PG to create for others and make others players better. the Nova PG sure was able to make shots, drive, and setup other players.
Keep making excuses that it's not the PG play, I will keep making arrangements for than MU 2013/2014 .500 team banner....
Quote from: elephantraker on January 25, 2014, 04:12:36 PM
How many missed free throws, balls lost in the lane, precious late game seconds dribbling around the perimeter and lack of intensity bringing the ball up. If you saw the game you witnessed what a point guard really does to help his team win..
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 25, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
this - what's better - De Wilson's FT % or his layup %....
i love how people say that if the players were better around De Wilson, he would not be a liability.
Umm, is it not the job of PG to create for others and make others players better. the Nova PG sure was able to make shots, drive, and setup other players.
Keep making excuses that it's not the PG play, I will keep making arrangements for than MU 2013/2014 .500 team banner....
Derrick had 7 assists today. He would have had more had it not been for several missed wide open lay ups. Derrick was fine. We lost because we let them get offensive rebound after offensive rebound and defended poorly.
Quote from: thehammock on January 25, 2014, 05:16:57 PM
Defense, offensive rebounds and inability to get loose balls cost MU the game today. Their D was awful.
THIS... there was no "scrappy" in this team today. I saw little to no diving for loose balls, no hustle plays, not giving that extra effort we've been used to seeing!
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 06:37:45 PM
Yet because of our excellent frontcourt we were able to keep with them and take the game into overtime. It is easy to say that by switching PGs with them we would have won. Yes, trade an average PG for a great PG and that will win a close game.
But if we had managed to win this game, they could say it is because they lack a front court. Trade one of their bigs for Devante and they win the game.
Its as if everyone around here thinks that all 5 positions should be absolute studs. Sometimes it does not work out that way, injuries, transfers etc make college basketball tough.
My basic point is that we have a starting PG who, well, I'm not going to recap what he is, but he wouldn't start for lots and lots and lots of teams. Still, the apologists among us say he would be fine if the players surrounding him just did their jobs better.
And we have a starting 2 who is a low-major player who probably wouldn't start for a single other high-major team. Still, the apologists among us say he would be fine if we would just repeatedly set him double-screens.
I say it's very difficult to win basketball games against good opponents with a backcourt that needs apologists to make excuses for it.
As for your point about what Villanova fans might have said about their frontcourt if they lost ...
1. Villanova has won repeatedly despite its limited frontcourt, including sensational wins over Kansas and Iowa, because they don't have to make excuses for their outstanding guards.
2. They didn't lose, so it's moot.
There's a lot of anger here. I get it, we lost. But we took a top 5 team (probably top 10 after Monday) to overtime when we ourselves are a fringe bubble team. The coach must have done something right.
I didn't watch the game, I'm stuck at a staff retreat in Weimar freaking Texas. So I can't really comment on how the game went. But the thing that sticks out to me most in the box score is the fact that Nova grabbed 13 offensive boards and shot 48% from the floor. That is NOT a PG problem. They have ONE player over 6"7. How the hell did they get 13 offensive boards and what I assume were several easy putbacks.
Can't look at the box score for all the answers in this one.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 25, 2014, 09:07:28 PM
There's a lot of anger here. I get it, we lost. But we took a top 5 team (probably top 10 after Monday) to overtime when we ourselves are a fringe bubble team. The coach must have done something right.
I didn't watch the game, I'm stuck at a staff retreat in Weimar freaking Texas. So I can't really comment on how the game went. But the thing that sticks out to me most in the box score is the fact that Nova grabbed 13 offensive boards and shot 48% from the floor. That is NOT a PG problem. They have ONE player over 6"7. How the hell did they get 13 offensive boards and what I assume were several easy putbacks.
Who goes on a retreat in Weimar, TX.
I'd tell 'em to take their job and stick it so far up...
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 09:12:22 PM
Who goes on a retreat in Weimar, TX.
I'm joining the committee next year just to make sure it doesn't happen again
Quote from: drbob on January 25, 2014, 03:52:44 PM
tough loss really shows the value of a multi dimensional point guard he killed us!!!
You mean the PG that committed the biggest bone-headed play of the game ... Fouling Mayo which allowed us to tie?
You mean the PG that was shooting 4-11 (2-6 from 3pt)?
You mean the PG the blew FTs late in the game to let us back in it?
Yes, he won the game in OT but did as much as Mayo to cause
OT in the first place.
Don't get me wrong he's a good player and I'd love to have him. Yes he's better than Derrick.
But let's stop with the traditional love, he has his flaws too. That was not Jabari Parker out there.
Quote from: brandx on January 25, 2014, 04:17:57 PM
You just watched a PG control the overtime (Actually you saw one against G'Town as well) and you say our PG WASN'T a problem today?
Wilson 36 minutes
Dawson 8 minutes
That is ridiculous!!!!
Derrick wasn't the biggest problem against Nova.
But that break down in minutes is a problem. Regardless if you think Derrick should get the majority or not, he can't be playing 36 minutes and expect to be effective late in the game.
Dawson wasn't great either, but I think he was hampered in the second half by being put in with essentially a "second unit" of players.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 26, 2014, 08:43:12 AM
You mean the PG that committed the biggest bone-headed play of the game ... Fouling Mayo which allowed us to tie?
You mean the PG that was shooting 4-11 (2-6 from 3pt)?
You mean the PG the blew FTs late in the game to let us back in it?
Yes, he won the game in OT but did as much as Mayo to cause
OT in the first place.
Don't get me wrong he's a good player and I'd love to have him. Yes he's better than Derrick.
But let's stop with the traditional love, he has his flaws too. That was not Jabari Parker out there.
No I believe he means the PG that had 20 points, 11 assists and repeatedly whupped Derrick's ass with the dribble--THAT PG.
It is obvious that Wilson and Thomas are not high Major players.It is really exposed when you play them together.Jake can't create his own shot and Derrick is not a good penetrator to create any open looks.Hilliard,Bell and Arcidiacono now that is 3 good high major players.Nothing against Wilson and Thomas but they are in over there head which is no fault of there own.Good guys.Lets support the team and things will be better in the future.Duane Wilson,JaJuan Johnson and Deonte Burton,you 3 need to be patient.I have seen many great players at MU that have been dissappointed in there first year and ended up having great careers.Look no further than Odartey Blankson who played 2 years,started as a sophomore and transferred.Probably the biggest mistake he ever made.He listened to the wrong people.Your time will come and you will be part of a great team.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 26, 2014, 08:55:52 AM
No I believe he means the PG that had 20 points, 11 assists and repeatedly whupped Derrick's ass with the dribble--THAT PG.
I said he was a good player and I'd love to have him. But 10 of his 20 points was from the line after we intentionally fouled him late. Another good chunk was in OT (which he did as much as anyone to cause happen).
He played a good game but many others have played better against us.
One thing I've noticed before but was really driven home in this game:
If the opponent has a good PG, it can afford to extend the shot clock, confident that it will still get a decent scoring opportunity as the clock winds down inside 10 or 5 seconds.
For us, if the ball is in Derrick's hands as that clock winds down -- as it so often is -- we almost always are resigned to an empty possession.
Villanova's guards can start to create a play with 10 seconds left on the shot clock and the outcome often will be good.
If Marquette's starting guards are in the same situation, we get either a wild drive from Derrick, an off-balance heave from Jake or a pass to Jamil resulting in his off-balance heave.
It's a major deal.
Granted it's not until 2015, but I really think Nick Noskowiak is going to be our version of Arcidiacono. Pretty comparable ratings-wise. Both are four-star point guards with similar skill sets and build. Noskowiak is currently ranked 52nd in the Rivals 150 Class of 2015. Arcidiacono graduated with a ranking of 57 in the class of 2012. So you can whine all you want about why Buzz doesn't have a crafty point guard like Arcidiacono, but the reality he has one on the way. Just give it time.
Quote from: The Love House on January 26, 2014, 09:47:08 AM
Granted it's not until 2015, but I really think Nick Noskowiak is going to be our version of Arcidiacono. Pretty comparable ratings-wise. Both are four-star point guards with similar skill sets and build. Noskowiak is currently ranked 52nd in the Rivals 150 Class of 2015. Arcidiacono graduated with a ranking of 57 in the class of 2012. So you can whine all you want about why Buzz doesn't have a crafty point guard like Arcidiacono, but the reality he has one on the way. Just give it time.
I guess this means that you have written off Duane Wilson?
Quote from: willie warrior on January 26, 2014, 09:50:15 AM
I guess this means that you have written off Duane Wilson?
Not at all. Just saying Noskowiak and Arcidiacono have similar skills sets. Hopefully Nick and Duane will be a great compliment to each other when they're here. They'll definitely be a step up from what we've got going in now.
Quote from: forgetful on January 25, 2014, 03:57:11 PM
6 pts, 7 assists 5 rebounds. Although he is not great, our PG did not cost us this game. In fact he played very well.
Sad that this is very well for him.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 26, 2014, 09:16:45 AM
I said he was a good player and I'd love to have him. But 10 of his 20 points was from the line after we intentionally fouled him late. Another good chunk was in OT (which he did as much as anyone to cause happen).
He played a good game but many others have played better against us.
Then you are still missing the point. He made clutch FT's down the stretch--something we all know Wilson and his 48% FT shooting will never do. That kid Aberdicio or whatever the hell his name is, ran circles around our stud, Lock down "game changing" PG. This kid looked like an All American against Derrick.
Quote from: The Love House on January 26, 2014, 09:47:08 AM
Granted it's not until 2015, but I really think Nick Noskowiak is going to be our version of Arcidiacono. Pretty comparable ratings-wise. Both are four-star point guards with similar skill sets and build. Noskowiak is currently ranked 52nd in the Rivals 150 Class of 2015. Arcidiacono graduated with a ranking of 57 in the class of 2012. So you can whine all you want about why Buzz doesn't have a crafty point guard like Arcidiacono, but the reality he has one on the way. Just give it time.
Does that mean white?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 25, 2014, 09:07:28 PM
They have ONE player over 6"7. How the hell did they get 13 offensive boards and what I assume were several easy putbacks.
Sadly, it was even worse. Usually the rebound was kicked out for an easy, unguarded 3.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 25, 2014, 09:07:28 PM
But the thing that sticks out to me most in the box score is the fact that Nova grabbed 13 offensive boards and shot 48% from the floor. That is NOT a PG problem. They have ONE player over 6"7. How the hell did they get 13 offensive boards and what I assume were several easy putbacks.
Our PG ineptitude goes way beyond the box score because it affects every player on the court.
That being said, I was screaming at the TV after some of those offensive boards. So frustrating to watch. And as another commenter said, several of them led to 3s, as so often happens. We corral even half of those and it's a different game.
If we switched PG in this game do you think we win? PG is the most important position in college ball and we have not won that battle in one game. We have not really beat a quality team, but I am amazed that we have hung close in some of these games.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 26, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
Does that mean white?
No. Someone who can create on offense, sees the whole court, can change gears on the dribble and force defenses out of their plan.