Would have really hurt to put the freshmen in? My God,let them play,they are blowing right past everybody on the court now!!!
What's the point of putting freshmen in just to get blown out in garbage time?
I predict two more conference loses.
Freshmen need to play more ,need to start looking toward next year.Hopefully they can play in the NIT,get those kids some important minutes for next year.Burton is starting to get it,JJJ needs to play,won't get any better sitting on the the bench,except for his cheering ability!
If your a High School Senior being Recruited by Marquette, with the playing time these guys got this year would you come here?
Just asking.....
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
If your a High School Senior being Recruited by Marquette, with the playing time these guys got this year would you come here?
Just asking.....
buzz has marquette recruiting at the highest it's ever been, arguably. i think we're doing fine
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
If your a High School Senior being Recruited by Marquette, with the playing time these guys got this year would you come here?
Just asking.....
I think it would have to give you a little pause...I mean JJJ was ranked in the top 40 and never sees the floor. I think it would be foolish to believe that other coaches wouldn't use that against us in the recruiting wars.
IMO JJJ hasn't really shown he deserves to be out there for extended minutes. I think he should be in the rotation but I can't argue with jake or mayos play in the last few games.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 19, 2014, 09:37:33 PM
buzz has marquette recruiting at the highest it's ever been, arguably. i think we're doing fine
Thankfully in-state recruiting has been good because there is talent there. Our out of state recruiting isn't exactly...
above average.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 19, 2014, 09:41:36 PM
I think it would have to give you a little pause...I mean JJJ was ranked in the top 40 and never sees the floor. I think it would be foolish to believe that other coaches wouldn't use that against us in the recruiting wars.
I think you armchair recruiting QBs need to stop your over analyzing. As its been pointed here a lot, our frosh are playing equally to most all other similarly ranked frosh. Work hard, earn time, gain trust, get more time.
I have no problem with the set Buzz is going with. DW and JT are finally playing with confidence and being aggressive. Add that with three seniors and the young guys aren't gonna play much. It's Feb18 now and we are tryin to make the tourney.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 19, 2014, 09:41:36 PM
I think it would have to give you a little pause...I mean JJJ was ranked in the top 40 and never sees the floor. I think it would be foolish to believe that other coaches wouldn't use that against us in the recruiting wars.
Correct....
We trying to make what tourney... The NIT
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on February 19, 2014, 09:50:29 PM
I think you armchair recruiting QBs need to stop your over analyzing. As its been pointed here a lot, our frosh are playing equally to most all other similarly ranked frosh. Work hard, earn time, gain trust, get more time.
I have no problem with the set Buzz is going with. DW and JT are finally playing with confidence and being aggressive. Add that with three seniors and the young guys aren't gonna play much. It's Feb18 now and we are tryin to make the tourney.
I agree but I am more worried about player development. Of the upperclassmen...who has gotten better over their career?
Derrick=same
Jake=same
Jamil=same
Juan=regressed?
Otule= he was so bad when he got here but has maybe gotten a little better
Gardner= same
Mayo= same
I think that is where then concern should be. Other than Vander, the coaching staff has not been very good at developing high school talent.
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 09:53:24 PM
So Mubuzz we can forget about the frosh for the rest of this year?? Correct.
Well JJJ has played a combined 3 minutes in the last 3 games. John Dawson 9 combined minutes in the last 3 games. If I was a recruit that would make me think twice. Their playing time might have been consistent with others around their ranking during the non conference, but has fallen off significantly as of late.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 19, 2014, 09:59:50 PM
Well JJJ has played a combined 3 minutes in the last 3 games. John Dawson 9 combined minutes in the last 3 games. If I was a recruit that would make me think twice. Their playing time might have been consistent with others around their ranking during the non conference, but has fallen off significantly as of late.
JJJ has 3 min in 3 games sheesh hes playing Walk-On mpg.
JD 9 in 3 games after G town I thought he'd have some kind of role guess not.
The NCAAs isn't even a pipe dream. Player development should be the focus the rest of the year. If the freshmen and Taylor don't get more minutes the rest of the way, next year's gonna suck more than this season.
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 10:15:34 PM
JJJ has 3 min in 3 games sheesh hes playing Walk-On mpg.
JD 9 in 3 games after G town I thought he'd have some kind of role guess not.
Last game Dawson played he was a turnover machine. The guys on the bench are not the answer to this years problems. We have no shooters. Creighton on put on a clinic, again.
Quote from: 6kings on February 19, 2014, 09:21:03 PM
Freshmen need to play more ,need to start looking toward next year.Hopefully they can play in the NIT,get those kids some important minutes for next year.Burton is starting to get it,JJJ needs to play,won't get any better sitting on the the bench,except for his cheering ability!
The season is not over yet. We needed to go 4-2 and now we need to go 4-1.
Quote from: MARQ_13 on February 19, 2014, 09:57:33 PM
I agree but I am more worried about player development. Of the upperclassmen...who has gotten better over their career?
Derrick=same
Jake=same
Jamil=same
Juan=regressed?
Otule= he was so bad when he got here but has maybe gotten a little better
Gardner= same
Mayo= same
I think that is where then concern should be. Other than Vander, the coaching staff has not been very good at developing high school talent.
Nothing factual about this statement. Every single one of those players has improved since they stepped foot on campus. Just because they have not reached the expections we as fans have does not mean that they didn't improve.
Quote from: Boone on February 19, 2014, 10:39:47 PM
The NCAAs isn't even a pipe dream. Player development should be the focus the rest of the year. If the freshmen and Taylor don't get more minutes the rest of the way, next year's gonna suck more than this season.
NCAA is not a pipe dream. 5-0 probably means we are in. 4-1 is squarely on the bubble. Even 3-2 could get us in if we beat the right teams in the BET.
Even if we went 0-5, we can still win the BET.
Until this season is done, we play to win now. Unfortunately that means we will probably see very little of Dawson and Johnson from here on out.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 20, 2014, 01:21:01 AM
NCAA is not a pipe dream. 5-0 probably means we are in. 4-1 is squarely on the bubble. Even 3-2 could get us in if we beat the right teams in the BET.
Even if we went 0-5, we can still win the BET.
Until this season is done, we play to win now. Unfortunately that means we will probably see very little of Dawson and Johnson from here on out.
No way 3-2 gets us in unless we win the BET. 3-2 probably doesn't even get us to the bubble.
Quote from: brandx on February 20, 2014, 01:25:05 AM
No way 3-2 gets us in unless we win the BET. 3-2 probably doesn't even get us to the bubble.
If we knock off Creighton and Nova and then lose the championship to SJU or X we could still conceivably get in.
My guess would be 5-0 we're in, 4-1 and we have to do some work in the BET.
This team has so many warts it isn't even funny. Real lack of big time talent. Fundamentally poor with virtually no outside threat and inside players who can't finish or rebound.
Stop it--just stop it--talking about making the tourney. Face reality, for once. The team is not deserving, and would get the proverbial ass handed to them. And with the pre-season expectations that EVERYBODY had, we should decline an NIT and the kids should concentrate on grades.
Reading this thread has made me wish scoopers should have to put their age or class year at MU in their profile. If I had to wager, I'd bet the house that the majority of posters b!tching about Buzz not playing the freshmen are either still at MU or are a year or two removed. The average age of those who post that Buzz knows what he's doing is much higher.
Let Buzz coach. He's got a track record that's pretty good. 4-1 and we're in.
At this point, we better be worried about not embarrassing ourselves even further against a terrible DePaul team.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on February 19, 2014, 09:50:29 PM
I think you armchair recruiting QBs need to stop your over analyzing. As its been pointed here a lot, our frosh are playing equally to most all other similarly ranked frosh. Work hard, earn time, gain trust, get more time.
I have no problem with the set Buzz is going with. DW and JT are finally playing with confidence and being aggressive. Add that with three seniors and the young guys aren't gonna play much. It's Feb18 now and we are tryin to make the tourney.
Thanks for some sanity Niv. They played against a great team last night. We did not have the tools to stop them. We did not play poorly.
This team hasn't strung together 4 wins out of 5 the whole season -- never mind 5 in a row. What makes anyone think we have a realistic chance of accomplishing either over the last 5 games?
I would play the freshmen the rest of the way if only to prevent them for transferring. We have zero (NIT) to play for at this time. Stop with the Juan Anderson lineup, get Dawson and JJJ in there and find out how much they can contribute.
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 07:33:49 AM
I would play the freshmen the rest of the way if only to prevent them for transferring. We have zero (NIT) to play for at this time. Stop with the Juan Anderson lineup, get Dawson and JJJ in there and find out how much they can contribute.
Do you really think that the coaching staff needs to "find out" how much they can contribute 20+ games into the season?
Quote from: Boone on February 20, 2014, 07:25:33 AM
This team hasn't strung together 4 wins out of 5 the whole season -- never mind 5 in a row. What makes anyone think we have a realistic chance of accomplishing either over the last 5 games?
Pretty sure before the Creighton game we had won 4 of 5 games.
I stand corrected. Don't see another 4-1 run in this team, though.
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
If your a High School Senior being Recruited by Marquette, with the playing time these guys got this year would you come here?
Just asking.....
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? just asking.
Do you think every freshman should start simply because they commit to a school?
You need a harsh dose of reality, and less stroking of our freshman's egos.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 20, 2014, 07:35:26 AM
Do you really think that the coaching staff needs to "find out" how much they can contribute 20+ games into the season?
I don't know, Buzz knows 100 times more than I do. I would hate to lose Dawson or JJJ, though, without giving them a few games of 15-minutes-plus. We know what the upperclassmen can do; what would it hurt to find out about JJJ and Dawson?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2014, 07:46:21 AM
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? just asking.
Do you think every freshman should start simply because they commit to a school?
You need a harsh dose of reality, and less stroking of our freshman's egos.
Nobody said they should be starting. Just getting some playing time. The harsh reality is this team is going to the NIT and is not good enough for highly rated recruits to see zero playing time. I could understand the lack of playing time if we were a top 10 or even top 25 team. But we are nowhere even close to that.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 20, 2014, 08:04:31 AM
Nobody said they should be starting. Just getting some playing time. The harsh reality is this team is going to the NIT and is not good enough for highly rated recruits to see zero playing time. I could understand the lack of playing time if we were a top 10 or even top 25 team. But we are nowhere even close to that.
So a casual fan should decide who starts? Maybe an incoming recruit should? Maybe you think the inmates should run the asylum. If JJJ or Dawson gave Marquette the best chance to win then maybe they should play. I'd rather leave that decision to the person that MU pays to make that decision. Just because a recruit is highly rated doesn't mean that they are the best player on the floor. Players take time to develop. Putting a player on the floor doesn't mean the player is going to get better.
I really don't follow this logic. Playing time for the sake of playing time? Why would you let freshman have that sort of leverage over a coach?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2014, 08:12:29 AM
So a casual fan should decide who starts? Maybe an incoming recruit should? Maybe you think the inmates should run the asylum. If JJJ or Dawson gave Marquette the best chance to win then maybe they should play. I'd rather leave that decision to the person that MU pays to make that decision. Just because a recruit is highly rated doesn't mean that they are the best player on the floor. Players take time to develop. Putting a player on the floor doesn't mean the player is going to get better.
I really don't follow this logic. Playing time for the sake of playing time? Why would you let freshman have that sort of leverage over a coach?
Again, I'm not saying that they should start, just get some playing time now and again for development sake. This team is not very good and there is nobody on this roster who deserves more than 25 mpg. Playing time for the sake of playing time? Umm no, it's called getting game experience.
Players get better in practice more than they do on the floor in game time.
And playing them so they won't transfer? If they decide to transfer based on lack of playing time that the successful head coach doesn't believe they have earned yet, then leave. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. Completely replaceable.
And *all* freshman should see that there is going to be *plenty* of time available for them even next year.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 20, 2014, 08:04:31 AM
Nobody said they should be starting. Just getting some playing time. The harsh reality is this team is going to the NIT and is not good enough for highly rated recruits to see zero playing time. I could understand the lack of playing time if we were a top 10 or even top 25 team. But we are nowhere even close to that.
Exactly all I said was just asking.... and he wanna jump in his tampon bag.. I'll ask what I want, at this point Ronald Mcdonald can start this team isn't world beaters anyway.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 08:36:32 AM
Players get better in practice more than they do on the floor in game time.
And playing them so they won't transfer? If they decide to transfer based on lack of playing time that the successful head coach doesn't believe they have earned yet, then leave. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. Completely replaceable.
And *all* freshman should see that there is going to be *plenty* of time available for them even next year.
Very logical intelligent answer.....
Heres another question....
If your a parent... Do you travel, drive or fly and take days off to go to games your child isnt gonna play in???
Im asking as a college player in general not just at MU if ya child was at lets say Michigan and stacking up DNP's would you still support the team and travel or not??
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 19, 2014, 10:52:37 PM
Last game Dawson played he was a turnover machine. The guys on the bench are not the answer to this years problems. We have no shooters. Creighton on put on a clinic, again.
Yes, Dawson was really bad in the last game he played - really the 1 time all year he looked terrible. Yet as BAD as he was in that 9 minute stretch...the team managed to build on its lead it had...we didn't giveaway points on the lead that was built. Pretty remarkable if you think about it...
This is where the short leash comments on Buzz come from - as bad as Dawson was against Seton Hall - he was equally very good against Georgetown. Difference of course is 1 bad outing for Dawson has led to 2 DNP's, whereas his very good outing against GTown earned him all of 8 minutes the next outing against Nova...and no more than 11 minutes thereafter.
I haven't had an issue with how Derrick's played the last 2-3 games, he's shown better in a lot of areas...yet I still don't feel that you can win big time with a PG that is so limited from the perimeter. It is INCREDIBLY hard to try to coach around that deficiency...
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 20, 2014, 08:39:22 AM
Exactly all I said was just asking.... and he wanna jump in his tampon bag.. I'll ask what I want, at this point Ronald Mcdonald can start this team isn't world beaters anyway.
No, you just have a less than average knowledge of how the world of college basketball works.
No offense intended, but you don't. You're young, obviously.
We all get it, you have a massive erection for the freshmen, but zero of them have proven that they deserve to play major minutes. Burton has come the closest, but he still has a lot of work to do. Like Sultan said, these things are learned in practice, not games. Why should any player get minutes he hasn't earned?
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 20, 2014, 08:43:38 AM
Very logical intelligent answer.....
Heres another question....
If your a parent... Do you travel, drive or fly and take days off to go to games your child isnt gonna play in???
Im asking as a college player in general not just at MU if ya child was at lets say Michigan and stacking up DNP's would you still support the team and travel or not??
My response might be harsh, but if a kid transfers because Buzz doesn't feel that they have earned playing time...that's on the kid. That's not on Buzz. No coach should play someone just so they don't transfer.
And I'm not sure why the parent question is even relevant. My youngest barely played on any of his basketball teams, but I went to every single game my schedule allowed because I supported the team. It would be the same if I had a kid in college.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2014, 08:52:05 AM
No, you just have a less than average knowledge of how the world of college basketball works.
No offense intended, but you don't. You're young, obviously.
We all get it, you have a massive erection for the freshmen, but zero of them have proven that they deserve to play major minutes. Burton has come the closest, but he still has a lot of work to do. Like Sultan said, these things are learned in practice, not games. Why should any player get minutes he hasn't earned?
You probably shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know.....you couldn't be further from wrong in your above statement. Nevada knows a hell of a lot more about how college basketball works than 99% of the posters on this board....
Look....both Derrick and Jake have showed some improvement the last few games...yet when you look at the body of their work this season, along with Jake graduating this year...and Derrick being a senior next year...and the program's future - it would seem prudent to get both Dawson and JJJ more playing time...Dawson particularly...because he's shown that given 30 minutes in a game...he and team perform pretty well.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 08:45:54 AM
I haven't had an issue with how Derrick's played the last 2-3 games, he's shown better in a lot of areas...yet I still don't feel that you can win big time with a PG that is so limited from the perimeter. It is INCREDIBLY hard to try to coach around that deficiency...
Yet Buzz has managed to do just that. They have now scored 69+ points in four straight games....first time all season. And this is with Derrick getting almost all of the PG minutes.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 08:59:11 AM
Look....both Derrick and Jake have showed some improvement the last few games...yet when you look at the body of their work this season, along with Jake graduating this year...and Derrick being a senior next year...and the program's future - it would seem prudent to get both Dawson and JJJ more playing time...Dawson particularly...because he's shown that given 30 minutes in a game...he and team perform pretty well.
What's going to make them better next year is an off-season of working out, working on their game, playing against one another in open gym, etc. That is going to be *much* more effective for them than additional game minutes.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 08:59:11 AM
You probably shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know.....you couldn't be further from wrong in your above statement. Nevada knows a hell of a lot more about how college basketball works than 99% of the posters on this board....
Look....both Derrick and Jake have showed some improvement the last few games...yet when you look at the body of their work this season, along with Jake graduating this year...and Derrick being a senior next year...and the program's future - it would seem prudent to get both Dawson and JJJ more playing time...Dawson particularly...because he's shown that given 30 minutes in a game...he and team perform pretty well.
Ners, He has no idea who I am and lets keep it that way.
I don't take offense to anything. We all have our own opinion.
Wont change the price of tea in china will it?
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 09:03:32 AM
What's going to make them better next year is an off-season of working out, working on their game, playing against one another in open gym, etc. That is going to be *much* more effective for them than additional game minutes.
+100
I dig your perspective Sultan....
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 20, 2014, 09:08:22 AM
Ners, He has no idea who I am and lets keep it that way.
I don't take offense to anything. We all have our own opinion.
Wont change the price of tea in china will it?
Frankly, I don't care 'who' you are. I am judging you on what you say.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 08:59:11 AM
You probably shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know.....you couldn't be further from wrong in your above statement. Nevada knows a hell of a lot more about how college basketball works than 99% of the posters on this board....
Look....both Derrick and Jake have showed some improvement the last few games...yet when you look at the body of their work this season, along with Jake graduating this year...and Derrick being a senior next year...and the program's future - it would seem prudent to get both Dawson and JJJ more playing time...Dawson particularly...because he's shown that given 30 minutes in a game...he and team perform pretty well.
Buzz is doing what he's been doing since he got here – to great results in the past – and that is....riding his seniors. Jesus Christ, does everyone here remember the Cadougan-years??!!! We raked that kid over the coals. And for what? He wasn't the best PG ever, or the most flashy, but he was a good defender, and was a team leader. He couldn't shoot from outside, but he'd penetrate if there was an opening and shoot or dish. Based on the last four games, does that sound/look familiar? We (fans) have grown accustomed to having guards continuing to step up under Buzz' tenure. Was this year unrealistic expectations? Perhaps, especially after Blue leaving the Duane going down for the year. But bottom line is Buzz is doing what's worked for 6/7 seasons.
DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year. The problem w/this year's team is that it seemed (to us fans) to take DW 15-20 games to turn on the aggressiveness and begin driving to the hoop. I've seen him go to the hoop more in the last four games than the last 40.
Speaking of aggressiveness, JT is doing that as well. He's not passing open looks, he's playing w/confidence, and he's playing better. So, mix good guard play from your 1-2 over the last four games and look at our overall record during that time.
College hoops is a guards game right now. We didn't get consistent, confident guard play until lately. It's no coincidence that our W/L record during that time improved.
Side note – just because prognosticators said we would win the conference and didn't doesn't make this year a complete underachievement-fest. We were picked 8th last year I believe. Maybe, just maybe, it's the prognosticators who don't know what the hell they are talking about? Because you can't have it both ways – the predictors can't be 'stupid' one year (when we overachieve) and then be "experts" the next when we underachieve.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2014, 09:23:11 AM
Frankly, I don't care 'who' you are. I am judging you on what you say.
So how about i just -Ignore- you and thats the end of it. Clown
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on February 20, 2014, 09:25:21 AM
Buzz is doing what he's been doing since he got here – to great results in the past – and that is....riding his seniors. Jesus Christ, does everyone here remember the Cadougan-years??!!! We raked that kid over the coals. And for what? He wasn't the best PG ever, or the most flashy, but he was a good defender, and was a team leader. He couldn't shoot from outside, but he'd penetrate if there was an opening and shoot or dish. Based on the last four games, does that sound/look familiar? We (fans) have grown accustomed to having guards continuing to step up under Buzz' tenure. Was this year unrealistic expectations? Perhaps, especially after Blue leaving the Duane going down for the year. But bottom line is Buzz is doing what's worked for 6/7 seasons.
DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year. The problem w/this year's team is that it seemed (to us fans) to take DW 15-20 games to turn on the aggressiveness and begin driving to the hoop. I've seen him go to the hoop more in the last four games than the last 40.
College hoops is a guards game right now. We didn't get consistent, confident guard play until lately. It's no coincidence that our W/L record during that time improved.
The fall off from an Elite 8 team to this year's team is pretty damn far...farther than just being explained by Vander Blue and Trent Lockett not being on the team. Juan Anderson could practically replicate what Lockett gave...if Buzz gave him 30 minutes a game...and Juan is marginal at best player.
Derrick has been going aggressively to the basket for most all of the year...the statement he's gone to the basket more in the last 4 games than the last 40 is ridiculous...Derrick's scoring average has stayed the same from nonconference to conference...and we know he scores all is hoops from the basket/paint area..that said, Derrick has played better lately...I say that based on his defense/disruptive presence being much better than it had been...and he's also had some nice assists that he created really good looks for his teammates. And to say DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year is also ludicrous....you had to at least defend Cadougan at 3 point line, and midrange. Junior, though not a great shooter...was enough of a threat to where a defense had to play him honestly...that's yet to happen for Derrick....hopefully next year..
Getting excited over the wins over Butler and Seton Hall was foolsgold....those teams are not any good...Xavier was a "good" win, probably our best of the year, yet X isn't any kind of world beater team.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 09:40:56 AM
The fall off from an Elite 8 team to this year's team is pretty damn far...farther than just being explained by Vander Blue and Trent Lockett not being on the team. Juan Anderson could practically replicate what Lockett gave...if Buzz gave him 30 minutes a game...and Juan is marginal at best player.
Derrick has been going aggressively to the basket for most all of the year...the statement he's gone to the basket more in the last 4 games than the last 40 is ridiculous...Derrick's scoring average has stayed the same from nonconference to conference...and we know he scores all is hoops from the basket/paint area..that said, Derrick has played better lately...I say that based on his defense/disruptive presence being much better than it had been...and he's also had some nice assists that he created really good looks for his teammates. And to say DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year is also ludicrous....you had to at least defend Cadougan at 3 point line, and midrange. Junior, though not a great shooter...was enough of a threat to where a defense had to play him honestly...that's yet to happen for Derrick....hopefully next year..
Getting excited over the wins over Butler and Seton Hall was foolsgold....those teams are not any good...Xavier was a "good" win, probably our best of the year, yet X isn't any kind of world beater team.
+1. Derrick is not doing exactly what Jr. did last year. Jr. could feed the ball to the post. Derrick cannot. Derrick gets most of his assists feeding somebody on the perimeter. I have never seen more disrespect for a PG on the perimeter of our team than this year.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 08:36:32 AM
Players get better in practice more than they do on the floor in game time.
And playing them so they won't transfer? If they decide to transfer based on lack of playing time that the successful head coach doesn't believe they have earned yet, then leave. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. Completely replaceable.
And *all* freshman should see that there is going to be *plenty* of time available for them even next year.
If you let a Top 40 recruit walk because you're married to the idea of Juan Anderson playing 25 minutes, something's wrong. Top 40 recruits aren't completely replaceable.
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 19, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
If your a High School Senior being Recruited by Marquette, with the playing time these guys got this year would you come here?
Just asking.....
I have consistently felt that the use of our freshman this year has not been thought out carefully. Burton completely changes the dynamic of the game when he plays and it has been hard for Buzz to keep him off the floor totally but the minutes he receives are no where near enough. JJJ has shown a very quick first step, an ability to anticipate and make steals on defense and in the words of Todd Mayo is a "pure scorer", a guy like that needs more time. Frankly last night he would have been a major contributor on the defensive end with his anticipation. He is also one of the few guys who can create shots for others with his court vision. The other team was getting wide open layups and blowing by our guys and I think he would have been a counter force against that. Dawson has shown when he plays he can be a threat and the other team has to respect his offense. I don't think it is a case of him versus Derrick it is more a balancing of the minutes to get the best out of each.
Also I do think the treatment of these talented freshman players has implications for recruiting. I am a parent of D-1 college student athletes and understand what it takes to travel and support your kids playing. There is a lot of blood sweat and tears involved and there is a tremendous amount of emotion invested in the process. Everyone understands you earn your minutes through hard work in practice. My contention, is almost every college athlete I know at this level every one works their tail off in practice and year round. They simply couldn't be competing if they didn't. I think the offset is there has to be some accountability when it comes to actually playing in a game. It is one thing for the coach to have loyalty and confidence in his players which we all applaud, but when that loyalty becomes blind to the talents of those sitting on the bench who can contribute in different ways it creates a less than optimal climate on the team. That has a direct impact on recruiting, as a big part of the recruiting process is the chemistry of the current players being presented to the recruits. These kids may be young and impressionable but at a certain level their instincts take over and they see things for what they are.
Our coach is very meticulous about things but sometimes I think he misses the big picture. For example when we played New Mexico, how hard would it have been to give Dawson a few minutes? I am sure there were lots of his family that traveled up to that game. It is a cheap form of good will. Again I think he has to be cognizant of the implications of recruiting a guy top level guy like JJJ and then benching him. Word travels quickly and parents and recruits compare notes, and micro analyze everything. People in the basketball community know that he has real talent. It is plainly obvious to see his is an enthusiastic good hearted kid. So the translation of what happened to him this year onto the recruiting circuit can only be negative and used against us.You can say you don't want the inmates running the asylum and to a certain extent I agree, however on another level there has to be some practicality involved. No reason you cant be giving a guy like JJJ 10 minutes a game, 5 in each half is not a big deal . Look at Michigan State, Izzo makes sure his top recruits always get some playing time. For example Keith Appling came in behind Kalin Lucas who was a bona fide star, but he always got a handful of minutes as a freshman and he developed from there.
The coach has recruited some real talent and it is the programs best interest to utilize them.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
I have consistently felt that the use of our freshman this year has not been thought out carefully. Burton completely changes the dynamic of the game when he plays and it has been hard for Buzz to keep him off the floor totally but the minutes he receives are no where near enough. JJJ has shown a very quick first step, an ability to anticipate and make steals on defense and in the words of Todd Mayo is a "pure scorer", a guy like that needs more time. Frankly last night he would have been a major contributor on the defensive end with his anticipation. He is also one of the few guys who can create shots for others with his court vision. The other team was getting wide open layups and blowing by our guys and I think he would have been a counter force against that. Dawson has shown when he plays he can be a threat and the other team has to respect his offense. I don't think it is a case of him versus Derrick it is more a balancing of the minutes to get the best out of each.
Also I do think the treatment of these talented freshman players has implications for recruiting. I am a parent of D-1 college student athletes and understand what it takes to travel and support your kids playing. There is a lot of blood sweat and tears involved and there is a tremendous amount of emotion invested in the process. Everyone understands you earn your minutes through hard work in practice. My contention, is almost every college athlete I know at this level every one works their tail off in practice and year round. They simply couldn't be competing if they didn't. I think the offset is there has to be some accountability when it comes to actually playing in a game. It is one thing for the coach to have loyalty and confidence in his players which we all applaud, but when that loyalty becomes blind to the talents of those sitting on the bench who can contribute in different ways it creates a less than optimal climate on the team. That has a direct impact on recruiting, as a big part of the recruiting process is the chemistry of the current players being presented to the recruits. These kids may be young and impressionable but at a certain level their instincts take over and they see things for what they are.
Our coach is very meticulous about things but sometimes I think he misses the big picture. For example when we played New Mexico, how hard would it have been to give Dawson a few minutes? I am sure there were lots of his family that traveled up to that game. It is a cheap form of good will. Again I think he has to be cognizant of the implications of recruiting a guy top level guy like JJJ and then benching him. Word travels quickly and parents and recruits compare notes, and micro analyze everything. People in the basketball community know that he has real talent. It is plainly obvious to see his is an enthusiastic good hearted kid. So the translation of what happened to him this year onto the recruiting circuit can only be negative and used against us.You can say you don't want the inmates running the asylum and to a certain extent I agree, however on another level there has to be some practicality involved. No reason you cant be giving a guy like JJJ 10 minutes a game, 5 in each half is not a big deal . Look at Michigan State, Izzo makes sure his top recruits always get some playing time. For example Keith Appling came in behind Kalin Lucas who was a bona fide star, but he always got a handful of minutes as a freshman and he developed from there.
The coach has recruited some real talent and it is the programs best interest to utilize them.
+100000
Agree
If you had a 22-2 team that was #3 in the nation with 3 First Round picks on your team then to question why frosh arent playing would be silly.
But this team is not good enough in any way shape or form for guys to stack multiple DNP's and scoopers get all rattled when you question whats going on.
No one is saying Dawson or JJJ should play 40 Minutes a night but DNPs and 2-3 min garbage time speaks volumes to recruits who are picking colleges regardless of what anyone thinks.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 20, 2014, 06:37:23 AM
This team has so many warts it isn't even funny. Real lack of big time talent. Fundamentally poor with virtually no outside threat and inside players who can't finish or rebound.
Agreed and the urgency to win doesn't magically remove these warts. You just have to hope the urgency sharpens focus resulting in less turnovers and more made FTs.
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 10:13:06 AM
If you let a Top 40 recruit walk because you're married to the idea of Juan Anderson playing 25 minutes, something's wrong. Top 40 recruits aren't completely replaceable.
Juan has played more than 18 minutes just 5 times this season and is averaging 9.5 minutes in BE play. Good example ::)
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
I have consistently felt that the use of our freshman this year has not been thought out carefully. Burton completely changes the dynamic of the game when he plays and it has been hard for Buzz to keep him off the floor totally but the minutes he receives are no where near enough. JJJ has shown a very quick first step, an ability to anticipate and make steals on defense and in the words of Todd Mayo is a "pure scorer", a guy like that needs more time. Frankly last night he would have been a major contributor on the defensive end with his anticipation. He is also one of the few guys who can create shots for others with his court vision. The other team was getting wide open layups and blowing by our guys and I think he would have been a counter force against that. Dawson has shown when he plays he can be a threat and the other team has to respect his offense. I don't think it is a case of him versus Derrick it is more a balancing of the minutes to get the best out of each.
Have you seen Burton play D? Of course not! No one has! He's going to be one helluva player for MU but his defense needs a ton of work. JJJ has been battling an ankle injury for a few weeks now. He got extended minutes against St. John's and didn't do much. Why do teams need to respect Dawson's offense? Because he hit 2 threes in a game a month ago? He's shooting under 30% for the season, take away G'town and he's shooting under 25%. These 3 guys are each going to be difference-makers for MU in the future but they're not there yet.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
Also I do think the treatment of these talented freshman players has implications for recruiting.
4 of Marquette's last 6 recruiting classes have been ranked in the top 20, including 2013 (11th) and 2014 (19th).
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
Our coach is very meticulous about things but sometimes I think he misses the big picture. For example when we played New Mexico, how hard would it have been to give Dawson a few minutes? I am sure there were lots of his family that traveled up to that game. It is a cheap form of good will.
Marquette was in a dogfight with a very good New Mexico team (in Vegas, which is a 12-hour drive from Clovis, NM) yet you think Buzz should have given an unproven freshman a few minutes as "a cheap form of good will." Really?! Should Steve Taylor's mom be in charge of bringing a team snack to the DePaul game since he's from Chicago?
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
No reason you cant be giving a guy like JJJ 10 minutes a game, 5 in each half is not a big deal .
Given Marquette's small margin for error, 5 minutes in each half could be enough to turn a win into a loss.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
Look at Michigan State, Izzo makes sure his top recruits always get some playing time. For example Keith Appling came in behind Kalin Lucas who was a bona fide star, but he always got a handful of minutes as a freshman and he developed from there.
The coach has recruited some real talent and it is the programs best interest to utilize them.
Keith Appling was a McDonald's All-American who played 23 minutes/game as a frosh, not a "handful of minutes" that were basically to get him D1 experience.
"DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year. The problem w/this year's team is that it seemed (to us fans) to take DW 15-20 games to turn on the aggressiveness and begin driving to the hoop. I've seen him go to the hoop more in the last four games than the last 40."
Wow... I never saw teams sag 10 feet off JR, I saw JR take and hit 3's, I saw JR make awesome cross-court passes for assists on fast breaks, I saw JR make free throws, I saw JR drive in traffic and make baskets....
not sure what you are watching, maybe want to cut back on the kool-aid a bit,
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 10:13:06 AM
If you let a Top 40 recruit walk because you're married to the idea of Juan Anderson playing 25 minutes, something's wrong. Top 40 recruits aren't completely replaceable.
The player development is what concerns me more. The "earn" playing time line is sad, since it places blame all on the player. A top 40 recruit getting DNPs on a lacking team after being on campus for seven months. If it takes longer and there's a magical wall for freshmen, we can move to the above slight at Anderson - he was a top 100 recruit nearing the end of his junior season and has progressed to the point of being barely a role player on a lacking team. Jamil Wilson - top 40 recruit in his fifth season and would fit better as a role player than team leader. Is it squarely the fault of these players and others, or are they receiving subpar guidance that has hampered their development?
Quote from: chapman on February 20, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
The player development is what concerns me more. The "earn" playing time line is sad, since it places blame all on the player. A top 40 recruit getting DNPs on a lacking team after being on campus for seven months. If it takes longer and there's a magical wall for freshmen, we can move to the above slight at Anderson - he was a top 100 recruit nearing the end of his junior season and has progressed to the point of being barely a role player on a lacking team. Jamil Wilson - top 40 recruit in his fifth season and would fit better as a role player than team leader. Is it squarely the fault of these players and others, or are they receiving subpar guidance that has hampered their development?
It's clearly the guidance. I mean, it's not like Marquette has recently taken 3 no-name recruits and sent them to the NBA.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
Juan has played more than 18 minutes just 5 times this season and is averaging 9.5 minutes in BE play. Good example ::)
You're right, I should have checked. How many other Top 100 schools would Juan be playing anywhere near 9.5 minutes? Especially when he is on the floor t the same time as a PG who isn't guarded five feet from the basket?
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 11:41:14 AM
You're right, I should have checked. How many other Top 100 schools would Juan be playing anywhere near 9.5 minutes? Especially when he is on the floor t the same time as a PG who isn't guarded five feet from the basket?
73
Quote from: madtownwarrior on February 20, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
"DW is doing EXACTLY what Junior did last year. The problem w/this year's team is that it seemed (to us fans) to take DW 15-20 games to turn on the aggressiveness and begin driving to the hoop. I've seen him go to the hoop more in the last four games than the last 40."
Wow... I never saw teams sag 10 feet off JR, I saw JR take and hit 3's, I saw JR make awesome cross-court passes for assists on fast breaks, I saw JR make free throws, I saw JR drive in traffic and make baskets....
not sure what you are watching, maybe want to cut back on the kool-aid a bit,
You are absolutely spot on Madtown, but it really does not matter. Buzz loves Derrick, it is Buzz's way or the highway, Buzz says Derrick is a "game changer", and Buzz is not going to change. Meanwhile those defenders of Buzz and Derrick will blindly slurp and not recognize that Derrick hurts the offense, especially against the good well coached teams, because they clog the lane and do not guard him in the half court, because he is no threat to shoot. This is patently obvious to anybody, even to 12 year old girls (as has already been posted).
And you will notice how those people crucified Ners for raising this issue. It boils down to:
1. Buzz says so
2. Buzz will continue to play Derrick for 39 minutes, because "he has no other options"
3. People that point this out are haters, idiots, Negative Nancies, not real fans, know nothing about BBall
4. Buzz has earned the right to do as he pleases.
5. Get used to it, because Derrick will be the man again next year
6.. And so on...
I've been critical of DWill early this year, and, to be fair, he has well documented weaknesses. However, he has played very very well these last couple of weeks. The trouble is that we have several players with these weaknesses, and it's difficult to justify playing DWil along side Juan and Otule. It just doesn't work. Juan and DWil command no respect as jumpshooters, and Wilson flat out refuses to shoot them to even keep them honest.
So Wilson is a serviceable player that can be a part of something good, but you have to have the right complimentary pieces there. When you have too many players with the same glaring weakness, you have summed up everything that happened this year and why we are not a tourny team.
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 10:13:06 AM
If you let a Top 40 recruit walk because you're married to the idea of Juan Anderson playing 25 minutes, something's wrong. Top 40 recruits aren't completely replaceable.
If Juan earns the time and the freshman doesn't, and the freshman walks because if it, let him go.
I am completely, 100% serious about that.
Quote from: chapman on February 20, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
The player development is what concerns me more. The "earn" playing time line is sad, since it places blame all on the player. A top 40 recruit getting DNPs on a lacking team after being on campus for seven months. If it takes longer and there's a magical wall for freshmen, we can move to the above slight at Anderson - he was a top 100 recruit nearing the end of his junior season and has progressed to the point of being barely a role player on a lacking team. Jamil Wilson - top 40 recruit in his fifth season and would fit better as a role player than team leader. Is it squarely the fault of these players and others, or are they receiving subpar guidance that has hampered their development?
Yeah...players don't develop under Buzz Williams. Good call. ::)
Quote from: willie warrior on February 20, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
You are absolutely spot on Madtown, but it really does not matter. Buzz loves Derrick, it is Buzz's way or the highway, Buzz says Derrick is a "game changer", and Buzz is not going to change. Meanwhile those defenders of Buzz and Derrick will blindly slurp and not recognize that Derrick hurts the offense, especially against the good well coached teams, because they clog the lane and do not guard him in the half court, because he is no threat to shoot. This is patently obvious to anybody, even to 12 year old girls (as has already been posted).
And you will notice how those people crucified Ners for raising this issue. It boils down to:
1. Buzz says so
2. Buzz will continue to play Derrick for 39 minutes, because "he has no other options"
3. People that point this out are haters, idiots, Negative Nancies, not real fans, know nothing about BBall
4. Buzz has earned the right to do as he pleases.
5. Get used to it, because Derrick will be the man again next year
6.. And so on...
Actually it is very simple..."Derrick Wilson is the best point guard on Marquette's roster right now."
No one is making excuses...that is a simple and basic fact that addresses all counter-points. Marquette's offense is actually functioning very well the last few games. Derrick had six assists and one turnover (an offensive foul), went 3-6 with seven points. Not stellar by any means, but better production than anyone else IMO.
Quote from: Gardner's Postgame Snack on February 20, 2014, 12:02:58 PM
I've been critical of DWill early this year, and, to be fair, he has well documented weaknesses. However, he has played very very well these last couple of weeks. The trouble is that we have several players with these weaknesses, and it's difficult to justify playing DWil along side Juan and Otule. It just doesn't work. Juan and DWil command no respect as jumpshooters, and Wilson flat out refuses to shoot them to even keep them honest.
So Wilson is a serviceable player that can be a part of something good, but you have to have the right complimentary pieces there. When you have too many players with the same glaring weakness, you have summed up everything that happened this year and why we are not a tourny team.
The hard fact is that from the start of this season until now Derrick is our most improved player. Imagine how good we be, if all of the players had improved as much as Derrick has.
Quote from: Gardner's Postgame Snack on February 20, 2014, 12:02:58 PM
So Wilson is a serviceable player that can be a part of something good, but you have to have the right complimentary pieces there. When you have too many players with the same glaring weakness, you have summed up everything that happened this year and why we are not a tourny team.
Yep. This is it. 100% correct.
Quote from: Nevada233 on February 20, 2014, 09:08:22 AM
Ners, He has no idea who I am and lets keep it that way.
Laughable. I don't care if you're Doc Rivers.
and you hit the point that frustrates the most:
"Get used to it, because Derrick will be the man again next year"
will be real interesting to see what Buzz does next year:
1) Don't think Derrick has too much of a higher ceiling
2) Buzz does love him
3) Alternatives - Dawson / Du Wilson still unproven next year as they did not play this year
4) Buzz not going to start an incoming freshman if we had a PG recruit
5) Less talent in the front court overall gonna need a great PG to balance next year
not sure next year any better unless something changes...
Quote from: willie warrior on February 20, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
You are absolutely spot on Madtown, but it really does not matter. Buzz loves Derrick, it is Buzz's way or the highway, Buzz says Derrick is a "game changer", and Buzz is not going to change. Meanwhile those defenders of Buzz and Derrick will blindly slurp and not recognize that Derrick hurts the offense, especially against the good well coached teams, because they clog the lane and do not guard him in the half court, because he is no threat to shoot. This is patently obvious to anybody, even to 12 year old girls (as has already been posted).
And you will notice how those people crucified Ners for raising this issue. It boils down to:
1. Buzz says so
2. Buzz will continue to play Derrick for 39 minutes, because "he has no other options"
3. People that point this out are haters, idiots, Negative Nancies, not real fans, know nothing about BBall
4. Buzz has earned the right to do as he pleases.
5. Get used to it, because Derrick will be the man again next year
6.. And so on...
Quote from: madtownwarrior on February 20, 2014, 12:18:35 PM
and you hit the point that frustrates the most:
"Get used to it, because Derrick will be the man again next year"
will be real interesting to see what Buzz does next year:
1) Don't think Derrick has too much of a higher ceiling
2) Buzz does love him
3) Alternatives - Dawson / Du Wilson still unproven next year as they did not play this year
4) Buzz not going to start an incoming freshman if we had a PG recruit
5) Less talent in the front court overall gonna need a great PG to balance next year
not sure next year any better unless something changes...
Both Duane and Dawson will have a year of experience in a D1 basketball program, plus the on-campus offseason. Being "unproven" will have nothing to do with who plays.
Buzz loved Derrick last year too but that didn't prevent him from starting a more talented player and giving Derrick just 13 min per. Buzz also loves Otule and thinks DG is lazy, but he still gives Gardner a bulk of the minutes. The notion of a high-major D1 basketball coach "playing favorites" is asinine.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 11:27:21 AM
Have you seen Burton play D? Of course not! No one has! He's going to be one helluva player for MU but his defense needs a ton of work. JJJ has been battling an ankle injury for a few weeks now. He got extended minutes against St. John's and didn't do much. Why do teams need to respect Dawson's offense? Because he hit 2 threes in a game a month ago? He's shooting under 30% for the season, take away G'town and he's shooting under 25%. These 3 guys are each going to be difference-makers for MU in the future but they're not there yet.
4 of Marquette's last 6 recruiting classes have been ranked in the top 20, including 2013 (11th) and 2014 (19th).
Marquette was in a dogfight with a very good New Mexico team (in Vegas, which is a 12-hour drive from Clovis, NM) yet you think Buzz should have given an unproven freshman a few minutes as "a cheap form of good will." Really?! Should Steve Taylor's mom be in charge of bringing a team snack to the DePaul game since he's from Chicago?
Given Marquette's small margin for error, 5 minutes in each half could be enough to turn a win into a loss.
Keith Appling was a McDonald's All-American who played 23 minutes/game as a frosh, not a "handful of minutes" that were basically to get him D1 experience.
The point is each of the three freshman bring something very positive to the table. Yes they are young and have room to grow. On the other hand the players that are getting the minutes are also not without significant liabilities. My point is that the athletic abilities of the freshman are something this team is desperate need of today.
This years recruiting class was more high profile than year past, plus we are in a new conference so the stakes are higher in making sure the experience is good in my view. We can't just offer a Big East position, because that Big East no longer exists.
As to the point of parent bringing snacks. Magic Johnson's mother would show up at all the LA LAKERS games in Detroit with sweet potato pie. So yes these things do matter.
Seriously would five minutes a half less of Derick Jake Juan make a big difference?
Keith Appling did not get the majority of his minutes his freshman year until after Korie Luscious was kicked off the team. JJJ has the same level of ability up front that Appling had going into MSU. Yes he had his ankle injury and I understand that can be chronic, but the kid is flat out on another level in terms of explosiveness. His body language shows that our coach doesn't believe in him and that is an important factor in success.
To anyone who would argue that Wilson is doing what Cadougan did for us, here's some numbers to shed some light on the situation.
Junior Cadougan attempted 62 3 point FG's last year making only 14 for a .226 rate. He played in all 35 games last year attempting 1.8 3 point FG's per game.
Derrick Wilson has attempted 13 3 point FG's this year making only 1 for a .077 rate. He has played in all 26 games so fare attempting .5 3 point FG's per game.
Was Cadougan a great shooter? No.
Did he still need to keep his man honest? Yes.
At the end of the day Cadougan kept teams honest. He didn't shoot well but he took enough shots and enough went in that his defender had to account for him and it enabled him to get to the basket off the dribble and find open shooters because his defender couldn't sag into the lane.
It's night and day the difference he had on last years team compared to who's running the point this year. Derrick Wilson is playing a lot better the last 6 games or so but to claim he's doing the same things Cadougan did is an outright lie.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 12:28:13 PM
Both Duane and Dawson will have a year of experience in a D1 basketball program, plus the on-campus offseason. Being "unproven" will have nothing to do with who plays.
Buzz loved Derrick last year too but that didn't prevent him from starting a more talented player and giving Derrick just 13 min per. Buzz also loves Otule and thinks DG is lazy, but he still gives Gardner a bulk of the minutes. The notion of a high-major D1 basketball coach "playing favorites" is asinine.
Exactly.
If Dawson or Duane earns the time, they will play ahead of Derrick. Hell, Buzz was giving more time to Dawson just a couple weeks ago until he had a set back.
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 11:41:14 AM
You're right, I should have checked. How many other Top 100 schools would Juan be playing anywhere near 9.5 minutes? Especially when he is on the floor t the same time as a PG who isn't guarded five feet from the basket?
Great point that gets overlooked. When JA is on the floor the same time as DW the defense has two guys they can sag off from because neither JA or DW will shoot the ball beyond a layup. Anderson and Wilson are not offensive threats so virtually everyone else gets doubled up.
No way we beat any good team when TWO players on the court will never shoot. Our 11 losses so far would agree.
Perplexing season because JA is getting more time than ST or JJJ and I for sure thought both were better than JA. I certainly hope it is not an ability issue becasue if it is then we are in for a world of hurt next year. I get ST has been hurt, but something does not feel right.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
The point is each of the three freshman bring something very positive to the table. Yes they are young and have room to grow. On the other hand the players that are getting the minutes are also not without significant liabilities. My point is that the athletic abilities of the freshman are something this team is desperate need of today.
This years recruiting class was more high profile than year past, plus we are in a new conference so the stakes are higher in making sure the experience is good in my view. We can't just offer a Big East position, because that Big East no longer exists.
As to the point of parent bringing snacks. Magic Johnson's mother would show up at all the LA LAKERS games in Detroit with sweet potato pie. So yes these things do matter.
Seriously would five minutes a half less of Derick Jake Juan make a big difference?
Keith Appling did not get the majority of his minutes his freshman year until after Korie Luscious was kicked off the team. JJJ has the same level of ability up front that Appling had going into MSU. Yes he had his ankle injury and I understand that can be chronic, but the kid is flat out on another level in terms of explosiveness. His body language shows that our coach doesn't believe in him and that is an important factor in success.
True, the frosh do bring something positive to the table. However, in the coaches' minds, they bring fewer positives and/or more negatives than the current players seeing a bulk of the minutes.
So...once a year Lakers players in the 80s would get homemade sweet potato pie and that's why New Mexico native John Dawson should have played in a game in Las Vegas as a way to help recruiting?
Appling played 19.6 min before Lucious was booted. How was his body language though?
Sigh...so much illogical thinking going on in this thread. I don't even know where to begin. I know, let's organize it:
Can we make the tournament?
Two days ago a majority of this board was talking about how we needed to go at least 4-2 or 5-1 to have a shot at the tournament. Then we lost. Even though the pregame prediction allowed for up to two losses, somehow this board has forgetten that. Please try to have memories that last longer than the last game Marquette played. Do I think we make the tournament? Honestly, no. I think it requires winning @NOVA and we are terrible in Philly. But I am sure hella glad that my coach is a Warrior who is going to fight until the bitter end. We play to win now, that is what Buzz is paid for.
Do the freshmen deserve more playing time?
No. If they could help us WIN RIGHT NOW, they would be playing. An argument could be made that if we had played them sooner that we would be better now. That is POSSIBLY true but there is no way to prove it. However, if we played the freshmen earlier, I would bet a lot of money that we would have even more losses and wouldn't even be in this conversation. We pay Buzz to win now. There is no higher draft pick in college to tank for. Even if we go 0-5, we can still win the BET. The upperclassmen give us a better shot at that.
Will the freshmen transfer because of playing time?
Let's think about this logically. If you accept the premise that the freshmen want more playing time right now, then why would they transfer? Next season at least one of them will HAVE to start (unless we have a really good freshmen) and if they aren't starting, they will be the first options off the bench. If they transfer, then they will get ZERO playing time next year as they will have to sit out. In two years, they will be the stars of this team as their will be only one Senior ahead of them. Meanwhile, if they transferred, they would be just getting to play now and would probably be getting the same if not less PT that they would have gotten for Marquette. The ONLY time transferring for PT makes sense is if you think that a player younger than you is going to be above you on the depth chart. That's why I hold that Dawson may transfer because Duane is now in a lower class than he is. I hope he doesn't, kid has talent. These players picked Marquette for more reasons than just PT. Trust those other reasons.
Also, these freshmen are in the top 7 in freshmen minutes during the Buzz era. Only Mayo, Vander, Gardner, and Maymon had more. If Buzz is half the man I think he is, I am sure he would have given these frosh heads up about what kind of PT they could expect.
Will frosh playing time this year negatively impact recruiting?
This is an argument I am more willing to accept. However, I think it is flawed. I truly believe that Buzz plays the players who give us the best chance of winning. If we accept this premise, then we must assume that the freshmen would be getting even less playing time at teams that are better than us. Buzz can counter any concerns a recruit has about PT but simply stating that the players who give us the best chance to win will play. Every HS student thinks that they will help a college team win. And if they don't think that they can help us win, then we probably don't want them.
So yes, I think an opposing coach could point to freshmen PT and try to sway recruits away from us. But the only teams that can do that are teams who are worse than us, so we have the upper hand on them in other ways. Our freshmen would not be starting at 95% of the teams that are better than us this year.
Recruits choose schools for more than immediate playing time.
Derrick
He has improved greatly over the past few games. Next season no longer gives me a pit in my stomach. Yes, I wish he could shoot a three. He's got the form, he just needs to make them. I hope he takes 1000 threes a day every day of the off season. But Derrick is still the best option we have at point right now. To say otherwise is simply not true.
I would respond to specific posters...there was a plethora of logical fallacies. But I signed the NEP. Just got my 1 week sober pin. Don't want to lose that.
Juan
I just saw the line of comments about Juan Anderson not getting 9.5 mpg at any other top 100 school. Again, just flat out false.
Juan gets enough minutes to qualify as our third option off the bench. He gets 3.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.0 apg, and 1.0 spg.
Let's compare him to other 3rd off the bench players in the BEast.
Creighton: Will Artino-6.3, 3.7 rpg, 0.3 apg, 0.3 bpg (advantage Artino)
Villanova: Tony Chenault, 3.0 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 0.7 spg (Advantage Anderson)
Xavier: Brandon Randolph, 3.3 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 1.7 apg, 0.4 spg (advantage Anderson)
St. John's: Jamal Branch, 4.2 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.6 spg (push)
Providence: Ted Bancroft, 0.5 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.1 apg, 0.3 spg (advantage Anderson)
Georgetown: Moses Ayegba, 2.1 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.2 apg, 0.7 bpg (advantage Anderson)
Seton Hall: Haralds Karlis, 1.8 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 0.6 apg, 0.3 spg (advantage Anderson)
Buter: Jackson Aldridge, 1.7 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.5 apg, .333 3P (advantage Anderson)
Depaul: Greg Sequele, 1.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 0.1 apg, 0.4 bpg (advantage Anderson)
So basically every team in the Big East besides Creighton and St. John's would be improved if they got the same level of production out of their 3rd bench player as Marquette does out of Juan Anderson. We fans simply have too high of expectations for a bench player.
The one thing I will agree with is that I expect a junior to be either starting or at the top of our bench. I would rather lose Juan's senior year if he's going to be our third option of the bench and sign someone with more upside.
Why don't some of you clowns compare the numbers of Junior C as a Junior and Derrick Wilson as a Freshman, to Derrick as a Junior and Dawson as a Freshman. I think you'll find a whole lot of similarities.
Junior is a little better player, but the other difference is that he was playing along side 3 guys who have played in the NBA or at least gotten a serious look (Crowder, DJO, and Blue). Wilson of course, is not.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 20, 2014, 01:34:13 PM
Why don't some of you clowns compare the numbers of Junior C as a Junior and Derrick Wilson as a Freshman, to Derrick as a Junior and Dawson as a Freshman. I think you'll find a whole lot of similarities.
Junior is a little better player, but the other difference is that he was playing along side 3 guys who have played in the NBA or at least gotten a serious look (Crowder, DJO, and Blue). Wilson of course, is not.
Clown, here. See links below...
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=derrick-wilson&junior-cadougan=2011-2012&p1=junior-cadougan (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=derrick-wilson&junior-cadougan=2011-2012&p1=junior-cadougan)
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?derrick-wilson=2011-2012&p2=derrick-wilson&p3=john-dawson&remove=junior-cadougan (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?derrick-wilson=2011-2012&p2=derrick-wilson&p3=john-dawson&remove=junior-cadougan)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 12:42:00 PM
True, the frosh do bring something positive to the table. However, in the coaches' minds, they bring fewer positives and/or more negatives than the current players seeing a bulk of the minutes.
So...once a year Lakers players in the 80s would get homemade sweet potato pie and that's why New Mexico native John Dawson should have played in a game in Las Vegas as a way to help recruiting?
Appling played 19.6 min before Lucious was booted. How was his body language though?
Yes your first point is true, the coaches see it that way. I guess I see it differently. I can tell you from personal experience families matter, as a matter of fact some coaches will tell you up front they are recruiting the family just as much as the kid. I am not the only person on this board who brought up the fact that it was a faux pas not getting Dawson in that New Mexico game. Dean Smith used to bring in all the subs with 2 minutes to go before Halftime. It can be done with out sacrificing competitiveness. Finally, Your actually making my point for me on JJJ. Appling got real playing time, he had lots of ups and downs that first year and Izzo worked through them because he knew there was a pot of gold at the end. MSU had a kid named Mike Kebler who was essentially the Jake of their team. Kebler worked his rear end off and got meaningful playing time in big games, it was well deserved but it was in proportion to his ability. We need more of an investment in JJJ playing time in my view as I think he will be worth it. I would settle for 10 but yes it should be more like what Appling got.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 20, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
Yes your first point is true, the coaches see it that way. I guess I see it differently. I can tell you from personal experience families matter, as a matter of fact some coaches will tell you up front they are recruiting the family just as much as the kid. I am not the only person on this board who brought up the fact that it was a faux pas not getting Dawson in that New Mexico game. Dean Smith used to bring in all the subs with 2 minutes to go before Halftime. It can be done with out sacrificing competitiveness. Finally, Your actually making my point for me on JJJ. Appling got real playing time, he had lots of ups and downs that first year and Izzo worked through them because he knew there was a pot of gold at the end. MSU had a kid named Mike Kebler who was essentially the Jake of their team. Kebler worked his rear end off and got meaningful playing time in big games, it was well deserved but it was in proportion to his ability. We need more of an investment in JJJ playing time in my view as I think he will be worth it. I would settle for 10 but yes it should be more like what Appling got.
Please cite a source showing that Dean Smith used to do that. I find it hard to believe.
You realize that the game against New Mexico wasn't IN New Mexico, right? It was in Vegas, 12 hours away from Dawson's hometown. If I was a parent (or recruit) and a coach put an undeserving player into a tightly-contested game simply because it happened to be in the same general vicinity as his hometown, I'd think that the coach isn't serious about winning.
To each his own.
I've always backed DWill and will continue to do so, he has to start taking some midrange shots though. If he can keep his opponent out a little more on him he will be able to get a ton more blow by drives. He has the ability to get recruited and pay for a high D-1 college, i imagine that he should be able to knock down a few 10 to 15 footers
NM
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 11:27:21 AM
Have you seen Burton play D? Of course not! No one has! He's going to be one helluva player for MU but his defense needs a ton of work. JJJ has been battling an ankle injury for a few weeks now. He got extended minutes against St. John's and didn't do much. Why do teams need to respect Dawson's offense? Because he hit 2 threes in a game a month ago? He's shooting under 30% for the season, take away G'town and he's shooting under 25%. These 3 guys are each going to be difference-makers for MU in the future but they're not there yet.
4 of Marquette's last 6 recruiting classes have been ranked in the top 20, including 2013 (11th) and 2014 (19th).
Marquette was in a dogfight with a very good New Mexico team (in Vegas, which is a 12-hour drive from Clovis, NM) yet you think Buzz should have given an unproven freshman a few minutes as "a cheap form of good will." Really?! Should Steve Taylor's mom be in charge of bringing a team snack to the DePaul game since he's from Chicago?
Given Marquette's small margin for error, 5 minutes in each half could be enough to turn a win into a loss.
Keith Appling was a McDonald's All-American who played 23 minutes/game as a frosh, not a "handful of minutes" that were basically to get him D1 experience.
Yup nailed it.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 20, 2014, 01:34:13 PM
Why don't some of you clowns compare the numbers of Junior C as a Junior and Derrick Wilson as a Freshman, to Derrick as a Junior and Dawson as a Freshman. I think you'll find a whole lot of similarities.
Junior is a little better player, but the other difference is that he was playing along side 3 guys who have played in the NBA or at least gotten a serious look (Crowder, DJO, and Blue). Wilson of course, is not.
And the other differences are Jr could shoot 3's, pass to the post, and get teammates easy looks.
you forgot that:
1) Junior did not have players sagging 10 feet off of him causing havoc for the rest of the team
2) Junior could drive in traffic and make baskets, not just uncontested layups
Quote from: mubuzz on February 20, 2014, 03:23:26 PM
And the other differences are Jr could shoot 3's, pass to the post, and get teammates easy looks.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on February 20, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
you forgot that:
1) Junior did not have players sagging 10 feet off of him causing havoc for the rest of the team
2) Junior could drive in traffic and make baskets, not just uncontested layups
but Wilson did raise his 3pth shooting percentage from 0.0% to 7.7% from Freshman to Junior year ;)
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 12:10:40 PM
Actually it is very simple..."Derrick Wilson is the best point guard on Marquette's roster right now."
No one is making excuses...that is a simple and basic fact that addresses all counter-points. Marquette's offense is actually functioning very well the last few games. Derrick had six assists and one turnover (an offensive foul), went 3-6 with seven points. Not stellar by any means, but better production than anyone else IMO.
3-6, 7 points and 6 assists would be a serviceable enough line for a PG in 40 minutes - if the result of that PG playing didn't negatively trickle down to affect the other 4 players on the floor with him. It is the exact opposite scenario of what a PG should be for a basketball team - a guy who makes everyone around him better. When he doesn't need to be defended within 8 feet on the perimeter....that makes it incredibly hard for everyone else playing with him...
Buzz has said we are playing 4 on 5 with him on the court. He concedes it. Knows it. Keeps rolling with it for 32+ minutes per game.
As I've said about 10 times for everyone who wanted to look to Dawson's poor game against Seton Hall as evidence he is in no way ready, or better than Derrick - AS BAD AS DAWSON WAS IN HIS 9 MINUTES AGAINST SETON HALL.....WE ACTUALLY GREW OUR LEAD FROM 6 TO 8 POINTS. HE WASN'T A NET NEGATIVE IN THAT STRETCH...EVEN THOUGH HE WAS FAR AND AWAY AS BAD AS HE'S BEEN AT ANY POINT. How could this be, given that Dawson is so weak on defense (allegedly), and that we grew a lead with our best defender on the bench?
Just by virtue of Dawson needing to be guarded on the perimeter, that in and of itself makes the team better...for 4 other teammates on the floor with him!
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 12:35:29 PM
Exactly.
If Dawson or Duane earns the time, they will play ahead of Derrick. Hell, Buzz was giving more time to Dawson just a couple weeks ago until he had a set back.
Yeah...Buzz gave Dawson all of 9 minutes against Nova after his really good performance against GTown on the road. Would think that might have "earned" him a little more...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 20, 2014, 01:22:56 PM
Sigh...so much illogical thinking going on in this thread. I don't even know where to begin. I know, let's organize it:
Can we make the tournament?
Two days ago a majority of this board was talking about how we needed to go at least 4-2 or 5-1 to have a shot at the tournament. Then we lost. Even though the pregame prediction allowed for up to two losses, somehow this board has forgetten that. Please try to have memories that last longer than the last game Marquette played. Do I think we make the tournament? Honestly, no. I think it requires winning @NOVA and we are terrible in Philly. But I am sure hella glad that my coach is a Warrior who is going to fight until the bitter end. We play to win now, that is what Buzz is paid for.
Do the freshmen deserve more playing time?
No. If they could help us WIN RIGHT NOW, they would be playing. An argument could be made that if we had played them sooner that we would be better now. That is POSSIBLY true but there is no way to prove it. However, if we played the freshmen earlier, I would bet a lot of money that we would have even more losses and wouldn't even be in this conversation. We pay Buzz to win now. There is no higher draft pick in college to tank for. Even if we go 0-5, we can still win the BET. The upperclassmen give us a better shot at that.
Will the freshmen transfer because of playing time?
Let's think about this logically. If you accept the premise that the freshmen want more playing time right now, then why would they transfer? Next season at least one of them will HAVE to start (unless we have a really good freshmen) and if they aren't starting, they will be the first options off the bench. If they transfer, then they will get ZERO playing time next year as they will have to sit out. In two years, they will be the stars of this team as their will be only one Senior ahead of them. Meanwhile, if they transferred, they would be just getting to play now and would probably be getting the same if not less PT that they would have gotten for Marquette. The ONLY time transferring for PT makes sense is if you think that a player younger than you is going to be above you on the depth chart. That's why I hold that Dawson may transfer because Duane is now in a lower class than he is. I hope he doesn't, kid has talent. These players picked Marquette for more reasons than just PT. Trust those other reasons.
Also, these freshmen are in the top 7 in freshmen minutes during the Buzz era. Only Mayo, Vander, Gardner, and Maymon had more. If Buzz is half the man I think he is, I am sure he would have given these frosh heads up about what kind of PT they could expect.
Will frosh playing time this year negatively impact recruiting?
This is an argument I am more willing to accept. However, I think it is flawed. I truly believe that Buzz plays the players who give us the best chance of winning. If we accept this premise, then we must assume that the freshmen would be getting even less playing time at teams that are better than us. Buzz can counter any concerns a recruit has about PT but simply stating that the players who give us the best chance to win will play. Every HS student thinks that they will help a college team win. And if they don't think that they can help us win, then we probably don't want them.
So yes, I think an opposing coach could point to freshmen PT and try to sway recruits away from us. But the only teams that can do that are teams who are worse than us, so we have the upper hand on them in other ways. Our freshmen would not be starting at 95% of the teams that are better than us this year.
Recruits choose schools for more than immediate playing time.
Derrick
He has improved greatly over the past few games. Next season no longer gives me a pit in my stomach. Yes, I wish he could shoot a three. He's got the form, he just needs to make them. I hope he takes 1000 threes a day every day of the off season. But Derrick is still the best option we have at point right now. To say otherwise is simply not true.
I would respond to specific posters...there was a plethora of logical fallacies. But I signed the NEP. Just got my 1 week sober pin. Don't want to lose that.
Juan
I just saw the line of comments about Juan Anderson not getting 9.5 mpg at any other top 100 school. Again, just flat out false.
Juan gets enough minutes to qualify as our third option off the bench. He gets 3.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.0 apg, and 1.0 spg.
Let's compare him to other 3rd off the bench players in the BEast.
Creighton: Will Artino-6.3, 3.7 rpg, 0.3 apg, 0.3 bpg (advantage Artino)
Villanova: Tony Chenault, 3.0 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 0.7 spg (Advantage Anderson)
Xavier: Brandon Randolph, 3.3 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 1.7 apg, 0.4 spg (advantage Anderson)
St. John's: Jamal Branch, 4.2 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.6 spg (push)
Providence: Ted Bancroft, 0.5 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.1 apg, 0.3 spg (advantage Anderson)
Georgetown: Moses Ayegba, 2.1 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.2 apg, 0.7 bpg (advantage Anderson)
Seton Hall: Haralds Karlis, 1.8 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 0.6 apg, 0.3 spg (advantage Anderson)
Buter: Jackson Aldridge, 1.7 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.5 apg, .333 3P (advantage Anderson)
Depaul: Greg Sequele, 1.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 0.1 apg, 0.4 bpg (advantage Anderson)
So basically every team in the Big East besides Creighton and St. John's would be improved if they got the same level of production out of their 3rd bench player as Marquette does out of Juan Anderson. We fans simply have too high of expectations for a bench player.
The one thing I will agree with is that I expect a junior to be either starting or at the top of our bench. I would rather lose Juan's senior year if he's going to be our third option of the bench and sign someone with more upside.
The stuff on Juan would be great except for the fact that he has STARTED games this year and has been on the floor several times with DWill, Jake and Chris. It's nothing per se against Juan, but he has lost all confidence in his crap.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 03:50:25 PM
As I've said about 10 times for everyone who wanted to look to Dawson's poor game against Seton Hall as evidence he is in no way ready, or better than Derrick - AS BAD AS DAWSON WAS IN HIS 9 MINUTES AGAINST SETON HALL.....WE ACTUALLY GREW OUR LEAD FROM 6 TO 8 POINTS. HE WASN'T A NET NEGATIVE IN THAT STRETCH...EVEN THOUGH HE WAS FAR AND AWAY AS BAD AS HE'S BEEN AT ANY POINT. How could this be, given that Dawson is so weak on defense (allegedly), and that we grew a lead with our best defender on the bench?
Just by virtue of Dawson needing to be guarded on the perimeter, that in and of itself makes the team better...for 4 other teammates on the floor with him!
Let's break down those 9 minutes, shall we?
12:31 Dawson checks in
12:13 Mayo hits 2 FTs (+2)
11:56 Steal by Jamil
11:27 Gardner scores on off reb (+4)
11:14 Steal by Jamil
11:08 Gardner hits 2 FTs (+6)
10:24 SHU lay-up (+4)
9:54 Gardner scores on off reb (+6)
9:38 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
8:58 SHU lay-up (+4)
8:37 TO by Jake
8:18 Burton misses a jumper
8:16 Mayo misses a 3
8:08 SHU makes a 3 (+1)
7:56 TO by Dawson
7:46 TO by SHU
7:30 TO by Dawson
6:58 SHU makes a 3 (-2)
6:35 Juan scores on off reb (E)
6:19 SHU misses a 3
6:04 SHU misses a jumper
5:42 Mayo misses a lay-up
5:38 TO by SHU
5:11 TO by Dawson
4:43 SHU misses lay-up
4:34 TO by Juan
4:29 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
4:12 Jamil makes 2 FT (+2)
4:12 Dawson out
MU shot 3-9 from the floor and turned the ball over 5 times while SHU went 0-4 on FTs (all attempts off of Dawson fouls). That's not exactly a 9-minute stretch upon which I'd hang my hat as a PG.
Quote from: Ners on February 20, 2014, 03:50:25 PM
3-6, 7 points and 6 assists would be a serviceable enough line for a PG in 40 minutes - if the result of that PG playing didn't negatively trickle down to affect the other 4 players on the floor with him. It is the exact opposite scenario of what a PG should be for a basketball team - a guy who makes everyone around him better. When he doesn't need to be defended within 8 feet on the perimeter....that makes it incredibly hard for everyone else playing with him...
Buzz has said we are playing 4 on 5 with him on the court. He concedes it. Knows it. Keeps rolling with it for 32+ minutes per game.
Yeah I know all that. Yet he is *still* the best point guard on the team right now. Period.
Honestly, the offense has had its best four game stretch of the season with Derrick Wilson playing huge minutes. What else exactly do you want?
I know you see potential in John Dawson. So do I. But potential is just that...potential. It's not here and now.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 04:32:51 PM
Let's break down those 9 minutes, shall we?
12:31 Dawson checks in
12:13 Mayo hits 2 FTs (+2)
11:56 Steal by Jamil
11:27 Gardner scores on off reb (+4)
11:14 Steal by Jamil
11:08 Gardner hits 2 FTs (+6)
10:24 SHU lay-up (+4)
9:54 Gardner scores on off reb (+6)
9:38 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
8:58 SHU lay-up (+4)
8:37 TO by Jake
8:18 Burton misses a jumper
8:16 Mayo misses a 3
8:08 SHU makes a 3 (+1)
7:56 TO by Dawson
7:46 TO by SHU
7:30 TO by Dawson
6:58 SHU makes a 3 (-2)
6:35 Juan scores on off reb (E)
6:19 SHU misses a 3
6:04 SHU misses a jumper
5:42 Mayo misses a lay-up
5:38 TO by SHU
5:11 TO by Dawson
4:43 SHU misses lay-up
4:34 TO by Juan
4:29 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
4:12 Jamil makes 2 FT (+2)
4:12 Dawson out
MU shot 3-9 from the floor and turned the ball over 5 times while SHU went 0-4 on FTs (all attempts off of Dawson fouls). That's not exactly a 9-minute stretch upon which I'd hang my hat as a PG.
Classic.
I disagree that Derrick Wilson does not have upside. At beginning of year he could not make a layup and now is easily making 3 a game. I of course do not know if he will improve much from the outside, but I would think he would spend the whole summer working on his outside shot. Cadougan's shot improved from his junior to senior year. Blue's outside shot improved from his sophomore to junior year. McNeal did not really have an outside shot until his senior year. Players improve there shooting all of the time. I would also expect Derrick's passing to improve as he is teamed with better players.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 04:32:51 PM
Let's break down those 9 minutes, shall we?
12:31 Dawson checks in
12:13 Mayo hits 2 FTs (+2)
11:56 Steal by Jamil
11:27 Gardner scores on off reb (+4)
11:14 Steal by Jamil
11:08 Gardner hits 2 FTs (+6)
10:24 SHU lay-up (+4)
9:54 Gardner scores on off reb (+6)
9:38 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
8:58 SHU lay-up (+4)
8:37 TO by Jake
8:18 Burton misses a jumper
8:16 Mayo misses a 3
8:08 SHU makes a 3 (+1)
7:56 TO by Dawson
7:46 TO by SHU
7:30 TO by Dawson
6:58 SHU makes a 3 (-2)
6:35 Juan scores on off reb (E)
6:19 SHU misses a 3
6:04 SHU misses a jumper
5:42 Mayo misses a lay-up
5:38 TO by SHU
5:11 TO by Dawson
4:43 SHU misses lay-up
4:34 TO by Juan
4:29 Foul on Dawson, SHU misses 2 FTs
4:12 Jamil makes 2 FT (+2)
4:12 Dawson out
MU shot 3-9 from the floor and turned the ball over 5 times while SHU went 0-4 on FTs (all attempts off of Dawson fouls). That's not exactly a 9-minute stretch upon which I'd hang my hat as a PG.
I agree it was awful...have said as much...yet as bad as it was...we actually expanded the lead. Obviously you and I are never going to agree on this debate..and that's fine...I've felt Derrick has played better basketball the last 3 games..been disruptive defensively, made some really nice passes....and he very well may be better at some things than Dawson at this stage. My point all along is that playing Dawson (the potential future of the position) 25+ minutes a game from early non conference, likely wouldn't have resulted in things being "worse," from a wins/loss perspective...and you get your freshman valuable experience.
Oh well...I'm pretty well over it...have resigned myself to the fact the above isn't going to happen...yet still remain hopeful we can somehow make the NCAA...we probably won't get to see the difference it makes having a PG who is a true threat to score for yet another season after next so I'm prepared for another long year next year.
Quote from: ecompt on February 20, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
The stuff on Juan would be great except for the fact that he has STARTED games this year and has been on the floor several times with DWill, Jake and Chris. It's nothing per se against Juan, but he has lost all confidence in his crap.
He starts as a reward for his hard work and attitude. He then gets pulled and sits for the most of the game. I don't really care about who starts, I care about who get's starter's minutes which is Derrick, Mayo, Thomas, Jamil, and Gardner.
The stats on Juan don't prove he's a great bench player, I was just trying prove how ridiculous it is to say that he wouldn't sniff 9.5 mpg on any other top 100 team.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 20, 2014, 05:29:05 PM
He starts as a reward for his hard work and attitude. He then gets pulled and sits for the most of the game. I don't really care about who starts, I care about who get's starter's minutes which is Derrick, Mayo, Thomas, Jamil, and Gardner.
The stats on Juan don't prove he's a great bench player, I was just trying prove how ridiculous it is to say that he wouldn't sniff 9.5 mpg on any other top 100 team.
I didn't say he wouldn't sniff 9.5, I asked how many Top 100 teams would give him that time. And the answer, I was told, was 73.
Quote from: bilsu on February 20, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
I disagree that Derrick Wilson does not have upside. At beginning of year he could not make a layup and now is easily making 3 a game. I of course do not know if he will improve much from the outside, but I would think he would spend the whole summer working on his outside shot. Cadougan's shot improved from his junior to senior year. Blue's outside shot improved from his sophomore to junior year. McNeal did not really have an outside shot until his senior year. Players improve there shooting all of the time. I would also expect Derrick's passing to improve as he is teamed with better players.
So his first 3 years he didn't work on his shot?? Maybe if he moves his game out a foot an offseason, he will get to the 3pt line by the time he's forty ;D and easily make 3 lay ups a game?? He doesn't even average 6 pts a game :o
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 01:43:47 PM
Clown, here. See links below...
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=derrick-wilson&junior-cadougan=2011-2012&p1=junior-cadougan (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=derrick-wilson&junior-cadougan=2011-2012&p1=junior-cadougan)
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?derrick-wilson=2011-2012&p2=derrick-wilson&p3=john-dawson&remove=junior-cadougan (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?derrick-wilson=2011-2012&p2=derrick-wilson&p3=john-dawson&remove=junior-cadougan)
I don't see "Basic Assists" or "Perimeter Assists" on these reports. How could they miss such crucial nuances of the game and not bother to report on them?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 20, 2014, 07:21:26 PM
I don't see "Basic Assists" or "Perimeter Assists" on these reports. How could they miss such crucial nuances of the game and not bother to report on them?
Do you know what else you don't see? Derrick's defender camped out 6 ft away from him, sitting and clogging up the lane.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 20, 2014, 08:31:12 PM
Do you know what else you don't see? Derrick's defender camped out 6 ft away from him, sitting and clogging up the lane.
lame.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 08:57:14 PM
lame.
It may be lame, but it also was the truth. I don't know why other teams don't follow Creighton's game plan guarding Wilson. I would if I was coaching against this team. It's smart basketball on Creighton's part.
Next year I hope Wilson shoots a couple of threes early every game. Hopefully a few drop. At least teams would have to play him honest then. It would make his dribble penetration more effective.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 20, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
It may be lame, but it also was the truth. I don't know why other teams don't follow Creighton's game plan guarding Wilson. I would if I was coaching against this team. It's smart basketball on Creighton's part.
Next year I hope Wilson shoots a couple of threes early every game. Hopefully a few drop. At least teams would have to play him honest then. It would make his dribble penetration more effective.
Derrick can make 2 three pointers in a row in a game, teams would be hesitant about guarding him and would continue to pack the paint. His 2 previous seasons 3 including this one are who he is. Every dog finds a steak every now and again.
But since he doesnt require a defender and cant get the ball to Gardner whos almost double teamed the whole night by his and the pgs defender.
Things look the way they do.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 20, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
It may be lame, but it also was the truth. I don't know why other teams don't follow Creighton's game plan guarding Wilson. I would if I was coaching against this team. It's smart basketball on Creighton's part.
Next year I hope Wilson shoots a couple of threes early every game. Hopefully a few drop. At least teams would have to play him honest then. It would make his dribble penetration more effective.
+1
Derrick needs to work on his shot during the offseason. If he could shoot even 20% from three....teams would have to play him honest
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2014, 12:24:19 AM
Derrick needs to work on his shot during the offseason. If he could shoot even 20% from three....teams would have to play him honest
This might sound dumb, but I think he was screwed by not taking any jumpers his first two years.
He can take and make all the shots he wants at practice, but nothing can replicate shooting at game speed, in a game environment. He's taken so few attempts that I don't think he's even close to comfortable with it.
Derrick can shoot, he just won't. It's like a Steve Sax thing.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 20, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
It may be lame, but it also was the truth. I don't know why other teams don't follow Creighton's game plan guarding Wilson. I would if I was coaching against this team. It's smart basketball on Creighton's part.
It's lame because the offense wasn't the problem against Creighton.
Derrick, and the offense, has gotten much better since the beginning of the season. Despite the fact that he is "average at best," he has managed to make the offense work and score with more regularity.
What is so incredibly annoying is that *once again* Derrick Wilson put up a decent game with a good statline, AND STILL gets bashed. He was not the problem. As Sugar pointed out, the problem was the single worst defensive effort in the Buzz Williams era.
Do you realize that even up until last year, scoring 70 points was pretty much a guaranteed victory?
The simplistic "4-on-5" and "my daughter can even see them sagging off" is crap because you are only focusing on one part of what is a MUCH bigger problem.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 21, 2014, 08:26:30 AM
This might sound dumb, but I think he was screwed by not taking any jumpers his first two years.
He can take and make all the shots he wants at practice, but nothing can replicate shooting at game speed, in a game environment. He's taken so few attempts that I don't think he's even close to comfortable with it.
Are you not aware that it is in practice where players improve? Playing in games has no benefit. (Or so we are told here by some resident posters who feel the freshman and program don't benefit from getting game action.)
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 09:17:51 AM
Are you not aware that it is in practice where players improve? Playing in games has no benefit. (Or so we are told here by some resident posters who feel the freshman and program don't benefit from getting game action.)
I can't speak for anyone else. But you and I have gone back and forth on freshmen and related topics. And I am 99.9% sure I never made the statement that "playing in games has no benefit [for the freshmen or the program]"
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 08:41:55 AM
It's lame because the offense wasn't the problem against Creighton.
Derrick, and the offense, has gotten much better since the beginning of the season. Despite the fact that he is "average at best," he has managed to make the offense work and score with more regularity.
What is so incredibly annoying is that *once again* Derrick Wilson put up a decent game with a good statline, AND STILL gets bashed. He was not the problem. As Sugar pointed out, the problem was the single worst defensive effort in the Buzz Williams era.
Do you realize that even up until last year, scoring 70 points was pretty much a guaranteed victory?
The simplistic "4-on-5" and "my daughter can even see them sagging off" is crap because you are only focusing on one part of what is a MUCH bigger problem.
I'll agree that our defense was the big problem against Creighton. Also feel Creighton simply is a better team than we are. Yet, I think it is naive to say that a decent stat line of 10 points, 6 assists, in 40 minutes on 2-7 FT shooting, negates the reality that the oppositions defense sags so far off Derrick....that it absolutely causes problems for us on the offensive end - regardless of if we scored 70 against a marginal defensive Creighton team (#73) in country per Pomroy.
Don't think we would have won a shootout game against Creighton either...if Buzz were to have tried to go with the offensive lineup....think Creighton is simply better...regardless...but will not discount the point that it is very, very difficult to win basketball games against good teams when being defended as Creighton, Seton Hall, and most intelligent teams have defended us - sagging way off Derrick.
I just want Derrick to launch 4-5 3 pt shots a game...he's capable of being a 20% shooter from 3..and making just 1 out of 5, and being a threat to shoot...I feel would help him and the team more than it does to have him not shoot 3's, even though there is a low percentage of success..
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 21, 2014, 09:22:53 AM
I can't speak for anyone else. But you and I have gone back and forth on freshmen and related topics. And I am 99.9% sure I never made the statement that "playing in games has no benefit [for the freshmen or the program]"
No Jesmu84....you haven't tried to make that assertion/insinuation....I may not agree with all of your positions, but I respect how you present your arguments....and some I agree with..
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 09:17:51 AM
Are you not aware that it is in practice where players improve? Playing in games has no benefit. (Or so we are told here by some resident posters who feel the freshman and program don't benefit from getting game action.)
Where has anyone said that?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 09:39:53 AM
Where has anyone said that?
He's building strawmen again.
I said that the vast majority of their improvement that will have an impact on next season will come over this upcoming summer...not in the five or so remaining games.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 09:46:18 AM
He's building strawmen again.
I said that the vast majority of their improvement will come over this upcoming summer...not in the five or so remaining games.
Improvement by throwing the frosh out there for 30 minutes is the new improvement by redshirting.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 08:41:55 AM
The simplistic "4-on-5" and "my daughter can even see them sagging off" is crap because you are only focusing on one part of what is a MUCH bigger problem.
You do realize that Buzz is dead-set on paint touches in offensive sets, right? Further, you realize that when D Wilson's defenders sag on him--which is ALL THE TIME--that it makes it damn near impossible to feed the post or just get paint touches, one way or another, without a tremendous amount of pressure that disrupts the offense? I think you underestimate the impact of D Wilson's defender always hedging. Our top scoreres get a lot of their buckets, or should get a lot of their buckets, in the paint--J Wilson and Gardner--yet that avenue is often too cluttered to get anything done. How can you argue that this is only part of a MUCH bigger problem. This is, in fact, a large part of the foundation of our offensive struggles.
We were not a great shooting team last year yet we miraculously got to the Elite 8 because, in part, we had a point guard that kept his defender honest and opened things up in the paint allowing Buzz to rack up paint touches and in doing so, consistently make more FTs than the opponent attempts. This is Buzz's offense and with a capable point guard it works quite well.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
You do realize that Buzz is dead-set on paint touches in offensive sets, right? Further, you realize that when D Wilson's defenders sag on him--which is ALL THE TIME--that it makes it damn near impossible to feed the post or just get paint touches, one way or another, without a tremendous amount of pressure that disrupts the offense? I think you underestimate the impact of D Wilson's defender always hedging. Our top scoreres get a lot of their buckets, or should get a lot of their buckets, in the paint--J Wilson and Gardner--yet that avenue is often too cluttered to get anything done. How can you argue that this is only part of a MUCH bigger problem. This is, in fact, a large part of the foundation of our offensive struggles.
We were not a great shooting team last year yet we miraculously got to the Elite 8 because, in part, we had a point guard that kept his defender honest and opened things up in the paint allowing Buzz to rack up paint touches and in doing so, consistently make more FTs than the opponent attempts. This is Buzz's offense and with a capable point guard it works quite well.
MU averages more PPG this season than last (71.1 vs 68.1)
MU shoots a slightly worse FG% this year (44.3% vs 45.7%)
MU shoots a slightly better 3P% this year (30.5% vs 29.6%)
MU's offensive rating is basically the same as last year (105.7 vs 105.9)
MU averages more FT attempts this season (24.4 vs 21.6)
MU's FT attempts to Opp FT attempt ratio is basically the same (1.22 vs 1.24)
MU averages more assists this season (14.5 vs 13.8)
MU averages fewer TOs this season (11.8 vs 13.4)
MU has a higher A:TO ratio this season (1.23 vs 1.03)
In other words, MU's offense is statistically equal to or better than last year's offense in nearly every category. Perhaps the "offensive woes" have been a bit overblown because MU's starting PG isn't much of a threat offensively.
Defensively...
MU allows more PPG this season (66.1 vs 62.6)
MU allows a higher FG% this season (41.7% vs 40.4%)
MU allows a higher 3P% this season (35.7% vs 32.3%)
MU allows opponents to shoot more FTs this season (20.0 vs 17.4)
MU's defensive rating is worse this season (98.3 vs 97.4)
The numbers appear to show that this team's issues aren't necessarily offense-related. But how can that be?!
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
You do realize that Buzz is dead-set on paint touches in offensive sets, right? Further, you realize that when D Wilson's defenders sag on him--which is ALL THE TIME--that it makes it damn near impossible to feed the post or just get paint touches, one way or another, without a tremendous amount of pressure that disrupts the offense? I think you underestimate the impact of D Wilson's defender always hedging. Our top scoreres get a lot of their buckets, or should get a lot of their buckets, in the paint--J Wilson and Gardner--yet that avenue is often too cluttered to get anything done. How can you argue that this is only part of a MUCH bigger problem. This is, in fact, a large part of the foundation of our offensive struggles.
LOL...did you just time warp here from a month or two ago?
You do realize right that we have pretty much negated much of our "offensive struggles" since we have gone all in on Derrick, Jamil, Todd, et al. Offense hasn't been *as much* of a problem since then. And they have been getting numerous paint touches in the past few weeks.
But I addressed that all in the post you quoted...you know...the one you snipped?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 09:59:40 AM
MU averages more PPG this season than last (71.1 vs 68.1)
MU shoots a slightly worse FG% this year (44.3% vs 45.7%)
MU shoots a slightly better 3P% this year (30.5% vs 29.6%)
MU's offensive rating is basically the same as last year (105.7 vs 105.9)
MU averages more FT attempts this season (24.4 vs 21.6)
MU's FT attempts to Opp FT attempt ratio is basically the same (1.22 vs 1.24)
MU averages more assists this season (14.5 vs 13.8)
MU averages fewer TOs this season (11.8 vs 13.4)
MU has a higher A:TO ratio this season (1.23 vs 1.03)
In other words, MU's offense is statistically equal to or better than last year's offense in nearly every category. Perhaps the "offensive woes" have been a bit overblown because MU's starting PG isn't much of a threat offensively.
Shhhhh....stop disrupting the narrative!!!
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 09:59:40 AM
MU averages more PPG this season than last (71.1 vs 68.1)
MU shoots a slightly worse FG% this year (44.3% vs 45.7%)
MU shoots a slightly better 3P% this year (30.5% vs 29.6%)
MU's offensive rating is basically the same as last year (105.7 vs 105.9)
MU averages more FT attempts this season (24.4 vs 21.6)
MU's FT attempts to Opp FT attempt ratio is basically the same (1.22 vs 1.24)
MU averages more assists this season (14.5 vs 13.8)
MU averages fewer TOs this season (11.8 vs 13.4)
MU has a higher A:TO ratio this season (1.23 vs 1.03)
In other words, MU's offense is statistically equal to or better than last year's offense in nearly every category. Perhaps the "offensive woes" have been a bit overblown because MU's starting PG isn't much of a threat offensively.
Defensively...
MU allows more PPG this season (66.1 vs 62.6)
MU allows a higher FG% this season (41.7% vs 40.4%)
MU allows a higher 3P% this season (35.7% vs 32.3%)
MU allows opponents to shoot more FTs this season (20.0 vs 17.4)
MU's defensive rating is worse this season (98.3 vs 97.4)
The numbers appear to show that this team's issues aren't necessarily offense-related. But how can that be?!
Those stats are great and all, but the one stat that means the most is wins and losses...we are 15-11 and barring a miraculous run will be in the NIT.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 10:15:59 AM
Those stats are great and all, but the one stat that means the most is wins and losses...we are 15-11 and barring a miraculous run will be in the NIT.
True. But posters constantly harp on the "offensive woes" of this team without realizing that, from a numbers standpoint, this team is better offensively than last year's Elite 8 team. Defense has been more of an issue for this team.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:02:32 AM
Shhhhh....stop disrupting the narrative!!!
LOL....you and your boy Merritt have an equal narrative going on....that playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end isn't a big part of this team's problems. Your narrative that PG play is one of the least of our problems...
You guys hitched your wagon to Derrick all year long...and of course couldn't reverse course...just kept trying to defend a guy getting 30.3 minutes per game all year, who has made 1, 3pt shot all season. I would wager a guess, you cannot find another guard in D-1 basketball that gets 30 minutes per game, who has made just 1, 3pt shot all season....in the last 5 years of D-1 college hoops.
He's a HUGE part of the problem this team has....he's sure as hell isn't a solution. That being said, perhaps he is the best option we have at this point...which is a point you try to assert. Yet really....how can it get worse?? We are defended by the defense with the opposition clogging the lane, laying 7-8' off of Derrick...and our coach has acknowledge we are playing 4 on 5. Dawson sure must be awful...to think things would get worse...Derricks defensive positives do not exceed his offensive deficiencies. Period.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:01:54 AM
LOL...did you just time warp here from a month or two ago?
You do realize right that we have pretty much negated much of our "offensive struggles" since we have gone all in on Derrick, Jamil, Todd, et al. Offense hasn't been *as much* of a problem since then. And they have been getting numerous paint touches in the past few weeks.
But I addressed that all in the post you quoted...you know...the one you snipped?
Where do you pull you statistics from Sultan. "Numerous" paint touches in past few weeks? Compared to what? Our most productive paint scorer, Ox, has averaged less than 5 shots per game the last 3 games. While that does not demonstrate paint touches, it is an indicator. When defenses pack it in the paint touches likely go down, so just out of curiousity, where are these "numerous paint touches" in past few weeks coming from and compared to what. So now go ahead and cherry pick your stats to support your theory. Past few weeks? What is that, two or three or six? Just curious.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 10:19:38 AM
True. But posters constantly harp on the "offensive woes" of this team without realizing that, from a numbers standpoint, this team is better offensively than last year's Elite 8 team. Defense has been more of an issue for this team.
How can this be?? We've upgraded to an elite, game changing caliber defensive PG in Derrick over Junior...and our defense has been more of an issue? Jake...you and Sultan defend saying he's a really good positional defender...?
Okay...so its the loss of Vander and Lockett that have just totally tanked this team...when its been shown that Mayos production, offensive efficiency, defensive stats, are all on par/better than Vander's last year per minute played...and you are a stathead...so please don't discount Mayo's stats next to Vander's...if you want to build all your arguments on stats..
15-11 in a watered down Big East...with our best post player on the roster in 30 years. More returning letterman than ever before in Buzz's tenure.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:01:54 AM
LOL...did you just time warp here from a month or two ago?
You do realize right that we have pretty much negated much of our "offensive struggles" since we have gone all in on Derrick, Jamil, Todd, et al. Offense hasn't been *as much* of a problem since then. And they have been getting numerous paint touches in the past few weeks.
But I addressed that all in the post you quoted...you know...the one you snipped?
LOL? Are we 12?
Anyway, what does numerous paint touches mean? I'd be curious to see a breakdown of paint touches from this year to last year per game. Also, how many points per possession on we averaging this year compared to last year--point per game is great and all, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Also, what's are percentage of points in the paint this year compared to last year? As far as defense, we supposedly have one of the best defenses in the Big East yet we have 6 losses in conference, 11 overall with 5 to play. Are we really going to say that defense deserves a large portion of the blame. I know this is all anecdotal--don;t have time to look into numbers--but assuming we have less paint touches and points in the paint this year than last year, it's fair to surmise that a lot of the opponenets' points are coming from run-outs from long rebounds of our misses around the perimeter (this would also to be intersting to see--% of fast break points per game for opponents) Hell, maybe the numbers are not far off from last year, but based on the eye-test from watching nearly every game this year, it's clear that this offense doesn't line-up with the offense of last year--few would dispute that.
There's a reason why the offense sputtered out after the first few minutes of the game when Wilson stopped driving (which if he's not shooting, he absolutely has to do). Wilson started dribbling around the permiter and even into the top of the paint area further cluttering the post. This offense works when Jake is hitting outside shots, Jamil is hitting jumpers, and Mayo is creating for himself. Notice how none of our success hinges on getting easy buckets in the paint, because it's rarely open for business? We're still living and dying outside the paint, which is not where this offense needs to be.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 10:20:50 AM
Yet really....how can it get worse??
It was worse.
It is now better.
Stop ranting from the past.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:39:43 AM
It was worse.
It is now better.
Stop ranting from the past.
So is Iraq.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 10:24:53 AM
How can this be?? We've upgraded to an elite, game changing caliber defensive PG in Derrick over Junior...and our defense has been more of an issue? Jake...you and Sultan defend saying he's a really good positional defender...?
Okay...so its the loss of Vander and Lockett that have just totally tanked this team...when its been shown that Mayos production, offensive efficiency, defensive stats, are all on par/better than Vander's last year per minute played...and you are a stathead...so please don't discount Mayo's stats next to Vander's...if you want to build all your arguments on stats..
15-11 in a watered down Big East...with our best post player on the roster in 30 years. More returning letterman than ever before in Buzz's tenure.
"Per minute played" stats are skewed stats. Vander played 47% more minutes per game than Mayo is playing so it's unreasonable to make the claim that Mayo's production this season matches Vander's from last season.
Regardless, I've said my peace. When compared to last year's team, this year's team is better offensively and worse defensively, yet you've repeatedly called for sacrificing defense to get more offense. The numbers speak for themselves.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 10:24:53 AM
How can this be?? We've upgraded to an elite, game changing caliber defensive PG in Derrick over Junior...and our defense has been more of an issue? Jake...you and Sultan defend saying he's a really good positional defender...?
Okay...so its the loss of Vander and Lockett that have just totally tanked this team...when its been shown that Mayos production, offensive efficiency, defensive stats, are all on par/better than Vander's last year per minute played...and you are a stathead...so please don't discount Mayo's stats next to Vander's...if you want to build all your arguments on stats..
15-11 in a watered down Big East...with our best post player on the roster in 30 years. More returning letterman than ever before in Buzz's tenure.
Despite your assertions, Jake and Todd are not better defenders than Vander and Trent.
For instance, it would be nice to play Juan Anderson more. But he can't score. It would be nice if players like Deonte could defend better, but we need his offense.
It's an incomplete team.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 10:19:38 AM
True. But posters constantly harp on the "offensive woes" of this team without realizing that, from a numbers standpoint, this team is better offensively than last year's Elite 8 team. Defense has been more of an issue for this team.
Hey N.I.T. has produced some good players....
Reggie Miller played in the N.I.T Along with a host of others and MU certainly would be no shoe in to win that either.... This season will go down as a wash.. Hopefully a learning experience...
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 10:15:59 AM
Those stats are great and all, but the one stat that means the most is wins and losses...we are 15-11 and barring a miraculous run will be in the NIT.
When facts ruin an argument, the only solution is to distract and not acknowledge the facts.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 10:43:07 AM
Regardless, I've said my peace. When compared to last year's team, this year's team is better offensively and worse defensively, yet you've repeatedly called for sacrificing defense to get more offense. The numbers speak for themselves.
So you would take this year's offense over last year's offense?
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Anyway, what does numerous paint touches mean? I'd be curious to see a breakdown of paint touches from this year to last year per game. Also, how many points per possession on we averaging this year compared to last year--point per game is great and all, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Points per possession this year: 1.06.
Last year: 1.06
Seriously, the offensive stats are almost entirely the same...literally within percentage points everywhere:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2013-2014&type=all
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2012-2013&type=all
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:44:22 AM
Despite your assertions, Jake and Todd are not better defenders than Vander and Trent.
For instance, it would be nice to play Juan Anderson more. But he can't score. It would be nice if players like Deonte could defend better, but we need his offense.
It's an incomplete team.
Honestly...I don't think Juan is that great of player...yet I believe if Buzz gave him 26.6 minutes like Lockett got last year...Juan would equal Lockett's production - 7ppg, 5.1 rpg, .7spg, .4bpg.
Why do we care if Juan Anderson can't score? It doesn't stop Derrick from getting more minutes than any player on the team?
As Merritt has noted...this team's problems all boil down to defense...even though we've upgraded to a world class, elite, game changing PG defender in Derrick...compared to the very average Junior.
BTW - Never said Jake was a better defender than Vander or Lockett. Yet, Mayo is comparable to Blue as a defender...Juan is every bit the defender Lockett is/was...problem is you can't play Juan (significant minutes) with Derrick...because Derrick is so limited offensively whereas Cadougan was not.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 21, 2014, 10:23:16 AM
Where do you pull you statistics from Sultan. "Numerous" paint touches in past few weeks? Compared to what? Our most productive paint scorer, Ox, has averaged less than 5 shots per game the last 3 games. While that does not demonstrate paint touches, it is an indicator. When defenses pack it in the paint touches likely go down, so just out of curiousity, where are these "numerous paint touches" in past few weeks coming from and compared to what. So now go ahead and cherry pick your stats to support your theory. Past few weeks? What is that, two or three or six? Just curious.
Honestly that is more anecdotal, and if stats prove me wrong, I would happily acknowledge it. Derrick and Todd have been getting into the lane more. That is where I am basing it.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
Honestly...I don't think Juan is that great of player...yet I believe if Buzz gave him 26.6 minutes like Lockett got last year...Juan would equal Lockett's production - 7ppg, 5.1 rpg, .7spg, .4bpg.
Why do we care if Juan Anderson can't score? It doesn't stop Derrick from getting more minutes than any player on the team?
Christ, I feel like I am arguing with a two year old.
Derrick runs the offense adequately. Juan doesn't.
Is it that hard?
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:53:35 AM
Points per possession this year: 1.06.
Last year: 1.06
Seriously, the offensive stats are almost entirely the same...literally within percentage points everywhere:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2013-2014&type=all
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2012-2013&type=all
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 10:43:07 AM
Regardless, I've said my peace. When compared to last year's team, this year's team is better offensively and worse defensively, yet you've repeatedly called for sacrificing defense to get more offense. The numbers speak for themselves.
Funny....per Ken Pomroy -
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
This year - 89th in country
2012-2013 - 25th in country
2011-2012 - 52nd
2010-2011 - 21nd
2009-2010 - 22nd
2008-2009 - 12th
We are WAY WORSE this year in offensive efficiency. So apparently Buzz has really forgotten how to coach offense this year....even though we are allegedly as good as we were last year, by your assertions Merritt/Sultan.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 10:57:20 AM
Christ, I feel like I am arguing with a two year old.
Derrick runs the offense adequately. Juan doesn't.
Is it that hard?
LOL - Feeling is mutual.
Your standards for adequate are quite forgiving...
You are correct...Adjusted Offensive Efficiency has decreased from 111.2 to 109.2. Hardly a monumental decrease, but coupled with an even larger decrease in Defensive Efficiency, it has created a worse team.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 11:09:14 AM
You are correct...Adjusted Offensive Efficiency has decreased from 111.2 to 109.2. Hardly a monumental decrease, but coupled with an even larger decrease in Defensive Efficiency, it has created a worse team.
Ahh....we dropped 64 spots nationally in Offensive Efficiency this year from last year...so that "hardly monumental" numerical decrease between 111.2 and 109.2...is monumental when looked at in the proper context.
Defensive Efficiency - per Pomroy - we dropped from 46 last year to 48 this year....hardly an argument I'd try to hang my hat on as being the reason for this years struggles.
Our problems are entirely at the offensive end of the floor...period...and it is because of your guy who "runs the offense adequately."
And another relevant nugget - we had 6 wins over Top 15 teams last year.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 11:03:23 AM
Funny....per Ken Pomroy -
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
This year - 89th in country
2012-2013 - 25th in country
2011-2012 - 52nd
2010-2011 - 21nd
2009-2010 - 22nd
2008-2009 - 12th
We are WAY WORSE this year in offensive efficiency. So apparently Buzz has really forgotten how to coach offense this year....even though we are allegedly as good as we were last year, by your assertions Merritt/Sultan.
Rankings are different than the actual numbers. Kenpom's AdjO puts MU's 2012-13 team at 111.2 and this year at 109.2. Given that MU is averaging more possessions this season (68.7 vs 66.0), that amounts to about 1.6 MORE points per game difference on average. IOW, more points but in a slightly less efficient manner.
Defensively, however, the difference in AdjD ratings amounts to 4.74 points per game on average, which is statistically significant.
Again, the primary issues with this year's team are defensively.
Ners, if you want to hang your hat on relative rankings of teams based on adjusted offensive efficiency, go right ahead. But I am sure you realize that this is simply one stat, one you you are using in comparison to other teams and not on its own, and that other stats tell other stories.
And as for "my guy," here in review is what I have said:
**He is an average at best point guard
**He is the best point guard on the roster
**He is getting an inordinate share of the blame for the problems of this team.
That's it. If that makes you think that I am a big Derrick Wilson advocate, you would be wrong however. I would hope that someone could play better next year, but we will just have to wait and see.
Sultan and Merrits,
Please answer my question: Would you rather have this year's offense or last year's?
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 11:21:50 AM
Ners, if you want to hang your hat on relative rankings of teams based on adjusted offensive efficiency, go right ahead. But I am sure you realize that this is simply one stat, one you you are using in comparison to other teams and not on its own, and that other stats tell other stories.
And as for "my guy," here in review is what I have said:
**He is an average at best point guard
**He is the best point guard on the roster
**He is getting an inordinate share of the blame for the problems of this team.
That's it. If that makes you think that I am a big Derrick Wilson advocate, you would be wrong however. I would hope that someone could play better next year, but we will just have to wait and see.
Sultan, you give off the vibe that you are a huge Derrick advocate. You have stated that unequivocally he will be the starting pg next year for this team. For an average at best player this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are we trying to be average or are we trying to be great?
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 11:25:15 AM
Sultan and Merrits,
Please answer my question: Would you rather have this year's offense or last year's?
Start a poll ;D
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 11:25:15 AM
Sultan and Merrits,
Please answer my question: Would you rather have this year's offense or last year's?
Last year's offense was more aesthetically pleasing, but statistically, they're basically the same. Admittedly though, I'd take last year's offense because of one player: Vander Blue.
I'll ask you right back: Would you rather have this year's defense or last year's?
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 11:28:37 AM
Sultan, you give off the vibe that you are a huge Derrick advocate. You have stated that unequivocally he will be the starting pg next year for this team. For an average at best player this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are we trying to be average or are we trying to be great?
Will there be a "great" PG on the roster next season?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 11:31:39 AM
Will there be a "great" PG on the roster next season?
We don't know, because the one guy who has that potential doesn't get the playing time to develop into one. I know for a fact that Derrick will be average on his best days and we have had almost a full season as evidence to that.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 11:30:08 AM
Last year's offense was more aesthetically pleasing, but statistically, they're basically the same. Admittedly though, I'd take last year's offense because of one player: Vander Blue.
I'll ask you right back: Would you rather have this year's defense or last year's?
Based on Pomeroy's Defensive Efficiency comparison from last to this year--46 to 48, respectively (thanks Ners) balanced with the more premier offenses that we faced last year compared to this year, I'd honestly say last year's defense with Blue and Lockett being big reasons for my decision. I can't really point to anyone this year that has really stepped up on the defensive end.
Merritt
I don't think asking either question independently of each other has much weight as the offense and defense don't operate in a vacuum.
Let's look at it from a standpoint of which players on our roster are playing a significantly different role this season compared to last and which are playing a similar role.
Otule, Gardner, and Jamil are all playing the same roles they did last season for the most part. Mayo is still coming off the bench to provide offense like last year (with a recent uptick in minutes). Anderson is still a situational player. Taylor is battling an injury but he was a deep bench player as a freshman and has been this year.
Blue, Cadougan and Lockett all departed and have been replaced with the freshman of Dawson, Burton and Johnson. None of the freshman are seriously contributing and despite their upside are probably rightfully sitting at this point in the season.
That leaves Jake Thomas and Derrick Wilson as the only two guys on the roster who have seen their roles change and increase exponentially from last season.
I'm perfectly fine with accepting that this is the team we have this year, but that doesn't require me to not acknowledge we have a terrible starting back court for a major college basketball team. Now admittedly there are people on this board who don't understand how difficult it is to maintain the level of consistency of a perennial NCAAT team. I know that's true because look at where our current streak of appearances ranks right now. That still doesn't negate our glaring weakness in the quality of our back court and to expect more production from them even in the midst of a 'down' year for our program.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 11:21:50 AM
Ners, if you want to hang your hat on relative rankings of teams based on adjusted offensive efficiency, go right ahead. But I am sure you realize that this is simply one stat, one you you are using in comparison to other teams and not on its own, and that other stats tell other stories.
And as for "my guy," here in review is what I have said:
**He is an average at best point guard
**He is the best point guard on the roster
**He is getting an inordinate share of the blame for the problems of this team.
That's it. If that makes you think that I am a big Derrick Wilson advocate, you would be wrong however. I would hope that someone could play better next year, but we will just have to wait and see.
The reality is, he isn't the best PG on the roster. There has been just 1 game Dawson was given an equal opportunity as Derrick (30 minutes) - Georgetown. The other game that comes to mind is Grambling - pretty equal stats..and one guy playing in just his 2nd game of college. Dawson has a much higher ceiling...would have loved to seen that tapped into this year....because if it were....he'd be better for next year...and the team certainly would have still made the NIT this year...as it is going to at this rate..
Buzz hitched his wagon hell or high water to Derrick...and it was evident with the bear hug he gave him during the Xavier game, just how badly he is dying to see Derrick show some signs of rewarding his loyalty...because there have been so few signs.
Additionally, Buzz should have let Mayo go 30 minutes per game from the start of the year..period. NO reason Jake Thomas should get more minutes than Mayo. None. And I'm not a total Jake hater...as he can at least provide value in spacing the floor, and being a good threat from 3...
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 12:04:41 PM
The reality is, he isn't the best PG on the roster.
Fine.
Take it up with Buzz.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 11:25:15 AM
Sultan and Merrits,
Please answer my question: Would you rather have this year's offense or last year's?
Frankly I would rather have neither to be honest.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 11:28:37 AM
Sultan, you give off the vibe that you are a huge Derrick advocate. You have stated that unequivocally he will be the starting pg next year for this team. For an average at best player this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are we trying to be average or are we trying to be great?
I think he will start at the beginning of the year. If someone is better than him, then they will take over his minutes.
Despite what Ners is saying, he isn't playing Derrick out of loyalty. He is playing him because he is the best option. He will do the same with Duane or John next year.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 12:08:51 PM
I think he will start at the beginning of the year. If someone is better than him, then they will take over his minutes.
Despite what Ners is saying, he isn't playing Derrick out of loyalty. He is playing him because he is the best option. He will do the same with Duane or John next year.
Question: Did you think Dawson would have "earned" more than 9 minutes against Villanova - which was the next game after Georgetown?
The only explanation for why Buzz is playing Derrick 30+ minutes per game is for defensive purposes...which...if we were winning games against decent/good teams....would be fine...if the defensive route was working....but clearly it isn't. 15-11...in a watered down Big East. So, maybe it would make just a little sense to see what would happen if he went to a more offensively capable lineup...no reason not to...other than pure stubbornness.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 12:04:41 PM
The reality is, he isn't the best PG on the roster. There has been just 1 game Dawson was given an equal opportunity as Derrick (30 minutes) - Georgetown. The other game that comes to mind is Grambling - pretty equal stats..and one guy playing in just his 2nd game of college. Dawson has a much higher ceiling...would have loved to seen that tapped into this year....because if it were....he'd be better for next year...and the team certainly would have still made the NIT this year...as it is going to at this rate..
Buzz hitched his wagon hell or high water to Derrick...and it was evident with the bear hug he gave him during the Xavier game, just how badly he is dying to see Derrick show some signs of rewarding his loyalty...because there have been so few signs.
Additionally, Buzz should have let Mayo go 30 minutes per game from the start of the year..period. NO reason Jake Thomas should get more minutes than Mayo. None. And I'm not a total Jake hater...as he can at least provide value in spacing the floor, and being a good threat from 3...
Having sat in on as many Marquette practices as you have, it is clear Buzz is just plain foolish playing DW. It must be so disturbing for you to know that the weeks and weeks you have been sitting in the Al watching Dawson destroy DW gets completely ignored by the Head Coach and in spite of Dawson's efforts, Buzz refuses to play him. Thank God you have spared us having to endure the same frustration. The good news for you is the season is winding down. Perhaps then you and Buzz can go out to dinner and you can explain to him how to utilize his players. Maybe you can include the assistant coaches too, because I'm sure Jerry is very intereseted in your analysis.
I'm so sick of every topic on this board turning into a "DW/JT Sh!tfest" (TM 2014) (formerly "Tom Crean Sh!tfest" 2006-13, TM). Totally ruins the fun and readability of damn near every topic on this board. We got three/four people that just despise DW and make it known on every effing thread. If you even try to show some rationale opinion on DW, it's just 'damn the torpedos'. I mean, it's not even worth debating/arguing about anymore.
This is a social media board and yeah, I guess that's what it's for...but this is my "mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" moment here at MUScoop. Just so sick of this.
Folks have already forgotten about the Ners Enabler Pledge?
Just stop people.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
Frankly I would rather have neither to be honest.
You get pinned down and this is your response? Total cop-out. I'll assume that you would take last year's offense given your deflection.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 12:14:28 PM
Question: Did you think Dawson would have "earned" more than 9 minutes against Villanova - which was the next game after Georgetown?
The only explanation for why Buzz is playing Derrick 30+ minutes per game is for defensive purposes...which...if we were winning games against decent/good teams....would be fine...if the defensive route was working....but clearly it isn't. 15-11...in a watered down Big East. So, maybe it would make just a little sense to see what would happen if he went to a more offensively capable lineup...no reason not to...other than pure stubbornness.
You keep ignoring two facts.
1. Buzz sees more of this team than you or I do by a factor of ten, is a successful professional in his industry, and has come to the conclusion that your idea wouldn't work. That doesn't make him stubborn.
2. The offense has gotten better since he has done the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. You're like the George Costanza of basketball coaches.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on February 21, 2014, 12:20:33 PM
We got three/four people that just despise DW
This is wrong. Nobody despises Derick Wilson. I think he's a great kid in a tough situation. I'm annoyed with (I don't despise) people that continually defend his play and downplay his negative impact on the offense.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 12:21:33 PM
You get pinned down and this is your response? Total cop-out. I'll assume that you would take last year's offense given your deflection.
Oh grow up. It doesn't matter to me. They are both about the same and they are both pretty substandard compared to Buzz's offense in previous years.
But I would certainly take last year's team over this year's.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
This is wrong. Nobody despises Derick Wilson. I think he's a great kid in a tough situation. I'm annoyed with (I don't despise) people that continually defend his play and downplay his negative impact on the offense.
I think a lot of people here need to take a year sabbatical. Next year DW and Juan will be the leaders on this team assuming neither leaves. I don't how that will translate as far as minutes on the floor. My guess is that DW's will go down and Juan's will go up.
And personally, I think they both will be outstanding leaders considering their mental makeups. One of our big shortcomings this year was lack of leadership from the seniors and I think it showed in DW's reluctance in the 1st half of the season. Next year, we
will have senior leadership.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 12:24:08 PM
You keep ignoring two facts.
1. Buzz sees more of this team than you or I do by a factor of ten, is a successful professional in his industry, and has come to the conclusion that your idea wouldn't work. That doesn't make him stubborn.
2. The offense has gotten better since he has done the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. You're like the George Costanza of basketball coaches.
Would Bellicheck have put Brady in if not for the injury to Bledsoe? Coaches don't always have it right...and at times can remain too loyal for too long to a guy...
And as for point #2 - What's changed is something I and others have long argued for - play Mayo 30+ and stop with the head games..yanking him in and out...let him play 15 minutes+ straight.
Yes, however, Derrick has played a little better too...as a result of the insertion of Mayo..but I still can't get excited over it as being anything beyond the word "serviceable" at best.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
This is wrong. Nobody despises Derick Wilson. I think he's a great kid in a tough situation. I'm annoyed with (I don't despise) people that continually defend his play and downplay his negative impact on the offense.
+1000 - It isn't a personal dislike of Derrick in any way....it's the other side of the coin here who try to suggest his play is the least of our problems...
Final point on this whole issue...
Marquette's offense has been ugly this year and many fans have commented on how the offense is holding this team back, but statistically it's been basically the same as last year's offense (which isn't saying much). This year's primary issues have been on the defensive end. THAT is where the team has really taken a step backwards this season. Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not. That simply means that sacrificing defense to help the offense isn't the answer.
Defense carried this team to the Elite 8 last year and defense is likely leading this team to the NIT this year.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 01:04:29 PM
Final point on this whole issue...
Marquette's offense has been ugly this year and many fans have commented on how the offense is holding this team back, but statistically it's been basically the same as last year's offense (which isn't saying much). This year's primary issues have been on the defensive end. THAT is where the team has really taken a step backwards this season. Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not. That simply means that sacrificing defense to help the offense isn't the answer.
Defense carried this team to the Elite 8 last year and defense is likely leading this team to the NIT this year.
Good point on defense. We only have one strong man to man defensive player (whom a lot of people here don't even want to have on the floor).
Look at the shooting percentages we are giving up lately. Generally speaking, that points to one thing - bad 'D'.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 01:04:29 PM
Final point on this whole issue...
Marquette's offense has been ugly this year and many fans have commented on how the offense is holding this team back, but statistically it's been basically the same as last year's offense (which isn't saying much). This year's primary issues have been on the defensive end. THAT is where the team has really taken a step backwards this season. Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not. That simply means that sacrificing defense to help the offense isn't the answer.
Defense carried this team to the Elite 8 last year and defense is likely leading this team to the NIT this year.
LOL - Compared to last year - we've regressed 2 spots nationally on defense this year....but 64 spots on the offensive end....but all of what ails the team this year is defense??? And we've upgraded significantly from a defensive perspective at PG...which I don't argue one bit Derrick is a much better defender than Junior...
Vander knew what the hell he was doing getting out of MU...as playing alongside Derrick would have handicapped him tremendously...and he likely would have had a statistical regression and hurt his draft stock.
This is what makes Ners so great ;)
Me: "Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not."
Ners: "all of what ails the team this year is defense???"
awesome - we now have Derrick Wilson responsible for Vander leaving.
Ners - I generally agree with taking issue to posters defending Derrick Wilson as the least of MU's problems. This, however, is ridiculous.
What next - Derrick Wilson responsible for the Polar Vortex and the US Speedskating failures?
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 01:27:23 PM
LOL - Compared to last year - we've regressed 2 spots nationally on defense this year....but 64 spots on the offensive end....but all of what ails the team this year is defense??? And we've upgraded significantly from a defensive perspective at PG...which I don't argue one bit Derrick is a much better defender than Junior...
Vander knew what the hell he was doing getting out of MU...as playing alongside Derrick would have handicapped him tremendously...and he likely would have had a statistical regression and hurt his draft stock.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 01:30:54 PM
This is what makes Ners so great ;)
Me: "Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not."
Ners: "all of what ails the team this year is defense???"
Sorry for splitting hairs...but this sure sounds like a guy who squarely places blame at foot of defense..
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 01:04:29 PM
Final point on this whole issue...
Marquette's offense has been ugly this year and many fans have commented on how the offense is holding this team back, but statistically it's been basically the same as last year's offense (which isn't saying much). This year's primary issues have been on the defensive end. THAT is where the team has really taken a step backwards this season. Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not. That simply means that sacrificing defense to help the offense isn't the answer.
Defense carried this team to the Elite 8 last year and defense is likely leading this team to the NIT this year.
Your analysis is sure interesting - how you draw the above conclusions - when our defense is just 2 spots worse nationally this year, than last year, while our offense is 64 spots worse...talk about some pretzel logic.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 02:20:43 PM
Sorry for splitting hairs...but this sure sounds like a guy who squarely places blame at foot of defense..
Your analysis is sure interesting - how you draw the above conclusions - when our defense is just 2 spots worse nationally this year, than last year, while our offense is 64 spots worse...talk about some pretzel logic.
This has already been addressed. Rankings and the actual numbers aren't the same thing.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 21, 2014, 02:25:52 PM
This has already been addressed. Rankings and the actual numbers aren't the same thing.
You're right. Rankings give context to actual numbers.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 02:39:25 PM
You're right. Rankings give context to actual numbers.
No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.
Example:
Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.
Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game. Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.
You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league. Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.
I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 21, 2014, 02:53:30 PM
No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.
Example:
Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.
Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game. Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.
You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league. Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.
I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.
Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.
In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:
2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4
So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th. What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..
Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.
Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.
Merritt,
I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2014, 03:19:08 PM
Merritt,
I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.
I appreciate the support, TAMU. There's just something about Ners' complete lack of reason and logic that sucks me in. I'm fully prepared to re-sign the NEP, stop taking the bait and earn my pin back.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 03:15:27 PM
Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.
In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:
2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4
So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th. What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..
Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.
Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.
Actually, it perfectly applies. You're just an unreasonable person. That's really all.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 21, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
Actually, it perfectly applies. You're just an unreasonable person. That's really all.
Do remedial courses in philosophy teach you to make conclusive statements and attack the speaker's character without addressing the speaker's premises in support of their conclusion? Give me a break. Don't drop a line like that and then post this crap.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 21, 2014, 02:53:30 PM
No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.
Example:
Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.
Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game. Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.
You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league. Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.
I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.
Rankings account for myriad variables that you nor I could completely wrap our heads around. They're certainly not perfect, and they can be misleading, but they serve a valuable purpose. Maybe LeBron is a better scorer this year based on stingier defenses, less PT than last year, etc.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 03:43:42 PM
Rankings account for myriad variables that you nor I could completely wrap our heads around. They're certainly not perfect, and they can be misleading, but they serve a valuable purpose. Maybe LeBron is a better scorer this year based on stingier defenses, less PT than last year, etc.
They do, obviously, but not in the manner he was trying to use them. If you haven't noticed, it is his MO. He forms an argument, is proven wrong, and then moves the field goals/changes the argument/creates an easier straw man to knock down.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 21, 2014, 03:47:16 PM
They do, obviously, but not in the manner he was trying to use them. If you haven't noticed, it is his MO. He forms an argument, is proven wrong, and then moves the field goals/changes the argument/creates an easier straw man to knock down.
The problem with the D Wilson argument for both sides is that there are soooo many statistics to use to support both sides and there are no tight parameters to the argument--only should D Wilson be playing as much as he does and the argument continue to evolve with each passing game. Under these circumstances, the argument can branch off into numerous sub-arguments through no fault of either side. As cumbersome as the argument has become, I've learned a lot through the process regarding D Wilson, our offense and defense. I'd even venture to say that it's been a rich debate with very little personal bashing or anything like that. That being said, I won't weep when this chapter of MU hoops debate is lost in the annals of MU scoop.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 21, 2014, 04:16:35 PM
The problem with the D Wilson argument for both sides is that there are soooo many statistics to use to support both sides and there are no tight parameters to the argument--only should D Wilson be playing as much as he does and the argument continue to evolve with each passing game. Under these circumstances, the argument can branch off into numerous sub-arguments through no fault of either side. As cumbersome as the argument has become, I've learned a lot through the process regarding D Wilson, our offense and defense. I'd even venture to say that it's been a rich debate with very little personal bashing or anything like that. That being said, I won't weep when this chapter of MU hoops debate is lost in the annals of MU scoop.
I absolutely agree. I'll cheer instead of forgoing the weeping.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2014, 03:19:08 PM
Merritt,
I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.
I respect everyone's opinion on topics and think it is healthy to debate points. I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint. In case you haven't noticed, all is not well in Marquette land this year as evidenced by our record. Certain people share what they think the issues are and they are labeled trolls? Well wouldn't it just be great if everyone had the same thought and feelings on every single topic...
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2014, 02:32:21 PM
Please cite a source showing that Dean Smith used to do that. I find it hard to believe.
You realize that the game against New Mexico wasn't IN New Mexico, right? It was in Vegas, 12 hours away from Dawson's hometown. If I was a parent (or recruit) and a coach put an undeserving player into a tightly-contested game simply because it happened to be in the same general vicinity as his hometown, I'd think that the coach isn't serious about winning.
To each his own.
Dean Smith was notes for running the four corners office, one of his strategies was to bring in the reserves and give them game experience when the outcome was still in doubt. He would bring them in at the end If the first half to do this. I witnessed it first hand many times. It built incredible team chemistry and loyalty to the program.
Dawson is clearly a player Buzz was willing to give time to in a road conference game. Give him a DNP in front of friends family etc does nothing but create bad will. There are aome concerned that JJJ will leave, I would be just as concerned for Dawson leaving. Riding pine behind Todd is one thing, but get splinters behind two far less talented players is another .
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 21, 2014, 06:34:21 PM
Dean Smith was notes for running the four corners office, one of his strategies was to bring in the reserves and give them game experience when the outcome was still in doubt. He would bring them in at the end If the first half to do this. I witnessed it first hand many times. It built incredible team chemistry and loyalty to the program.
Dawson is clearly a player Buzz was willing to give time to in a road conference game. Give him a DNP in front of friends family etc does nothing but create bad will. There are aome concerned that JJJ will leave, I would be just as concerned for Dawson leaving. Riding pine behind Todd is one thing, but get splinters behind two far less talented players is another .
How do you judge talent? On potential? If that's the case, you are probably right.
But as for right now? Hmmmm...how are you sure about that?
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 05:21:41 PM
I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint.
I'll take a shot at responding to this comment, and I'll limit it to what I have seen from Ners, who is generally the focal point of this talk.
I respect Ners opinion, as I respect others. I agree with him often. He is a good MU fan with many pertinent points.
He is not what I consider a classic troll. By my definition, a troll is generally a non-fan, but always someone who disrupts a thread as their goal.
Ners, however, often has the impact of a troll. During the height of the Derrick/Dawson debate, he took his opinion to multiple unrelated threads, and said the same thing over and over and over (and over). He also started several threads saying exactly the same thing as the disrupted threads. I do not believe he has the slightest desire to be a troll. However, when on a roll, he disrupts the board like a "classic" troll.
He also often doesn't listen or acknowledge valid points that counter his argument. While this is the norm on this board, it is compounded, with me, by the actions I describe in the prior paragraph.
So for me, he is treated like a troll.. I put him on Ignore. However, since he does offer many good insights, I also quickly take him off ignore when I sense he is off his soapbox.
I hope this help explains it from my own perspective.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 06:42:12 PM
How do you judge talent? On potential? If that's the case, you are probably right.
But as for right now? Hmmmm...how are you sure about that?
How can you be so sure Derrick is the best option?? ARe you really impressed with what he's done this year? Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt to think a freshman who has tripled Derrick's career 3 point makes, and shoots 83% from the free throw line, might possibly be an upgrade over a 7% 3pt shooter and 48% FT shooter??
YOu have 1 game of Dawson getting 30 minutes of PT all year. It went well. We have 20 games of Derrick getting 30+, 15 or so of which have been extremely limited from a production standpoint.
Funny how Dawson has 1 bad stretch of playing time and he gets 2 DNP's thereafter, yet Derrick has had numerous poor stretches and virtually never sees the bench unless in foul trouble.
I mean we are talking probably record setting meager production in the way of 1, 3pt shot made for a starting PG averaging 30+ minutes per game after 26 games into his junior year. Do you ever recall seeing teams sag 6-8' off a PG on the perimeter and just totally and complete disrespect the player in such a way??
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 07:18:53 PM
How can you be so sure Derrick is the best option??
I have answered this question repeatedly and in this very thread. No need for me to do so again.
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 03:15:27 PM
Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.
In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:
2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4
So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th. What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..
Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.
Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.
I look at those numbers and see: Our offensive efficiency has gotten less worse than our defensive efficiency comparing last year to this year (2 pt offensive efficiency vs. 3.2 defensive efficiency). Comparing the rankings of our efficiencies ignores the performance of every other D1 school, which is a lot to ignore.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 05:21:41 PM
I respect everyone's opinion on topics and think it is healthy to debate points. I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint. In case you haven't noticed, all is not well in Marquette land this year as evidenced by our record. Certain people share what they think the issues are and they are labeled trolls? Well wouldn't it just be great if everyone had the same thought and feelings on every single topic...
See Archie's post for my main response. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The only thing I would add is that I label people as trolls who only show up to point out the negatives. For me, you need to point out the good and the bad.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on February 21, 2014, 07:33:35 PM
I look at those numbers and see: Our offensive efficiency has gotten less worse than our defensive efficiency comparing last year to this year (2 pt offensive efficiency vs. 3.2 defensive efficiency). Comparing the rankings of our efficiencies ignores the performance of every other D1 school, which is a lot to ignore.
Think you are misinterpreting the stat. The rankings I listed take into account every other D1 School. Plain and simple:
We were 46th in the nation defensively last year...and are 48th this year...compared to all D-1 teams.
We were 25th in the country in offensive efficiency last year...but are 89th this year...compared to all D-1 teams.
The issue is....is that the defense being played across the country this year, isn't as good as last year - likely due to new hand check rules. What that also means is that our offensive rating should have risen accordingly...but instead...we've regressed from last year...that is a double whammy. We face less defensive challenge essentially this year, yet are 2 points (not basketball points) worse in our Offensive Efficiency Rating.
Again - the 94.2 rating we posted in 2012-2013 was good for 46th in the country. This year, that number would be good for 19th in the country...means across the board, defense isn't being played as well this year as last....which again should lead to a natural uptick in our offensive efficiency...but instead we've regressed over last year offensively...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
See Archie's post for my main response. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The only thing I would add is that I label people as trolls who only show up to point out the negatives. For me, you need to point out the good and the bad.
I thought Archie's post was very well thought out. I personally want every MArquette player to succeed. I get frustrated with posters trumpeting every little thing Derrick does well and justifying his mediocre play and I feel it antagonizes posters who think his game is suspect. He seems like a great kid and I don't want to continually break him down. That being said, I also am mentally drained watching him run the point game after game. If anything I should rip Buzz's choice to continually play him max minutes. Anyways here's to a Marquette butt thumping tomorrow!! Hope Derrick goes for 20 and 10 ;D
Maybe we should start a D Wilson venting thread? Then we can keep it to one thread, only people who wanna read it will, and improve the quality of the other threads? Seems like a win win to me!!
Quote from: Archies Bat on February 21, 2014, 07:11:36 PM
I'll take a shot at responding to this comment, and I'll limit it to what I have seen from Ners, who is generally the focal point of this talk.
I respect Ners opinion, as I respect others. I agree with him often. He is a good MU fan with many pertinent points.
He is not what I consider a classic troll. By my definition, a troll is generally a non-fan, but always someone who disrupts a thread as their goal.
Ners, however, often has the impact of a troll. During the height of the Derrick/Dawson debate, he took his opinion to multiple unrelated threads, and said the same thing over and over and over (and over). He also started several threads saying exactly the same thing as the disrupted threads. I do not believe he has the slightest desire to be a troll. However, when on a roll, he disrupts the board like a "classic" troll.
He also often doesn't listen or acknowledge valid points that counter his argument. While this is the norm on this board, it is compounded, with me, by the actions I describe in the prior paragraph.
So for me, he is treated like a troll.. I put him on Ignore. However, since he does offer many good insights, I also quickly take him off ignore when I sense he is off his soapbox.
I hope this help explains it from my own perspective.
I can't argue with how you've laid this out...it's reasonable...and I get it...it's fair. I will say, however, that I do acknowledge valid arguments that counter my positions at times - yet unfortunately, I am beyond convicted (obviously) on the issue at PG. I cannot concede a point, that I don't believe to be true. Nonetheless, I have voted Derrick SOTG on one occasion, and have noted his better play of late - yet that aside, that doesn't mean I have to agree with opposing viewpoints on his merits as being the starter or being our best option.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 21, 2014, 06:42:12 PM
How do you judge talent? On potential? If that's the case, you are probably right.
But as for right now? Hmmmm...how are you sure about that?
I am not saying that Derrick and Jake are without talent. I am saying their talent is one dimensional in each case. I have no problem with Derrick getting to start and playing the first five minutes of each half and aggressive try to make things happen on the defensive end. Also have no problem having Jack come in from time to time and when circumstances warrant to provide some shooting . They work hard deserve to play and add value if properly managed. however their liabilities are great so I believe their minutes have to be focused I we are to win.The freshman all are much more of an offensive threat , and have the ability to create on their own . They have a higher ceiling and only get better with time. The team benefits the more they play. I guarantee you these players all see the same things we do.
Quote from: mubuzz on February 21, 2014, 08:40:08 PM
I thought Archie's post was very well thought out. I personally want every MArquette player to succeed. I get frustrated with posters trumpeting every little thing Derrick does well and justifying his mediocre play and I feel it antagonizes posters who think his game is suspect. He seems like a great kid and I don't want to continually break him down. That being said, I also am mentally drained watching him run the point game after game. If anything I should rip Buzz's choice to continually play him max minutes. Anyways here's to a Marquette butt thumping tomorrow!! Hope Derrick goes for 20 and 10 ;D
I'll drink to that!
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 21, 2014, 10:20:25 PM
I am not saying that Derrick and Jake are without talent. I am saying their talent is one dimensional in each case. I have no problem with Derrick getting to start and playing the first five minutes of each half and aggressive try to make things happen on the defensive end. Also have no problem having Jack come in from time to time and when circumstances warrant to provide some shooting . They work hard deserve to play and add value if properly managed. however their liabilities are great so I believe their minutes have to be focused I we are to win.The freshman all are much more of an offensive threat , and have the ability to create on their own . They have a higher ceiling and only get better with time. The team benefits the more they play. I guarantee you these players all see the same things we do.
So what if, say for instance, the Derrick Wilson was regularly handling John Dawson in practice?
Quote from: Ners on February 21, 2014, 08:28:31 PM
The issue is....is that the defense being played across the country this year, isn't as good as last year - likely due to new hand check rules. What that also means is that our offensive rating should have risen accordingly...but instead...we've regressed from last year...that is a double whammy. We face less defensive challenge essentially this year, yet are 2 points (not basketball points) worse in our Offensive Efficiency Rating.
Again - the 94.2 rating we posted in 2012-2013 was good for 46th in the country. This year, that number would be good for 19th in the country...means across the board, defense isn't being played as well this year as last....which again should lead to a natural uptick in our offensive efficiency...but instead we've regressed over last year offensively...
These are some very good points. I don't have the access to see how if the Adj OR has gone up on overall average due to rule changes or not, but on face value it makes sense.
Quote from: Chris Columbo on February 21, 2014, 10:20:25 PM
I am not saying that Derrick and Jake are without talent. I am saying their talent is one dimensional in each case. I have no problem with Derrick getting to start and playing the first five minutes of each half and aggressive try to make things happen on the defensive end. Also have no problem having Jack come in from time to time and when circumstances warrant to provide some shooting . They work hard deserve to play and add value if properly managed. however their liabilities are great so I believe their minutes have to be focused I we are to win.The freshman all are much more of an offensive threat , and have the ability to create on their own . They have a higher ceiling and only get better with time. The team benefits the more they play. I guarantee you these players all see the same things we do.
I think the attached screen shot from Ken Pomroy speaks to the point you are making. I would highly doubt there is another team with its lead minute getter, and 2nd leading minute getter who show up in the "Limited Roles" category....interesting to see Burton is seen as a go to guy by Pomroy's metrics...which the eye test certainly confirms...
Quote from: Ners on February 22, 2014, 08:03:07 AM
I think the attached screen shot from Ken Pomroy speaks to the point you are making. I would highly doubt there is another team with its lead minute getter, and 2nd leading minute getter who show up in the "Limited Roles" category....interesting to see Burton is seen as a go to guy by Pomroy's metrics...which the eye test certainly confirms...
Ners--how dare you post a statistical chart that shows that according to national stats Jake and derrick are limited role offensive players? How dare you? This only demonstrates that Buzz's stubbornness of playing these guys so many minutes is misguided. It also destroys the narratives of some on this board that these guys deserve all the minutes they can get, because in Buzz we trust, they are lock down defenders and gamechangers, according to the Coach--who subscribes to his own stats. How dare you. Of course now comes the obligatory slams on Ners, Pomeroy, and against any objective analysis. These are just meaningless stats, while opinions have greater value.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 22, 2014, 08:46:06 AM
Ners--how dare you post a statistical chart that shows that according to national stats Jake and derrick are limited role offensive players? How dare you? This only demonstrates that Buzz's stubbornness of playing these guys so many minutes is misguided. It also destroys the narratives of some on this board that these guys deserve all the minutes they can get, because in Buzz we trust, they are lock down defenders and gamechangers, according to the Coach--who subscribes to his own stats. How dare you. Of course now comes the obligatory slams on Ners, Pomeroy, and against any objective analysis. These are just meaningless stats, while opinions have greater value.
I will agree that it shows they are limited role offensive players. What it does not show is that the people behind them would be any better. Once again, no one has ever claimed that Derrick and Jake are world beaters on offense. I have used the term "limited role player" myself on many occasion. What we argue is that there is nobody better to take their place, they are the best we have
right now. Pomroy also has Dawson in the limited role players and Jake is our only three point shooter on the team.
I also don't see anything there that disproves their value on defense.
EDIT: After re looking at the chart, the Burton being a go to guy stat is a little skewed. KP bases this off % of possessions used. You only get marked as used if you take a shot, make an assist, turn it over, or grab a board. All this tells me about Burton is that when he gets the ball, he is looking to shoot or turn it over. One of the two.
Double post
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 22, 2014, 11:18:09 AM
I will agree that it shows they are limited role offensive players. What it does not show is that the people behind them would be any better. Once again, no one has ever claimed that Derrick and Jake are world beaters on offense. I have used the term "limited role player" myself on many occasion. What we argue is that there is nobody better to take their place, they are the best we have right now. Pomroy also has Dawson in the limited role players and Jake is our only three point shooter on the team.
I also don't see anything there that disproves their value on defense.
EDIT: After re looking at the chart, the Burton being a go to guy stat is a little skewed. KP bases this off % of possessions used. You only get marked as used if you take a shot, make an assist, turn it over, or grab a board. All this tells me about Burton is that when he gets the ball, he is looking to shoot or turn it over. One of the two.
Big assumption "right now", because there are guys sitting on the bench that have only seen limited duty this year. Many believe that Jake and Derrick have reached their max with the limitations still there, so the argument can still be made that the other guys should be getting more minutes to develop. several guys could be getting more minutes, but not happening under Buzz's system. I Know, I know, this has been debated ad infinitum, but guess what? It is very embarrassing that our starting backcourt, getting about 70 minutes a game are considered "limited role". And that is a major factor in a 15-11 record and middle of the pack conference standings. What happens next year, will our starting PG still get 38 minutes a game? If so, he better significantly improve his perimeter shooting and FT shooting, and scoring. How many believe that will happen? Yes he can play defense, but we will still suffer offensively, considering we will be losing about 55-60% of our offense. All of this is directly on da coach.
Quote from: Ners on February 22, 2014, 08:03:07 AM
I think the attached screen shot from Ken Pomroy speaks to the point you are making. I would highly doubt there is another team with its lead minute getter, and 2nd leading minute getter who show up in the "Limited Roles" category....interesting to see Burton is seen as a go to guy by Pomroy's metrics...which the eye test certainly confirms...
The next 3 top minute getters are getting 72.1 of the possessions, and I don't see anyone complaining about Davante, Jamil, and Todd getting too many touches. So I guess I'm just wondering who you want to take the ball away from to get Derrick and Jake more touches.
Forgive my formatting, but I just looked at 2 other teams quickly to see the top 5 minute getters and their % of play stats. I don't see anything wildly out of the ordinary for MU:
Marquette Creighton Butler
Name Minute % Play % Name Minute % Play % Name Minute % Play %
Derrick Wilson 74.5 15.2 Doug McDermott 81.9 32.3 Kellen Dunham 87.8 24.5
Jake Thomas 69.2 13.3 Austin Chatman 71.8 17.4 Kameron Woods 81 17.8
Jamil Wilson 68.6 24.2 Jahenns Manigat 69.8 13.1 Alex Barlow 77.3 13.2
Davante Gardner 65.2 24.7 Ethan Wragge 67.5 14.1 Khyle Marshall 70.2 26.7
Todd Mayo 50.9 23.2 Grant Gibbs 49.9 17.5 Erik Fromm 54.1 16.6