per multiple twitter sources. Dawson may have to get some time in this one.
Dressing 8. A cold chill just went down my spine, one that has nothing to do with the friggin weather.
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 11:50:07 AM
Dressing 8. A cold chill just went down my spine, one that has nothing to do with the friggin weather.
Might be a real "character builder." Boy, this OSU-MU series, with the first one on the aircraft carrier sure seemed exciting up until the court got all wet. Been downhill since. Hoping we can keep it respectable tomorrow. Good experience for the young guys though for the big games ahead going forward.
OMG. The sky is falling....OMG....the sky is falling. What will happen to us without the elight one?
Guards are gonna have to be much smarter with their fouls. Can't help but think MU is in for a shellacking tomorrow night.
This was going to be a longshot game regardless...but suiting only 8 guys due the the loss of our most experienced player isn't good. Any foul trouble or - shudder - injuries could make this go from ugly to disastrous really fast.
A road game, against the 20th ranked team in the country, dressing only 8 guys, the tallest of which is 6'7."
What could go wrong?
Does MU have any walkons?
I'm more optimistic about our chances now.
Just look for the positives in the game tomorrow.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on November 17, 2014, 12:09:52 PM
Just look for the positives in the game tomorrow.
1. No overtime to clog up the rest of my evening plans!!!
2. Scoop is fun when in meltdown mode.
Quote from: StELLWarrENSON on November 17, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
per multiple twitter sources. Dawson may have to get some time in this one.
Doesnt questionable mean 50% chance of playing? Why is everyone so pessimistic?
Can we bring back Toddler for a game? He's probably attended about as much class this season as he did last year.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 17, 2014, 12:00:19 PM
A road game, against the 20th ranked team in the country, dressing only 8 guys, the tallest of which is 6'7."
What could go wrong?
Ohio State has more players 6'7" and over on their roster than MU has eligible players on their roster.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 17, 2014, 12:34:33 PM
Ohio State has more players 6'7" and over on their roster than MU has eligible players on their roster.
We've got them right where we want them.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:04:46 PM
I'm more optimistic about our chances now.
Wow. I thought you said you knew basketball
I think Chitown has eligibility. :o
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 17, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
Wow. I thought you said you knew basketball
Look out, you got a one-on-one challenge coming your way.
Quote from: jsglow on November 17, 2014, 12:42:56 PM
I think Chitown has eligibility. :o
Not sure being 5'9 1/2" would help Marquette in this case. Although that being said, if Im open behind the 3 point line I can hit some shots. Better send my resume to Wojo this instant.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:04:46 PM
I'm more optimistic about our chances now.
I know you don't like Derrick but this is a disgusting comment. Even with your disdain for Derrick I wouldn't have thought that you would be this low
so he aggravated the groin with one of the ugliest drives to the basket every witnessed in a Marquette game?
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 11:50:07 AM
Dressing 8. A cold chill just went down my spine, one that has nothing to do with the friggin weather.
Who's reporting that we'll only be dressing 8?
Quote from: WolverineWarrior85 on November 17, 2014, 12:50:09 PM
Who's reporting that we'll only be dressing 8?
If Derrick is out, we will only have 8 playing. 11 on scholarship. Wally and Luke ineligible. Derrick hurt.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 17, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
Wow. I thought you said you knew basketball
I do. And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be. We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 17, 2014, 12:47:29 PM
I know you don't like Derrick but this is a disgusting comment. Even with your disdain for Derrick I wouldn't have thought that you would be this low
Sorry you found it offensive, as I'm sure a few others did. But, like I said above - I stand by the statement and belief, harsh as it may be.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:53:01 PM
I do. And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be. We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.
Sorry you found it offensive, as I'm sure a few others did. But, like I said above - I stand by the statement and belief, harsh as it may be.
Arguing a player should be benched is one thing. But wishing an injury upon or being happy that injury occurred to one of your own players is despicable.
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
A new low.
LOL - I knew it was only a matter of time...before you chimed in Tower. Guess we'll see how the game plays out. I know you were very bearish in the off season as to our chances this year to actually even improve on our record for last year - and have been popping off all offseason about what a rough year this will be. Furthermore, know you feel it is critical to this team to have Derrick on the floor for 20+, and even with him, know you'd certainly have expected a fairly good trouncing tomorrow night. Hell in your view, at this point, we probably shouldn't even show up in Columbus.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 17, 2014, 12:57:03 PM
Arguing a player should be benched is one thing. But wishing an injury upon or being happy that injury occurred to one of your own players is despicable.
I'm not "wishing" an injury upon anyone nor "happy" that one of our guys is hurt. I simply feel that we have a better chance to win the game with the other guards getting Derrick's minutes.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 01:01:14 PM
LOL - I knew it was only a matter of time...before you chimed in Tower. Guess we'll see how the game plays out. I know you were very bearish in the off season as to our chances this year to actually even improve on our record for last year - and have been popping off all offseason about what a rough year this will be. Furthermore, know you feel it is critical to this team to have Derrick on the floor for 20+, and even with him, know you'd certainly have expected a fairly good trouncing tomorrow night. Hell in your view, at this point, we probably shouldn't even show up in Columbus.
Being happy because a player on your team is injured is just wrong and unhealthy on so many levels. If you can't see the difference between being 'bearish' (I am. But I would love to be wrong) and being happy that Derrick is hurt, then I am genuinely concerned about you.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 17, 2014, 12:52:09 PM
If Derrick is out, we will only have 8 playing. 11 on scholarship. Wally and Luke ineligible. Derrick hurt.
I get all that, but who is saying he won't even dress for the game? Questionable usually means it's 50-50 he'll play, not that he'll be in street clothes.
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
A new low.
I agree. I think I've finally heard enough bashing on Derrick. Time for the ignore. I don't understand how someone can post non stop in every single dang thread about this. It's ridiculous. I've finally let it get to me.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:04:46 PM
I'm more optimistic about our chances now.
Guess it wasn't just Bert. You know our personnel better than Wojo too. Color me impressed.
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 01:05:59 PM
Being happy because a player on your team is injured is just wrong and unhealthy on so many levels. If you can't see the difference between being 'bearish' (I am. But I would love to be wrong) and being happy that Derrick is hurt, then I am genuinely concerned about you.
Explained above. There is a difference/distinction. There have been many examples in sports where a guy gets injured, and the team ultimately goes on to do better things as a result - and the "injured" player ultimately gets to reap the benefits of being on a team that wins more. Would Brett Farve have gotten the immediate playing time had Don Majikowski not gotten hurt? Tom Brady? Coaches feel a loyalty to vets in many cases, and often have a hard time making a switch - particularly when the vet is a stand up, hard working, high character guy.
a new low in reading comprehension and speculation.
1) Questionable does not mean he is out for sure
2) Nowhere did Ners wish injury to or say he is happy to Derrick is injured
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:53:01 PM
I do. And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be. We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.
Sorry you found it offensive, as I'm sure a few others did. But, like I said above - I stand by the statement and belief, harsh as it may be.
Even when factoring in derricks shortcomings, it would be more beneficial to the team to have another body for fouls and giving others a breather. That's where my problem with your statement is.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 17, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Even when factoring in derricks shortcomings, it would be more beneficial to the team to have another body for fouls and giving others a breather. That's where my problem with your statement is.
Fair enough. I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina. Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
Fair enough. I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina. Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.
I can accept that. Just different philosophies between us. I'd rather have as many bodies as possible just in case the worst happens.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
I'm not "wishing" an injury upon anyone nor "happy" that one of our guys is hurt. I simply feel that we have a better chance to win the game with the other guards getting Derrick's minutes.
That's exactly what you're doing. Because if the other guards were better, than they would play over Derrick. If Derrick has to be injured for them to get playing time, then they shouldn't be playing. But since you know more about basketball than Wojo, you are optimistic about this injury because now Dawson will have to be played an Wojo will finally see what you have seen all along!
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:04:46 PM
I'm more optimistic about our chances now.
I was hoping you merely forgot to use teal, but I see by your subsequent comments that, no, you're merely a douchebag.
Your lame attempts to explain that you aren't really glad Derrick is hurt ... ugh.
My record shows I do not think Derrick is good enough to be a big-minutes PG at our level, but I would never be as callous as you are. Throw in the very high probability that we'll need more than 8 warm bodies against Ohio State, and it shows an amazing lack of basketball knowledge for a guy who believes he taught the game to Naismith.
I lost a lot of respect for you with this one, and I was one of the few Scoopers who occasionally stuck up for you.
Quote from: MU82 on November 17, 2014, 01:40:51 PM
I was hoping you merely forgot to use teal, but I see by your subsequent comments that, no, you're merely a douchebag.
Your lame attempts to explain that you aren't really glad Derrick is hurt ... ugh.
My record shows I do not think Derrick is good enough to be a big-minutes PG at our level, but I would never be as callous as you are. Throw in the very high probability that we'll need more than 8 warm bodies against Ohio State, and it shows an amazing lack of basketball knowledge for a guy who believes he taught the game to Naismith.
I lost a lot of respect for you with this one, and I was one of the few Scoopers who occasionally stuck up for you.
MU82,
You always say exactly what I am trying to, but better. Cheers!
Worst-case, Derrick will dress just in case he's needed to give spot minutes in a pinch.
Not sure what the injury is other than "lower leg" but at this point in the season, no use risking further injury by playing him if he's questionable, especially considering MU will need all the depth they can find in Orlando when they're playing 3 out of 4 days. The most important thing is to have him healthy for conference games.
I'm sure Diener could dress in Derrick's uni and no one would be the wiser, aina?
I've never been a big Derrick basher, mainly because he plays for MU, so he's alright with me. The guy gives it his all and that's all I, as a fan, can ask for.
But honestly, I don't think this really hurts all that much. It'd be nice to have him available off the bench in case of foul trouble. Only having 8 players available is scary. But this team is much better off with Carlino and Duane running the point.
Tomorrow may be ugly (I am hopeful), but I don't think missing Derrick will be the reason why. Rebounding is a much bigger concern.
My concern isn't so much that it is Derrick as it is that MU only dresses 8. If, indeed, he is too injured to play, it isn't difficult to envision this being the first time since the 1985 NIT loss to IU where MU finishes the game with less than 5 players on the floor.
Damn, I knew I shouldn't have used up all my eligibility on intramural football
While, I also am very pro Derrick riding the pine...this situation is not what I had in mind. My preference is that he isn't playing 30 minutes a game(or close to it) but we badly need him healthy.
8 guys is just terrifying. That is 5 less fouls we can afford and at least Derrick is a good defender.
Dawson barely played vs UTM and we can't even afford him to be unavailable for a game. Quick foul trouble or *knock on wood* an in game injury/cramp and we are screwed.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
Fair enough. I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina. Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.
Marquette's not a "GREAT team." Marquette is a young, inexperienced team that is playing its first game on the road against a top 20 team in the nation. Foul trouble is a legitimate concern. So is being overwhelmed by the moment. Having an experienced player, even if it is to get you the 8-10 minutes per game you advocate for him, is better than not having him.
I'm not going to jump all over you for being glad a player is hurt, because I don't think you want him hurt. However, I will jump all over your supposed superior basketball knowledge. Having more options available is better than less options - even if you don't end up using those options.
Not to mention that your obsession with this player is simply bizarre.
And sure, many teams go with a rotation of 8 players(MU themselves) but that's with 4-5 other guys available should their numbers be called.
In this scenario we would HAVE to go with 8 guys and there is no fallback plan.
It is very different
So people are saying that not having Derrick is going to help Marquette's chances against Ohio State? Wow. So a team that is hoping to press after made baskets and dead balls and extend their half-court defense out to half court, and is thus very susceptible to fouls, can afford to have 1 less body available despite only having 9 total even when completely healthy? Well then, I must not have played high school basketball or something, because this logic makes absolutely 0 sense.
On a somewhat unrelated note, can people please stop quoting Ners and just say his name if they're responding to him? His complete lack of knowledge...and understanding...of...the English lan...guage...is hurting my...head. Thank...you...
your leaving the door wide open for 4 on 5 comments...
Quote from: tower912 on November 17, 2014, 02:01:06 PM
My concern isn't so much that it is Derrick as it is that MU only dresses 8. If, indeed, he is too injured to play, it isn't difficult to envision this being the first time since the 1985 NIT loss to IU where MU finishes the game with less than 5 players on the floor.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 17, 2014, 02:10:50 PM
So people are saying that not having Derrick is going to help Marquette's chances against Ohio State? Wow. So a team that is hoping to press after made baskets and dead balls and extend their half-court defense out to half court, and is thus very susceptible to fouls, can afford to have 1 less body available despite only having 9 total even when completely healthy? Well then, I must not have played high school basketball or something, because this logic makes absolutely 0 sense.
On a somewhat unrelated note, can people please stop quoting Ners and just say his name if they're responding to him? His complete lack of knowledge...and understanding...of...the English lan...guage...is hurting my...head. Thank...you...
Well I think Ners is the only one who actually thinks 8 dressed players is a good thing lol
Quote from: MU82 on November 17, 2014, 01:40:51 PM
I was hoping you merely forgot to use teal, but I see by your subsequent comments that, no, you're merely a douchebag.
Your lame attempts to explain that you aren't really glad Derrick is hurt ... ugh.
My record shows I do not think Derrick is good enough to be a big-minutes PG at our level, but I would never be as callous as you are. Throw in the very high probability that we'll need more than 8 warm bodies against Ohio State, and it shows an amazing lack of basketball knowledge for a guy who believes he taught the game to Naismith.
I lost a lot of respect for you with this one, and I was one of the few Scoopers who occasionally stuck up for you.
No worries. I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better. Sorry. But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.
And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out?? Having 8 capable players is enough. Having a 9th a luxury, I guess. Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue. Steve or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
No worries. I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better. Sorry. But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.
And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out?? Having 8 capable players is enough. Having a 9th a luxury, I guess. Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue. Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.
Last game Derrick got 13 minutes. That same game Dawson got 4 minutes of action. What % of Derrick's minutes does Dawson pick up tomorrow?
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
No worries. I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better. Sorry. But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.
And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out?? Having 8 capable players is enough. Having a 9th a luxury, I guess. Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue. Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.
On Friday night, an under-sized Ball State team had 3 players foul out against Utah and 3 other players finished with 4 fouls. Ball State had the luxury of playing 10 guys, 9 of whom played more than 10 minutes.
Statistically speaking, if there are fewer subs (i.e. fewer ways to spread the minutes), it increases the chances of individual players getting into foul trouble.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 17, 2014, 11:57:06 AM
OMG. The sky is falling....OMG....the sky is falling. What will happen to us without the elight one?
Really? No one else going to ask Willie what the hell an "elight one" is?
?-(
Quote from: robertoc on November 17, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
Really? No one else going to ask Willie what the hell and "elight one" is?
?-(
It's easier to just let him rave on in his own little corner of the forum.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on November 17, 2014, 02:54:08 PM
It's easier to just let him rave on in his own little corner of the forum.
Well done!!!!
Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players. ::)
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on November 17, 2014, 03:19:49 PM
Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players. ::)
I dont remember that being an argument. I think everybody realized the end goal Wojo had in mind and everybody was pretty much on board.
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on November 17, 2014, 03:19:49 PM
Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players. ::)
I also don't remember this argument being made but there's a significant difference between playing a standard 8-man rotation and having only 8 guys available to play.
There will be various injuries to deal with throughout the year. Get used to it.
We have nothing to lose in this game and I view it as an opportunity. I hope we don't get destroyed, but if we do it will be a learning experience that will benefit us in conference play.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
No worries. I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better. Sorry. But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.
There is ZERO strategic advantage in one of your own players being hurt. ZERO. Losing a player automatically lowers your team's capability, no matter how terrible they are. If I was a walk on for Marquette, losing me to injury lowers our team's ability. By .0000001% in my case, but it lowers it. There is no addition by subtraction here, because you get nothing in return. Unless you truly think that Derrick has negative value as a college basketball player.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out?? Having 8 capable players is enough. Having a 9th a luxury, I guess. Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue. Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.
Now you are being deliberately stubborn. The less players you have, the less you can spread out fouls between them. With only 8 players, you may not be able to sub out a player who gets two or three fouls quick. In addition, we are undersized. Since you were a stud high school player, you should know that undersized teams tend to pick up fouls quicker because they have to hack the bigger players to prevent points in the paint. It also seems like Wojo likes to play full court and 3/4 court presses with lots of on the ball pressure. That means lots of cheap fouls on your guards. You need as much as depth as possible at that position.
You may recall that against a very undersized and much less talented UT Martin we had four players end up with four fouls. If the refs call it a little stricter, or we get injured, or if we foul more because of Ohio State's talent and size than we are screwed.
But you know all this. Despite your attempts to fool us, you have a lot of basketball knowledge. That's why I don't, and many others don't buy your "I'm not happy he's out" act. You know there is zero advantage to having Derrick out. But this is a chance for Dawson to play and prove everyone, including Wojo, wrong. Then you would finally be proven right! Your fandom is backwards when being proven right is a higher priority than your team winning.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 17, 2014, 02:45:53 PM
On Friday night, an under-sized Ball State team had 3 players foul out against Utah and 3 other players finished with 4 fouls. Ball State had the luxury of playing 10 guys, 9 of whom played more than 10 minutes.
Statistically speaking, if there are fewer subs (i.e. fewer ways to spread the minutes), it increases the chances of individual players getting into foul trouble.
I get your point, yet I'd say statistically speaking it is a huge anamoly for a team to have more than 3 guys foul out of game. Obviously, going in with 8, you know you have to pay extra attention to the foul situation, yet like any game, when player gets in legitimate foul trouble, he'll go to the bench. I simply don't see a scenario where MU ultimately ends up having 4 guys foul out of this game or any for that matter, and being left to play 4 on 5 (which, let's recall, Buzz said we did all of last year anyway.) :o
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 17, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
There is ZERO strategic advantage in one of your own players being hurt. ZERO. Losing a player automatically lowers your team's capability, no matter how terrible they are. If I was a walk on for Marquette, losing me to injury lowers our team's ability. By .0000001% in my case, but it lowers it. There is no addition by subtraction here, because you get nothing in return. Unless you truly think that Derrick has negative value as a college basketball player.
Now you are being deliberately stubborn. The less players you have, the less you can spread out fouls between them. With only 8 players, you may not be able to sub out a player who gets two or three fouls quick. In addition, we are undersized. Since you were a stud high school player, you should know that undersized teams tend to pick up fouls quicker because they have to hack the bigger players to prevent points in the paint. It also seems like Wojo likes to play full court and 3/4 court presses with lots of on the ball pressure. That means lots of cheap fouls on your guards. You need as much as depth as possible at that position.
You may recall that against a very undersized and much less talented UT Martin we had four players end up with four fouls. If the refs call it a little stricter, or we get injured, or if we foul more because of Ohio State's talent and size than we are screwed.
But you know all this. Despite your attempts to fool us, you have a lot of basketball knowledge. That's why I don't, and many others don't buy your "I'm not happy he's out" act. You know there is zero advantage to having Derrick out. But this is a chance for Dawson to play and prove everyone, including Wojo, wrong. Then you would finally be proven right! Your fandom is backwards when being proven right is a higher priority than your team winning.
Do you understand the concept of Opportunity Cost? Clearly not.
And no, my fandom isn't backwards - this isn't about hoping to "be proven right" it's that my highest priority as a fan is my team winning.
I've also explained ad naseum why it is totally and completely plausible at this stage of the season as to why Wojo would be riding Derrick...incumbent, experience, captain, high character, good defender - yet those traits don't necessarily mean nor translate into being the best option for those minutes. It's still obviously very early and Wojo has to sort all of this out.
I am hoping Dawson seizes the opportunity and makes Wojo realize he can play well given minutes. We might miss Derrick's defense and his 5 fouls, but our offense will not suffer at all.
Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.
Last year we had 13 dq's all season.
The year before only 6 all season.
Before that, only 5 all season.
And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.
I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.
Quote from: The Equalizer on November 17, 2014, 05:14:19 PM
Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.
Last year we had 13 dq's all season.
The year before only 6 all season.
Before that, only 5 all season.
And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.
I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.
Wouldn't a more accurate look be some sort of metric of total team fouls per game?
Quote from: robertoc on November 17, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
Really? No one else going to ask Willie what the hell an "elight one" is?
?-(
Not a typo, but it is your smug attempt to infer I do not know how to spell. I decided to change elite to elight to put a different perspective on his play.
Quote from: The Equalizer on November 17, 2014, 05:14:19 PM
Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.
Last year we had 13 dq's all season.
The year before only 6 all season.
Before that, only 5 all season.
And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.
I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.
Yeah but as mentioned. On those teams we had options to bring in if there was foul trouble.
If vander picked up a couple quick ones. Enter Todd. If DJO also picked up a couple or Junior. Then theres Derrick or even Jamail.
Davante? Run small with Jamil. Jae picks up some quick ones? Jamil. Juan.
You see? there was depth everywhere.
With only 8 guys if a few people pick up two fouls they may have to stay out there because we don't have enough subs. It definitely matters having guys available for even a few minutes.
I mean if we get the Gophers/Lousiville refs...We'd be almost out of players at halftime.
Quote from: StELLWarrENSON on November 17, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
per multiple twitter sources. Dawson may have to get some time in this one.
I want Dawson to get some time. Hes a D-1 athlete.... Its time to show and prove!
But never at anyones injury expense. We all want the guys to be healthy.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 12:53:01 PM
I do. And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be. We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.
It blows my mind that you truly believe you know better than two D1 coaches about Derrick Wilson's overall ability and value to a bball team. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks you should never question or criticize a coach simply because, "he knows more about bball than you". But in this case, two separate coaches with very different philosophies believe that Derrick Wilson is good enough to start and get significant minutes, and you seem to think he is no better than a walk-on.
Either your right or both Buzz and Wojo are both wrong...
Quote from: MUSF on November 17, 2014, 06:18:50 PM
It blows my mind that you truly believe you know better than two D1 coaches about Derrick Wilson's overall ability and value to a bball team. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks you should never question or criticize a coach simply because, "he knows more about bball than you". But in this case, two separate coaches with very different philosophies believe that Derrick Wilson is good enough to start and get significant minutes, and you seem to think he is no better than a walk-on.
Either your right or both Buzz and Wojo are both wrong...
My OPINION simply is that at this point in time Wojo has a good number of reasons to roll with Derrick that I've stated many times. I'll be surprised if come mid January Derrick is playing more than 10-15 minutes per game, regardless of if he is starting or not.
But, I also understand your point and others that this now 2 coaching staffs who have drawn the same conclusion - yet in the case of the Wojo administration this is still very, very, very early and how things are now, doesn't necessarily mean that's how they are going to be.
1. Regardless of who we all feel is better or worse, we shouldn't say it is no loss or concern. These guys work their butts off to represent our university.
2. Based on my initial review, I think Shannon Scott and Russell are who we need to stop. They accounted for 17 of the 20 assists in the first game and Scott ran 30 minutes at point in a blow out. Having an extra pair of legs to dog Scott on the defensive end can only be good thing. If Derrick is a good defender, like two coaching staffs have said, then he can only provide value against Scott.
3. Playing a guy 30+ minutes a game, especially, in a blowout indicates a weakness at that position. Look at MU last year. Again as many fresh bodies at that position might help expose that weakness.
4. I would rather a player prove themselves against a cupcake rather than a Top 25 competitor prior to saying there is a missed opportunityor an o-rating that won't be missed.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 06:26:33 PM
My OPINION simply is that at this point in time Wojo has a good number of reasons to roll with Derrick that I've stated many times. I'll be surprised if come mid January Derrick is playing more than 10-15 minutes per game, regardless of if he is starting or not.
But, I also understand your point and others that this now 2 coaching staffs who have drawn the same conclusion - yet in the case of the Wojo administration this is still very, very, very early and how things are now, doesn't necessarily mean that's how they are going to be.
There is absolutely no way that Wojo would "roll with Derrick" if he was so bad that the team is better off with him getting zero minutes. Even if Derrick averages 10 minutes a game in January, your assessment of DeWill and Wojo's will be worlds apart. You think the team is better with him getting zero minutes. That equates to walk-on ability. I find it hard to believe that two high major D1 coaches think a player that bad deserves 10 mins or more a game.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 05:09:00 PM
Do you understand the concept of Opportunity Cost? Clearly not.
I am well aware of what opportunity cost is. I'm also aware that despite this "opportunity cost" two coaches in a row have chosen Derrick over Dawson.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 05:09:00 PM
I've also explained ad naseum why it is totally and completely plausible at this stage of the season as to why Wojo would be riding Derrick...incumbent, experience, captain, high character, good defender - yet those traits don't necessarily mean nor translate into being the best option for those minutes. It's still obviously very early and Wojo has to sort all of this out.
So what you are saying is, that because of multiple factors including Derrick's experience, leadership, and defense that Wojo thinks Derrick is the better option? Seems pretty legit to me. I bet Buzz thought the same thing too.
It is still early. I hope that John Dawson comes out and lights the world on fire tomorrow. I would love for that to happen and I will happily admit that I was wrong about my predictions for PG playing time this season. I know what threshold I would need to see for me to change my mind about this topic. Do you? How good does Derrick have to be or how bad does Dawson have to be for you to admit you were wrong? I am not saying you are, because its too early for that. I'm just curious what proof you would need in order for you to change your mind?
As always it is so much fun to talk about one player rather than our team. Hey, let's face it, wouldn't it be more fun to talk about a team name change, new uniforms, the possibility of a new arena or some other lame topic? Folks the "Derrick Horse" has been beaten to death, please give it a rest.
Quote from: MUSF on November 17, 2014, 06:44:06 PM
There is absolutely no way that Wojo would "roll with Derrick" if he was so bad that the team is better off with him getting zero minutes. Even if Derrick averages 10 minutes a game in January, your assessment of DeWill and Wojo's will be worlds apart. You think the team is better with him getting zero minutes. That equates to walk-on ability. I find it hard to believe that two high major D1 coaches think a player that bad deserves 10 mins or more a game.
I wouldn't have an issue with Derrick getting 10 minutes and have said that many times. My assessment of Derrick and in turn Wojo - will be WAY wrong if Derrick ends up getting 20+ per night by mid January. And as for Buzz last year - 30+ minutes was ridiculous. Particularly when the team kept losing and Derrick wasn't improving and in many ways regressing.
My issue is if Derrick plays more than 10 per game - those other minutes come at the expense of other more talented guys...whether that be Carlino or Duane (this isn't/nor does it have to be about Dawson.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 17, 2014, 06:48:44 PM
How good does Derrick have to be or how bad does Dawson have to be for you to admit you were wrong?
You're asking a lot.
Mr. Basketball Knowledge won't even admit he was wrong about saying it's a good thing to only have 8 players -- many of them young, unproven and untested -- for a road game against a top-20 team, especially given that Marquette's new coach wants to run and press.
Quote from: Class71 on November 17, 2014, 07:21:19 PM
As always it is so much fun to talk about one player rather than our team. Hey, let's face it, wouldn't it be more fun to talk about a team name change, new uniforms, the possibility of a new arena or some other lame topic? Folks the "Derrick Horse" has been beaten to death, please give it a rest.
Impossible with Ners on this board. The minute Derrick gets mentioned in any thread for nearly any reason, Ners will take the opportunity to remind everybody how bad he thinks he is. I know we could all ignore that, but his criticism of Ners is so over the top that many, myself included, get baited into defending him.
I wish I could tell you that I won't keep engaging Ners on this topic, but I just can't help it.
Here's a different question to ponder. If marquette wins somehow, does the praise go to Wojo or the players?
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 07:23:28 PM
I wouldn't have an issue with Derrick getting 10 minutes and have said that many times. My assessment of Derrick and in turn Wojo - will be WAY wrong if Derrick ends up getting 20+ per night by mid January. And as for Buzz last year - 30+ minutes was ridiculous. Particularly when the team kept losing and Derrick wasn't improving and in many ways regressing.
My issue is if Derrick plays more than 10 per game - those other minutes come at the expense of other more talented guys...whether that be Carlino or Duane (this isn't/nor does it have to be about Dawson.
Why would you be okay with a player getting 10 minutes a game when we are a better team if he doesn't play at all. I'm having a really hard time understanding your position here.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 17, 2014, 06:48:44 PM
I am well aware of what opportunity cost is. I'm also aware that despite this "opportunity cost" two coaches in a row have chosen Derrick over Dawson.
So what you are saying is, that because of multiple factors including Derrick's experience, leadership, and defense that Wojo thinks Derrick is the better option? Seems pretty legit to me. I bet Buzz thought the same thing too.
It is still early. I hope that John Dawson comes out and lights the world on fire tomorrow. I would love for that to happen and I will happily admit that I was wrong about my predictions for PG playing time this season. I know what threshold I would need to see for me to change my mind about this topic. Do you? How good does Derrick have to be or how bad does Dawson have to be for you to admit you were wrong? I am not saying you are, because its too early for that. I'm just curious what proof you would need in order for you to change your mind?
At minimum I need to see Derrick make some 3 point shots, make at least 65% of his FTs, push the ball in transition and create some easy looks for his teammates...and see that as the season wears on, and if he continues to play 20+ minutes that teams are defending him with respect (unlike last year). I'd like to see him average at minimum 7ppg if he is going to get 20+ minutes with per game with an O-Rating of 110+.
As for Dawson - it's hard to say. As I said all last year, it is really hard to judge a player - particularly their ceiling - in such limited time. He's gotten scrap minutes this year, so nothing to judge as of yet, other than Wojo hasn't felt he's earned more time...which says something in and of itself. What I will say, is that the same standard I set for Derrick above, I have no doubt Dawson could achieve if given 20 per game night in and night out.
But again, I'm not surprised Wojo is giving Derrick all the chances in the world to prove he is worthy of 20+. Senior benefit.
Quote from: ChitownJuan on November 17, 2014, 07:28:18 PM
Here's a different question to ponder. If marquette wins somehow, does the praise go to Wojo or the players?
Easy, both! Miracles can happen and that is why we watch.
Quote from: MUSF on November 17, 2014, 07:30:13 PM
Why would you be okay with a player getting 10 minutes a game when we are a better team if he doesn't play at all. I'm having a really hard time understanding your position here.
That's a fair question. 10 minutes is a small fraction of the available minutes in a game, and therefore only takes away 10 from guys I feel are more talented/the future of the program.
As it relates to this game, if Derrick is in fact out for it, Wojo will at least get a diagnostic as to what the team looks like without his services...and how some of the young guys play in a hostile environment against a high quality team. They either sink or swim. Yet again, when the bar is so incredibly low, it doesn't take a lot for improvement to be realized.
Does it really change the outcome?
Quote from: MUSF on November 17, 2014, 07:26:29 PM
Impossible with Ners on this board. The minute Derrick gets mentioned in any thread for nearly any reason, Ners will take the opportunity to remind everybody how bad he thinks he is. I know we could all ignore that, but his criticism of Ners is so over the top that many, myself included, get baited into defending him.
I wish I could tell you that I won't keep engaging Ners on this topic, but I just can't help it.
What I find so over the top are those who feel a guy at the most important position on the floor - PG - is an essential piece (particularly this year) when through the end of his junior year has made 2, 3pt FGs and shoots 43% from the FT line, never pushes tempo in transition, nor sees the floor very well.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 07:34:24 PM
That's a fair question. 10 minutes is a small fraction of the available minutes in a game, and therefore only takes away 10 from guys I feel are more talented/the future of the program.
As it relates to this game, if Derrick is in fact out for it, Wojo will at least get a diagnostic as to what the team looks like without his services...and how some of the young guys play in a hostile environment against a high quality team. They either sink or swim. Yet again, when the bar is so incredibly low, it doesn't take a lot for improvement to be realized.
Everyone who has visited this board in the last year knows you think Derrick is a waste of minutes. You should stop commenting about him. We know what you think. You've made your point. It is redundant. You also let your emotions make insincere arguments. Additionally, when you comment about him, you really seem like a terrible human being.
Well Ners isn't getting his wish. Derrick is playing tomorrow.
Quote from: NersEllenson on November 17, 2014, 07:39:52 PM
What I find so over the top are those who feel a guy at the most important position on the floor - PG - is an essential piece (particularly this year) when through the end of his junior year has made 2, 3pt FGs and shoots 43% from the FT line, never pushes tempo in transition, nor sees the floor very well.
But see no one thinks that. Everyone knows Carlino is a better option. Most people think the same about Duane. You are still making last year's arguments.
Earth to Ners. It's 2014-15. We've moved on. Come join us. Or don't.
Does anyone have a good definition of obsessive compulsive?
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on November 17, 2014, 05:31:55 PM
Yeah but as mentioned. On those teams we had options to bring in if there was foul trouble.
If vander picked up a couple quick ones. Enter Todd. If DJO also picked up a couple or Junior. Then theres Derrick or even Jamail.
Davante? Run small with Jamil. Jae picks up some quick ones? Jamil. Juan.
You see? there was depth everywhere.
With only 8 guys if a few people pick up two fouls they may have to stay out there because we don't have enough subs. It definitely matters having guys available for even a few minutes.
I mean if we get the Gophers/Lousiville refs...We'd be almost out of players at halftime.
The argument wasn't about having a winning lineup--it was about worrying that we may have to play with only four players.
That Indiana NIT game being cited as "evidence" that we could be in trouble was a double overtime game 29 years ago.
I would love for us to be close enough to Ohio State that the game has a chance to get to overtime (no less double overtime), but I suspect this will be a regulation game.
My long held view on Derrick is that he brings real value to the team as a 10-15 minute intense defensive oriented player. His strength and agility make him able to guard larger players. His block against UTM was a thing of beauty. The 13 minutes he got in that game was optimal. So not having him in the lineup against Ohio State will not help our interests.
On the other hand, I believe when his minutes go beyond that amount, our offense bogs down . He becomes a big liability down the stretch with his inability to shoot free throws at the requisite level for a high D-1 guard. Although I want his minutes moderated by the coach not an injury.
I hope he is well enough to give us a few hard minutes on Tuesday. We will need that from him.
If he is not able to play, I think he will provide a lot of leadership from the bench.
Matt Velazquez @Matt_Velazquez 1 hour ago
Derrick Wilson is expected to play Tuesday night at Ohio State after practicing on Monday, according to #mubb head coach @steve_wojo.
Apparently the "dressing 8" scenario is now moot.
Quote from: Texas Western on November 17, 2014, 08:09:00 PM
My long held view on Derrick is that he brings real value to the team as a 10-15 minute intense defensive oriented player. His strength and agility make him able to guard larger players. His block against UTM was a thing of beauty. The 13 minutes he got in that game was optimal. So not having him in the lineup against Ohio State will not help our interests.
On the other hand, I believe when his minutes go beyond that amount, our offense bogs down . He becomes a big liability down the stretch with his inability to shoot free throws at the requisite level for a high D-1 guard. Although I want his minutes moderated by the coach not an injury.
I hope he is well enough to give us a few hard minutes on Tuesday. We will need that from him.
If he is not able to play, I think he will provide a lot of leadership from the bench.
I agree with pretty much all of this. Derrick is a quality backup point guard. He plays that role very well. Now that we have Carlino and Duane, he shouldn't have to venture outside of that role very often.
Quote from: WolverineWarrior85 on November 17, 2014, 08:56:08 PM
Matt Velazquez @Matt_Velazquez 1 hour ago
Derrick Wilson is expected to play Tuesday night at Ohio State after practicing on Monday, according to #mubb head coach @steve_wojo.
Apparently the "dressing 8" scenario is now moot.
Oh damn. Derrick isn't hurt!
Quote from: willie warrior on November 17, 2014, 05:28:34 PM
Not a typo, but it is your smug attempt to infer I do not know how to spell. I decided to change elite to elight to put a different perspective on his play.
Smug perhaps :-), but didn't think that you didn't know how to spell. Thought you made up a new word, which it appears you did...
Quote from: robertoc on November 19, 2014, 10:50:37 AM
Smug perhaps :-), but didn't think that you didn't know how to spell. Thought you made up a new word, which it appears you did...
Not really. Have heard it pronounced that way before on several occasions. Cannot remember where. Thinking GD Spradlin--maybe in Godfather or North Dallas 40. Not sure--but, e-light it is.